Spending Disad

Thanks

Special thanks to Tyler Thur – who did the heavy-lifting to make this file happen.

… in this 1NC shell, the link assumes the plan was the starter pack Aff. But this disad could obviously be run in many other spots.

Negative

1NC

Shell

First/Next off is the spending DA

Economy recovering under shift towards fiscal conservatism – Continued austerity key to maintain growth – not too late for spending to tank progress-Assuming all future budget, still conservative enough (No thumpers)-Prefer our ev: momentum for economic paradigm and growthMoore 5/15{Stephen, Chief Economist for Heritage, syndicated journalist and editor for newspapers like the Wall Street Journal, M.A. economics (George Mason), “The Budget Deficit is Falling,” 2014, http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2014/5/the-budget-deficit-is-falling#THUR}

The Congressional Budget Office reported this week that the budget deficit is falling rapidly from its trillion-dollar- plus Rocky Mountain highs during Barack Obama’s first term. I estimate that the deficit will likely be $400 billion or lower this

fiscal year, and that is a near $1 trillion improvement over four years. As a share of GDP, federal deficits have tumbled

from nearly 10 percent to just under 3 percent. The question is, Why the progress ? The main factor has been

falling government spending, which is a positive force for the economy . And the reason government

spending is falling is that the budget caps and the automatic cuts called “sequester,” which were part of the under-appreciated 2011 budget deal between Republicans in Congress and President Obama, are working to force down outlays on non-entitlement programs. According to the Congressional Budget Office, annual outlays peaked at $3.598 trillion in fiscal 2011. At the beginning of 2011, the CBO projected that the total outlays would be just shy of $4

trillion by 2014. But the Tea Party movement revolted in the 2010 midterm elections and helped sweep into the House scores of fiscally conservative Republicans, and the GOP seized the majority. This pivotal election radically

changed the direction of our fiscal deterioration . Instead of staying on a path to $4 trillion in federal spending, outlays dropped to $3.546 trillion in fiscal 2012, and to $3.45 trillion in fiscal 2013. This was a 4 percent decline in spending in nominal terms and closer to 7 percent in real terms. This year, expenditures will rise less than 2

percent . The bad news is that expenditures are expected to jump a whopping 7 percent and will be closer to nearly $3.87

trillion, thanks to a bad budget deal last year that suspended the spending caps for a year and raised the ceilings to accommodate a bipartisan

resumption of spending. But even with this setback, the path of spending has improved remarkably from Obama’s

reckless first term. The sequester saved about $80 billion in 2013. Those across-the-board cuts in defense programs were tough, but the domestic cuts were easily absorbed, notwithstanding the moans from government officials and attempts by the White House to scare the public. (Remember the shutdown of the air-traffic-

control towers and the threats to food-safety inspections?) Yes, the red ink is still flowing way too fast, and the more than $6 trillion added to the debt in Mr. Obama’s first five years in office shatters all records for fiscal deviancy. Mr. Obama will clearly go down in history as the most financially irresponsible president in history, and it’s ironic that Democrats used to say that of George W. Bush, who borrowed at half of the Obama pace. The budget numbers are sugarcoated a bit by the accounting gimmick of the payback bailout money doled out to housing giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and banks’ being counted

as “negative outlays.” Still, discretionary spending is way down, thanks to caps. From a peak of 9.4 percent of GDP in fiscal 2010,

these outlays collapsed to 7.6 percent last year and may slide to under 7 percent in Mr. Obama’s final year in office. The caps and sequester have squeezed green-energy programs, the Legal Services Corporation, federal land-acquisition programs, and the EPA. Liberals have come

to hate sequester because it pinches the programs they care so much about. The worry is Republicans may flinch and suspend the hard-fought caps yet again next year so they can continue spending. Already some Republican appropriators are joining with Democrats to call for suspending the budget reforms that ended earmarks for Bridge

to Nowhere–type projects. And Mr. Obama would love another $100 billion spending spree on infrastructure and other public-

works projects to fund his union pals. On the revenue side, receipts are up because growth has been slow but steady

and the stock market is on a tear . Revenues are up more than 8 percent this year, but the pace of tax collections could and should be double

that if we achieve 4 percent growth. With 4 percent growth, enforcement of spending caps, and even minimal entitlement reforms, the budget could be balanced by 2017 .

Plan is a gigantic expenditure – U.S. injection balloons costs because allies are seeking new financiersYan 14{Holly, “With No Hard Evidence, Hunt for MH370 to get Deeper, Broader and Pricier,” CNN World, 5/7, http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/07/world/asia/malaysia-missing-plane/#THUR}

After 61 days and no tangible evidence, officials from Malaysia, China and Australia will hunker down Wednesday

to plot the next steps in the hunt for MH370. Their tasks: Review all the information gathered so far and figure out what tools will be needed in the next stage of the search -- a deeper, broader probe of the Indian Ocean. Two things are certain:

This new phase will be expensive and even more difficult . Australia estimates it will cost $ 60 million ,

with the breakdown of who's going to pay for what yet to be determined . Search for Flight 370 to

expand New phase launched in hunt for missing plane Is the MH370 search back at 'square one'? Photos: The search for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 Photos: The search for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 But perhaps the greatest challenge now will be scouring unchartered territory. A key element of the new phase will be a detailed mapping of the ocean floor. "We know that the water is very deep," Australian Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss said this week. "And for the next stage involving sonar and other autonomous vehicles, potentially at very great depths, we need to have an understanding of the ocean floor to be able to undertake that kind of search effectively and safely." The next phase will focus on 60,000 square kilometers of the ocean floor, a process that could take six to eight months . Truss said he's not sure how deep the ocean is in the expanded search area

because "it's never been mapped." Search enters new, 'more difficult' $60 million phase The tools Searchers plan to use more highly specialized technology, including towed side-scan sonar and more autonomous underwater vehicles. Truss said most of the

new equipment will likely have to come from the private sector. "You can count on one hand the number of devices that can do this work, when you talk about towed sonar devices," said Angus Houston, chief coordinator of the joint search effort, said

Monday. Truss said he's optimistic that the new devices will be in the water within a month or two. In the meantime, he said, the Bluefin-21 drone will continue underwater missions. The Bluefin-21 has already scanned 400 square kilometers of the

Indian Ocean floor, but with no luck. The United States has authorized the use of the drone for another month. The cost? About

$40,000 a day . While the Bluefin-21 provides greater resolution than deep-towed sonar devices, the drone can only go about 4.5

kilometers deep.

High debt and fast spending crushes the economy – tanks growthBoccia 13{Romina, Research Coordinator in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at Heritage, “How the United States’ High Debt Will Weaken the Economy and Hurt Americans,” Backgrounder #2768 on Budget and Spending, 2/12, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/02/how-the-united-states-high-debt-will-weaken-the-economy-and-hurt-americans#THUR}

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

discovered that the average growth rate in countries experiencing public debt overhang is 1.2 percentage points lower than in periods with debt below 90 percent of GDP.[13] These public debt overhang episodes last an average of about 23 years. Thus, the cumulative effect of lower growth by one percentage point or more means that national income at the end of the period would be lower by roughly one-fourth . The growth rate of

countries with exceptionally high levels of debt—more than 120 percent of the economy—drops even lower , by an average

of 2.3 percentage points, which is roughly two-thirds . These figures indicate just how dire the U.S.

situation could become : According to the Congressional Budget Office baseline economic forecast, U.S. GDP is projected to be $25.9 trillion in fiscal

year 2023. U.S. publicly held debt is projected to reach nearly 90 percent of GDP that year. Assuming a 2.2 percent growth rate over 23

years, U.S. GDP would reach $42.7 trillion in 2046 if there was no impact from the debt overhang. Applying the crude assumption that GDP would be

reduced by 1.2 percentage points, in each year of the assumed 23-year debt overhang period, U.S. GDP growth would be slashed by more than half to a mere 1 percent. This would reduce U.S. GDP by more than $10 trillion , to only $32.6

trillion in 2046. The cumulative effect from the debt overhang would result in a level of GDP lower by nearly one-quarter at the end of the period.

Economic decline causes global war Royal 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 S tates, 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.

Uniqueness

Econ High – General

Econ booming – treasury drops, employment gains, rising payrolls, stable credit rating, governmental security yields, average wages, participation rateKruger 6/6{Daniel, syndicated economics reporter, “Treasuries in Biggest Weekly Drop Since March after Jobs,” Bloomberg, 2014, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-06/treasuries-advance-as-u-s-employment-growth-slows-in-may.html#THUR}

Treasuries posted the biggest weekly drop in three months as employment gains in May pushed U.S.

payrolls past their pre-recession peak and the jobless rate held at an almost six-year low . The U.S.’s

AA+ credit rating was affirmed by Standard & Poor’s, which cited the resiliency and diversity of the economy, almost three years

after downgrading the nation for the first time. Yields on government securities in the euro-area fell to record lows a day after

the European Central Bank cut interest rates, sparking a global rush for bonds . Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen

said May 7 labor-market conditions “are still far from satisfactory.” “The overall economy from a job perspective is finally

trending in a good way, ” Jason Rogan, managing director of U.S. government trading at Guggenheim Securities, a New York-based brokerage for

institutional investors. “From the Fed’s perspective, you’re starting to see very good job growth .” Benchmark 10-year

yields rose less than one basis point to 2.59 percent as of 5 p.m. in New York after earlier dropping five basis points, based on Bloomberg Bond Trader prices. The

price of the 2.5 percent security due in May 2024 dropped 1/32, or 31 cents per $1,000 face value, to 99 7/32. Yields on the securities climbed 11 basis points this week, the most since the five days ended March 7, and rose as high as 2.64 percent yesterday, the most since May 13. Two-

year note yields added two basis points to 0.40 percent, the highest level since May 13 , gained three basis points this week for a second five-day gain. Credit Rating New York-based S&P said today in a statement that there is a less than one-in-three probability that the U.S.’s credit ranking will change in the next two

years. The outlook on the rating is stable . Since the August 2011 downgrade from AAA, record budget deficits have

shrunk, economic growth accelerated, the dollar rallied, stocks climbed to all-time highs and Treasuries strengthened their hold as the world’s preferred haven from turmoil. Still, S&P said a polarized policy-making environment and high general government debt and budget deficits constrain the

ratings . “After the rating of the U.S. came under pressure because of the debt ceiling and government shut down, we actually saw a better cost of funding for

the government,” David Coard, head of fixed-income trading in New York at Williams Capital Group, a brokerage for institutional investors. “We’re still the safe

haven everybody seeks when there’s uncertainty in the world. I don’t think that’s changed.” ‘Continued Growth’ Two-year notes dropped as employers added 217,000 jobs last month, according to the Labor Department, after a revised 282,000 increase in April. That compared with the median forecast in a Bloomberg survey for a 215,000 employment increase. Estimates ranged from

increases of 110,000 to 350,000. The unemployment rate was unchanged at 6.3 percent. May marked the fourth-

straight month payrolls have increased at least 200,000, the first time that’s happened since September 1999 to January 2000. “We’ve

seen continued growth within the labor market,” Sean Simko, who oversees $8 billion at SEI Investments Co. in Oaks, Pennsylvania.

“The sub-components continue to improve , but not to an extent that’s enough to shake up the bond market.” The participation rate, which indicates the share of working-age people in the labor force, held at 62.8 percent, matching the lowest since March 1978. Average hourly earnings rose 0.2 percent to $24.38 in May from $24.33 the prior month. They were up 2.1 percent over the past 12 months.

Econ improving – Fed study-Multiple sector (including manufacturing) strength and growth-General GDP rise in key cities-Consumption and lending up-Fed cutting back efforts-Inflation and wage pressures subdued-Yellen watching to check housingCrutsinger 6/4{Martin, syndicated economics columnist, “Fed Survey: US Economy is Improving across the Country, Helped by Warmer Weather,” US News and World Report, 2014, http://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2014/06/04/fed-survey-economy-showing-improvement-across-us#THUR}

A Federal Reserve survey shows the U.S. economy strengthening over the past two months in areas from

manufacturing and construction to retail sales and bank lending. Seven of the Fed's 12 regions — Boston, New

York, Richmond, Chicago, Minneapolis, Dallas and San Francisco — reported " moderate" growth during the early spring, while the remaining five described growth as "modest," according to the Beige Book survey released Wednesday. Retail sales were reviving , helped by pent-up demand for new cars after the harsh winter, the survey found. Manufacturing

was expanding in all regions, along with lending. One weakness was home sales, held back in large part by a tight supply of available

homes. The Beige Book is based on anecdotal reports from businesses and will be considered along with other data when Fed policymakers meet June 17-18.

Nothing in the report is likely to alter the widespread view that the Fed thinks the economy is

reviving after a winter slowdown. "The picture painted by the collective anecdotes in today's Beige Book

may not illustrate robust growth, but it suggests the economy is at least moving in the right

direction ," said Dana Saporta, an economist at Credit Suisse. Jennifer Lee, senior economist at BMO Capital Markets, said it marked the 24th time

out of 28 reports going back to early 2011 that the Fed has used "modest," ''moderate" or often both words to describe the economy. Economists generally believe the Fed in June will pare its pace of monthly bond purchases by another $10 billion and pledge to keep its key short-term interest rate at a record low near zero for a "considerable" period after its bond purchases end.

Beginning in December, the Fed has been reducing its bond purchases, which were designed to keep long-term rates low to spur spending and economic growth. The purchases, now at $45 billion a month, will likely be phased out entirely this fall.

The Beige Book suggests that despite the spring rebound in activity, inf lation remains contained and wage

pressures subdued . Low inflation has given the Fed the leeway to keep interest rates exceptionally low to try to boost growth and lower

unemployment. The Fed survey said the job market in much of the country has improved since its last Beige Book.

Cleveland and Chicago reported increased demand for temporary workers. Several districts reported that employers were having trouble finding skilled workers.

Manufacturing activity expanded in all 12 districts , with robust gains reported in the Boston, New York, Atlanta and Kansas City

districts. Growth was especially strong at factories connected to the auto, aerospace and metal

industries. Two-thirds of the Fed's districts reported rising demand for bank loans. Particular strength was seen in New York and San Francisco. Demand for auto loans was strong, coinciding with reports of robust new-car sales. But the Boston, New York and Kansas City regions reported that home sales were being held back by low or dwindling

supplies of available homes. Other regions also described availability as low. Fed Chair Janet Yellen has said that the Fed is monitoring conditions for any signs that the housing recovery is faltering.

Econ rising – demand for HSWs with increased consumer spending – reject their evidence, it’s a snapshot of “cabin fever”Portlock 6/4{Sarah, US Economy reporter for the WSJ and Dow Jones Newswire, “Demand for Skilled Workers Beginning to Percolate, Fed Survey Says,” Wall Street Journal, 2014, http://online.wsj.com/articles/u-s-economic-activity-expanded-in-all-regions-fed-survey-says-1401904831#THUR}

Rising demand for skilled workers could push up salaries across more sectors of the U.S. economy , according to the Federal Reserve's latest survey of regional economic conditions. Hiring activity in general was " steady to stronger " across the U.S. from April through late May, according to the Fed's "beige book," based on anecdotal information

about economic activity throughout the central bank's 12 districts. Overall, the report pointed to an economy that was

improving from its weak performance earlier this year, boosted largely by stronger consumer spending and job growth. The report comes two weeks ahead of the Fed's June 17-18 policy meeting. Companies in several regions reported

difficulty filling jobs for highly skilled and upper-management positions. Firms in the Philadelphia area reported some new hiring had occurred, but they "remain cautious ," the report said. The Labor Department will release its monthly

employment report on Friday. Economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal expect employers added 210,000 jobs in

May and the unemployment rate edged up to 6.4%. Despite years of steady job gains, overall wage growth remains relatively subdued across the U.S. But signs of rising wage pressures are emerging in certain high-skilled fields. The Fed banks in Minneapolis, Kansas City and San Francisco reported pay increases were concentrated among workers in information technology, engineering, professional services and some skilled trades, according to the report. Outside of those jobs, few workers are seeing salary bumps. In the Cleveland region, "skilled trade workers are very difficult to find and are driving up wages," according to the report. In the Dallas region, a staffing firm said employers are paying higher relocation bonuses for talented employees, "particularly engineers." A New York-area employment agency said many candidates are getting multiple offers and that could put upward pressure on salaries going forward . A Maryland staffing agency echoed that

sentiment. The report highlighted steady improvement across other parts of the economy after a harsh winter. More than half the Fed districts pointed to strong auto sales, with other regions seeing "steady" sales. In

the Philadelphia region, dealers reported " phenomenal" sales in April and have a bullish outlook for the rest

of the year. The long winter may have also contributed more to "cabin fever ," the report noted, and driven people outdoors this spring. Tourism along the East Coast was strong, particularly in Boston for its marathon in April and on North Carolina's Outer Banks for Memorial Day. Still, the prolonged snowy weather also helped drive traffic to ski resorts, several regions said.

Econ up – all indicators – stock market, manufacturing rebound, consumer confidence, financial strength Columbus Dispatch 5/28{“With Economic Indicators Up, Market Follows Suit,” 2014, http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/business/2014/05/28/with-economic-indicators-up-market-follows-suit.html#THUR}

NEW YORK (AP) — More promising signs that the economy is strengthening after its winter slowdown pushed

stocks higher yesterday. The Standard & Poor’s 500 index rose for the fourth straight day and ended at

another all-time high . It closed above 1,900 for the first time on Friday. Small-company stocks and other riskier parts of the market, such as Internet and biotechnology companies, also gained after being beaten down over the past few

months. The government reported that orders to U.S. factories for long-lasting manufactured goods rose unexpectedly in April, powered by a surge in demand for military aircraft. Also , the Conference Board’s

consumer-confidence index rose in May to the second-highest leve l since January 2008, just after the start of

the Great Recession. The Standard & Poor’s 500 index rose 11.38 points, to 1,911.91. The Dow Jones industrial average gained 69.23

points, to 16,675.50. The Nasdaq composite climbed 51.26 points, or 1.2 percent, to 4,237.07. Nine of the 10 sectors that make up the S&P 500 rose, led by financial and industrial companies.

Econ High – A2: Commodities/Oil

Rising oil prices prove econ up – show growing demand Reuters 6/7{“US Oil Lifted by Solid Jobs Report,” Business Recorder, 2014, http://www.brecorder.com/fuel-a-energy/193/1190287/#THUR}

US crude oil futures inched higher on Friday after a solid jobs report in the United States pointed to economic

strength and growing oil demand in the world's largest oil consumer . A US Labour Department report

showed a fourth straight month of job gains in May, bringing US employment back to pre-recession

levels and confirming that the economy has snapped back from a winter lull . "There was

a little bit of a rally after the report came out and the market was stronger this morning. The market is

now finding a balance where it's comfortable ," said Joseph Posillico, senior vice president of energy derivatives at Jefferies Bache in New York. US crude gained 18 cents to settle at $102.66 a barrel after hitting a high of $103.07 shortly after the release of the jobs report. Brent crude oil futures, however, lost 18 cents to settle at $108.61

a barrel.

Econ High – A2: Housing

Housing sufficiently improving – momentum goes negSoni 5/27{Phalguni, retail analyst, CFA, degree in Commerce (University of Calcutta), “Why the Housing Market Rebound Dominates Economic Data Releases,” Market Realist, 2014, http://marketrealist.com/2014/05/why-housing-market-rebound-dominates-economic-data-releases/#THUR}

Consumption, housing, and manufacturing indicators dominated the economic releases last week. Although the prognosis

for economic growth was mixed, the S&P 500 Index (SPY) reached an all-time record high of 1900.53 on Friday, based

on the favorable housing market data . Part 1.1 Enlarge Graph Housing market upswing Major housing market releases last week,

included existing and new home sales data for the month of April, which released on Thursday and Friday, respectively. Both existing and new home sales were up in April—suggesting the housing market might be coming out of hibernation after an unusually severe winter. We’ve covered the key takeaways of these housing releases in the fourth and fifth articles of this series.

Positive sales trends in the housing market are likely to benefit homebuilders like D.R. Horton (DHI) and Toll Brothers (TOL). Investors can invest in DHI and TOL through the iShares U.S. Home Construction ETF (ITB), which tracks the performance of the

Dow Jones U.S. Select Home Construction Index. ITB invests in homebuilders and provides a good representation of the home construction sector of the U.S. equity market.

Housing improving – prefer our future-predictive evidence to their snapshots -Decreased mortgage rates-Spring buying seasonChokshi 6/2{Niraj, freelance economics and public policy columnist, “Just 10 States have a ‘Stable’ Housing Market, Report Finds,” Washington Post, 2014, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/06/02/just-10-states-have-a-stable-housing-market-report-finds/#THUR}

The national housing market is also weak overall, according to the assessment by the mortgage giant Freddie Mac, but there are positive signs , too. Thirteen states and 20 metro areas had housing markets in March that

were trending positively over a three-month period, according to the report from the quasi-governmental firm. The firm assesses

the housing markets using its Multi-Indicator Market Index — MiMi — score, which is based on four indicators. Freddie Mac considers home purchase applications; home purchasing power based on house prices, mortgage rates and household income; the rate of on-time mortgage payments in each market; and local employment. The score is used to compare each market’s current conditions to its long-term stable range.

The overall picture of the market is neither grim nor prosperous , Freddie Mac Chief Economist Frank Nothaft

said in a statement. “Less than half of the housing markets MiMi covers are showing an improving trend ,

whereas at this same time last year more than 90 percent of these same markets were headed in the right direction,” he said. “We’re hopeful that many of these markets that have stalled will start moving again now that mortgage

rates have eased over the past month and the spring home buying season is upon us.” The 10 states on

stable ground as of March are North Dakota, Wyoming, Louisiana, Alaska, Montana, Hawaii, West Virginia, Texas, Vermont and South Dakota. Three four stable metro housing markets — San Antonio, Austin and Houston — are in Texas. The fourth is New Orleans. Washington, D.C., is also in its long-term stable range.

Econ High – A2: Unemployment

Unemployment shrinking – all jobs from recession recouped and payrolls upLazarowitz 6/7{Elizabeth, Business news editor and columnist, “U.S. Economy Recoups Jobs Lost during the Recession after Five Years,” NY Daily News, 2014, http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/u-s-economy-recoups-jobs-lost-recession-article-1.1820636#ixzz33yusWPKA#THUR}

After a five-year struggle, the U.S. economy has finally recouped the jobs lost during the recession .

Hiring grew steadily in May, with employers bringing on 217,000 workers, the Labor Department reported on

Friday. The gain hoisted total U.S. employment past the previous peak reached in 2008 , when the worst

recession since the Great Depression was just beginning. The unemployment rate remained pinned at a near-six-year

low of 6.3% in May as more jobless Americans began looking for work again, Friday’s report also showed. While

April’s job increase was slightly smaller than previously thought, payrolls have expanded by more than

200,000 jobs for four months in a row. That’s the first time that has happened since 2000 .

IL UQ – Debt Low/Austerity Now

Debt declining but crisis still possible – three reasons-Deficits down-No debt crisis-Spending downStone 5/9{Chad, Chief Economist at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities specializing in the economic analysis of budget and policy issues, former executive director of the Joint Economic Committee of the Congress, former economics professor (Swarthmore), Ph.D. in economics (Yale), “The Budget Picture Is Getting Better. Seriously.” US News and World Report, 2014, http://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/2014/05/09/4-takeaways-from-the-improving-budget-deficit-and-debt-outlook#THUR}

My colleagues at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities have issued updated long-term budget projections that might change how you thin k about government spending, deficits and debt – because they show that

while policymakers still have work to do , the long-term budget outlook has improved significantly in

recent years. Specifically, the center’s projections show that under current budget policies: 1. Deficits are not spiraling out of control .

Federal deficits (the annual gap between spending and revenues) have fallen sharply in relation to the economy since peaking at 10 percent of gross domestic product in 2009, at the height of the Great Recession. The center projects – based on data and

projections from the Congressional Budget Office and the latest reports of the Social Security and Medicare Trustees – that deficits will be below 3 percent of GDP through 2018 but begin rising thereafter. Even in 2040, however, the deficit will be half its 2009

level . 2. No debt crisis looms . Federal debt (total borrowing to finance all past deficits minus surpluses) will be virtually flat

as a share of GDP for the next several years and rise only slowly thereafter. Debt in 2040 will about

equal that year’s GDP – which is less than half of what the center projected for the debt-to-GDP ratio

in 2010 (see Figure 1). 3. Spending is not out of control . The Great Recession and the measures taken to address it

produced a sharp spike in spending in 2009. Since then, however, spending has fallen sharply in relation to the economy (see Figure 2). Going forward, spending will rise from 20.4 percent of GDP in 2014 to 24.1 percent of GDP in 2040.

About four-fifths of that increase, however, will stem from interest payments on the public debt, not

from programs that pay benefits to ordinary Americans and perform government functions. As Figure 2 shows, “primary” (non-interest) spending rises very little between now and 2040, when it’s just 1 percentage point of GDP higher than revenues.

Debt will be down to 3% even with Obama – CBO report – Dems and GOP agree this is huge but we’re not doneKorte 14{Greg, White House Correspondent, former Professional in Residence (E.W. Scripps School of Journalism), B.A. Political Science and International Relations (Ohio), B.S. Journalism (Ohio), “Budget Deficit Declining Faster than Predicted,” USA Today, 2/4, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/02/04/federal-budget-deficit-declining-faster-than-expected/5202509/#THUR}

The federal budget deficit has fallen sharply over the past few years and is on track to decline even further , according to a new report from the Congressional Budget Office. The deficit this year is expected to be $514 billion — just 3% the

size of the economy and significantly less than the $1.4 trillion deficit Congress ran up when it pumped stimulus into the economy

in 2009. The non-partisan budget office has been reporting declining deficits ever since, but Tuesday's

report shows that the deficits are shrinking faster than predicted . This year's deficit is $46 billion

smaller than CBO projected last year, and over 10 years those projections add up to $ 1 trillion in smaller

deficits. Why? The CBO says federal revenues are increasing by 9% and short-term spending cuts have held spending

increases to just 2.6%. Deficits are expected to decline this year and next , and then start rising again because of

increased health insurance subsidies under the Affordable Care Act, mounting interest costs and an aging population receiving more entitlements, the report said. And the national debt — the cumulative effect of those annual budget deficits — is still a problem, the CBO said. The debt will be $17.6 trillion this year, growing to a projected $27.2 trillion by 2024. "Such large and growing federal debt could have serious negative consequences, including restraining economic growth in the long term, giving policymakers less flexibility to respond to unexpected challenges, and eventually increasing the risk of a fiscal crisis," the report said. The White House said deficits of less than 3% of the economy are ideal. "The most important thing is that you're getting your debt down as a percentage of the economy, and that it's on a downward path," said Jason Furman, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers. But he acknowledged that the CBO is projecting deficits to turn the

corner again by 2016. "They're not saying we've solved our fiscal problems." On Capitol Hill, Republicans and Democrats alike credited

bipartisan budget agreements for helping to make progress -- but they also agreed that more work needs to

be done. "Today's report is an important reminder that the debt won't take care of itself — we must take action," said Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., chairman of

the House Budget Committee. Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray, D-Wash., said the report "offers encouraging evidence that our near-term fiscal outlook continues to improve, although there is much more we

need to do to tackle our long-term budget challenges."

Deficit shrinking – tax increases and spending cutsBoccia 13{Romina, Research Coordinator in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at Heritage, “Moody’s: Further Deficit Reduction Needed to Maintain Stable Outlook,” The Daily Signal, 7/23, http://dailysignal.com/2013/07/23/moodys-further-deficit-reduction-needed-to-maintain-stable-outlook/#THUR}

The short-term improvement in the U.S. deficit comes on the heels of a growth-slowing major tax increase affecting nearly all Americans and signed into law by President Obama in December. Moreover, an improving housing market has increased the dividends the Treasury is collecting from mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. On the spending side, Part 2 of the Budget Control Act’s spending reductions—sequestration—reduced spending in the discretionary budget for 2013. And contrary to President Obama and others who predicted

economic damage, the U.S. economy largely shrugged off these cuts.

Link UQ – MH 370 Link – Funding Low

US spending insignificant and dropping – reject evidence promising action, it’s just posturing -Australian, Chinese, Malaysian fill-in inevitable-Cites defense officialsSiegel 14{Matt, syndicated columnist on foreign affairs questions, “U.S. Begins to Back Away from Soaring MH370 Search Costs,” The Globe and Mail, 2014, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/costs-soar-as-mh370-search-drags-on-with-us-poised-to-pass-the-buck/article18336705/#THUR}

With the search for missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 entering a new, much longer phase, the countries

involved must decide how much they are prepared to spend on the operation and what they stand to lose if they hold back. The search is already set to be the most costly in aviation history and spending will rise significantly as underwater drones focus on a

larger area of the seabed that Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott said on Monday could take six to eight months to search. But despite

U.S. President Barack Obama publicly promising to commit more assets, the United States appears keen to

begin passing on the costs of providing sophisticated sonar equipment that will form the backbone of the expanded hunt. That

means Australia, China and Malaysia – the countries most closely involved in the operation – look set to bear the financial and logistical burden of a potentially lengthy and expensive search. “We’re already at tens of

millions. Is it worth hundreds of millions?” a senior U.S. defense official told Reuters last week. “I don’t

know . That’s for them to decide.” He made it clear that Washington was intent on spending less from now on,

making it the first major donor country to scale back its financial commitment to the search. “ We’re not going to pay to perpetually use the equipment on an indefinite basis. Basically from here on out – starting next week

or so – they need to pick up the contract ,” he said. At least $44-million was spent on the deployment of military ships and aircraft in the Indian Ocean and South China Sea in the first month of the search, about the same as was spent on the whole underwater search for Air France’s Flight 447, which crashed into the Mid-Atlantic in 2009. The Malaysian jetliner carrying 239 people disappeared en route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing more than seven weeks ago, and huge surface and underwater searches have failed to solve the mystery of what happened. That mystery has major implications for airline manufacturers such as Boeing, which builds the 777 model that crashed and is

awaiting a verdict as to what went wrong. Malaysia is leading an investigation into the crash, but Australia has a key

role in coordinating the hunt since the plane is believed to have crashed in its search and rescue zone. Abbott said finding any

wreckage on the ocean surface was now highly unlikely and Australia would forge ahead with the upcoming phase of the search despite it likely costing $60-million Australian ($55.69-million). He added that while private companies under contract to

Australia would soon be taking over from the military assets dispatched in the wake of the crash, he would be “seeking some

appropriate contribution from other nations.” Malaysia has repeatedly said cost is not an issue, but with searchers once again facing a potentially vast stretch of ocean, it acknowledged on Wednesday that money was up for discussion. “I will be going to Australia to discuss the next phase. As we go into deep sea search it’s important that cost is discussed and we’ll discuss with all stakeholders,” Defence Minister and Acting Transport Minister Hishammuddin Hussein told reporters. “Hopefully by next week we will announce the cost sharing. But we won’t know what the cost will be until we decide where we’re going to search, what assets we will use and who will deploy those assets.” Some safety experts fear the financial wrangling could take longer than expected and frustrate the next phase of operations. “This risks delaying the next phase of the search. They need a new plan and they basically have to start from scratch,” an international search veteran said,

asking not to be named. The two-year search for Air France 447 was only completed after bitter rows over a

cash crisis that saw searchers trade down to a cheaper ship, while accepting indirect contributions from planemaker Airbus and the airline. The unprecedented donations of €8-million each had to be handled via specially created funds to avoid seeming to tarnish the probe’s

independence, and experts say the delicacy of dividing up funding for the MH370 probe may be even

greater . At least 153 of the flight’s passengers were Chinese citizens, putting pressure on authorities there to

keep up the search as distraught family members demand answers. China has not addressed what portion of the funding it is prepared

to take on as the search moves into the new phase. “On the specific questions you just asked [about money], we will maintain communication and coordination with the Australian and Malaysian sides,” said Foreign Ministry spokesman

Qin Gang. A Western diplomat based in Beijing who has closely followed the case said that there was huge domestic

pressure to find the aircraft, and for China to be the country which does so. “China has made such a show of looking for the plane and so the pressure at home is enormous,” the diplomat said. “They’ve set expectations so high.” Some of that pressure is being shifted onto Malaysia , which is desperate to limit the damage the missing flight has done to

its international profile as a modern, successful Asian state. “The Malaysian government will find the money for this search. The country’s reputation is at stake and you don’t want to risk that,” a source there involved in the search said.

Australia has a strong diplomatic incentive to provide funding, a former government official with foreign policy experience said, as the relationship with Malaysia is more valuable than the costs it is likely to incur.

Link UQ – Ocean Exploration Link – Funding Low

No spending on exploration now, none comingHelvarg 14{David, founder and president of the Blue Frontier Campaign, bachelor's degree in history (Goddard College), “It's No Surprise we Can't Find Flight 370,” LA Times, 4/1, http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0401-helvarg-flight-370-ocean-exploration-20140401-story.html#THUR}

The 29% of our planet that is land is inhabited by more than 7 billion of our species, at least a few of whom would have reported a crash or hijacked aircraft. By

contrast, the ocean that covers 71% of the Earth's surface and 97% of its living habitat rarely has more

than a few million people on or about its surface. These include commercial mariners, fishermen, cruise ship passengers, sailors aboard the

world's military fleets, offshore oil and gas workers, research scientists and the odd sea gypsy. One reason we've not colonized the ocean,

as science-fiction writers (and at least one senator, the late Claiborne Pell, of Rhode Island) once imagined, is that the ocean is a far rougher and more difficult wilderness than any encountered by terrestrial explorers, or even astronauts traveling in the consistent vacuum of

space, with its occasional meteorites and space junk to avoid. The sea pummels us with an unbreathable and corrosive liquid medium; altered visual and acoustic characteristics; changing temperatures, depths and pressures; upwellings; tides; currents; gyres; obscuring marine layers; sudden storms and giant rouge waves; and life forms than can sting, poison or bite. Even accounting

for more than 70 years of classified military hydrographic surveys, we've still mapped less than 10% of the ocean with the resolution

we've used to map all of the moon, Mars or even several moons of Jupiter. Obviously, our ability to search for a missing aircraft at sea has come a long way since Amelia Earhart disappeared while trying to cross the Pacific in 1937. But the patched-together satellite data and electronic-signals processing that has so far pointed the Flight 370 search to an area 1,800 miles from Perth, Australia, is no more than a crisis-mode, jury-rigged, extraordinary effort. Consider this: If you're a drug smuggler and you enter U.S. coastal waters in a speedboat at night, and then go dead in the water during the day, with a blue tarp thrown over your vessel, odds

are that you'll successfully deliver your contraband. Our investment in ocean exploration, monitoring and law enforcement efforts is at a 20-year low in the United States and not much better elsewhere. Our chances of quickly finding the missing

Malaysian flight would have been improved if we had invested more money and effort on our planet's last great commons, with observational tools such as in-situ labs and wired benthic observatories, remote and autonomous underwater vehicles and gliders, forward-looking infrared cameras and multi-beam shipboard,

airborne (and space-deployed) scanning systems, and other smart but woefully underfunded sea technologies. The fact remains that while hundreds of people have gone into space, only three humans have ventured to the lowest point on our planet seven miles

down in the Mariana Trench, and the latest of these — filmmaker explorer engineer James Cameron — had to self-fund his

2012 mission . Meanwhile, when it comes to exploring the cosmos, NASA — even in its diminished state — outspends

NOAA's ocean exploration program roughly 1,000 to 1 . Yet when we get to Mars, the first thing we seek as proof of life is water.

Meanwhile, we have a whole water planet that remains a challenge we've once again discovered to be far greater than we thought. Whatever the final resolution of the Flight 370 tragedy, that challenge is bound to become greater as our food and coastal security, marine transportation systems, even our basic ecosystem processes such as the oxygen generated by ocean plankton, are increasingly stressed through overfishing, pollution, loss of coastal habitat and ocean impacts from

climate change. Investing in the exploration and understanding of our planet's largest habitat should be a given. Perhaps that will be a lesson learned from our latest human disaster. Unfortunately, while the sea is still vast, our ability

to act wisely in our own interests is often limited.

Current funding tiny and it’s “boring” nature means none is coming – it’s .62% of NASA fundingConathan 13{Michael, Director of Ocean Policy at the Center for American Progress, “Space Exploration Dollars Dwarf Ocean Spending,” 6/20, National Geographic, http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2013/06/20/space-exploration-dollars-dwarf-ocean-spending/#THUR}

“Star Trek” would have us believe that space is the final frontier, but with apologies to the armies of Trekkies, their oracle might be a tad off base. Though we know

little about outer space, we still have plenty of frontiers to explore here on our home planet. And they’re losing the race of discovery. Hollywood giant James Cameron, director of mega-blockbusters such as “Titanic” and “Avatar,” brought this message to Capitol

Hill last week, along with the single-seat submersible that he used to become the third human to journey to the deepest point of the world’s oceans—the Marianas Trench. By contrast, more than 500 people have journeyed into space—including

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), who sits on the committee before which Cameron testified—and 12 people have actually set foot on the surface of the moon. All it takes is a quick comparison of the budgets for NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, to understand why space exploration is outpacing its ocean counterpart by such a wide margin . In fiscal

year 2013 NASA’s annual exploration budget was roughly $3.8 billion. That same year, total funding for

everything NOAA does — fishery management, weather and climate forecasting, ocean research and management, among many other programs—

was about $5 billion, and NOAA’s Office of Exploration and Research received just $23.7 million .

Something is wrong with this picture. Space travel is certainly expensive. But as Cameron proved with his dive that cost approximately $8 million, deep-sea exploration is pricey as well. And that’s not the only similarity between space and ocean travel: Both are dark, cold, and completely inhospitable to human life. Yet

space travel excites Americans’ imaginations in a way ocean exploration never has . To put this in terms Cameron

may be familiar with, just think of how stories are told on screens both big and small: Space dominates, with “Star Trek,” “Star Wars,” “Battlestar Galactica,” “Buck Rogers in the 25th Century,” and “2001 A Space Odyssey.” Then there are B-movies such as “Plan Nine From Outer Space” and everything ever mocked on “Mystery Science Theater 2000.” There are even parodies: “Spaceballs,” “Galaxy Quest,” and “Mars Attacks!” And let’s not

forget Cameron’s own contributions: “Aliens” and “Avatar.” When it comes to the ocean, we have “20,000 Leagues Under the Sea,”

“Sponge Bob Square Pants,” and Cameron’s somewhat lesser-known film “The Abyss.” And that’s about it. This imbalance in pop culture is illustrative of what plays out in real life. We rejoiced along with the NASA mission-control room when the Mars rover landed on the red planet late last year. One particularly exuberant scientist, known as “Mohawk Guy” for his audacious hairdo, became a

minor celebrity and even fielded his share of spontaneous marriage proposals. But when Cameron bottomed out in the Challenger Deep more than 36,000 feet below the surface of the sea, it was met with resounding indifference from all but the dorkiest of ocean nerds such as myself. Part of this incongruity comes from access. No matter where we live, we can go outside on a clear night, look up into the sky, and wonder about what’s out there. We’re presented with a spectacular vista of stars, planets, meteorites, and even the

occasional comet or aurora. We have all been wishing on stars since we were children. Only the lucky few can gaze out at the ocean from their doorstep, and even those who do cannot see all that lies beneath the waves. As a result, the facts about ocean exploration are pretty bleak . Humans have laid eyes on less than 5 percent of the ocean , and we have better maps of the surface of Mars than we do of America’s exclusive economic zone—the undersea territory reaching out 200 miles from our shores.

Links

Link – MH 370 – General

Search will cost a quarter billion overall – unknown nature of search means it can expand even more Molko 14{David, CNN International correspondent, has followed MH 370 events since their inception, “MH370: Undersea Search Could Cost a Quarter Billion Dollars, Official Says,” 4/17, http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/17/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-plane/#THUR}

A prolonged undersea search for the missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 could cost nearly a quarter of a

billion U.S. dollars if private companies are used, Australia's top transport official said Thursday. Martin Dolan emphasized

that the $234 million price tag is a " ballpark rough estimate" of an extended search and salvage mission that includes an underwater vehicle. The Bluefin-21 is back at work Friday morning on a fifth trip into the southern Indian Ocean. Authorities said the vessel has scanned a total of 110 square kilometers (42.5 square miles) without making any "contacts of interest." Searchers seem to be preparing for the possibility that an underwater drone scan of the ocean

may not yield debris from the plane immediately . Lack of progress angers Chinese families Underwater drone aborts first mission How hard is it to find a black box? Photos: The search for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 Photos: The search for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 Malaysia's acting transport minister, Hishammuddin Hussein, said that authorities are looking at deploying more unmanned underwater

probes. Officials might consider searching along a large portion of sea highlighted by a partial digital "handshake"

between the jetliner and an Inmarsat PLC satellite, Dolan said. That arc of sea is over 370 miles long and 30 miles wide .

EXT – Commitment Trick

Search will cost hundreds of millions – US entrance now means they get footed with the bill and are in for the long haul-Malaysia is already outGollom 14{Mark, syndicated foreign affairs columnist, “Malaysia Airlines MH370: Search Enters New Phase with New Hope,” 5/8, CBC News, http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/malaysia-airlines-mh370-search-enters-new-phase-with-new-hope-1.2634728#THUR}

Who will foot the bill? “If you knew the initial region you could easily program your vehicle and your survey,

because you know what you’re going to find, more or less. And then you're just looking for an airplane," deYoung said. "Right now they’re probably doing the first really detailed sea bed maps that have ever been done there." But all

this is costly and has raised questions as to who will foot the bill . "What I’m worried about is the

[Malaysian] government not going to pour any more money to Malaysia Airlines," Schiavo said. "So if they stop funding the airlines, how committed are they going to be financially to this investigation?" Cost estimates for the first phase of the search have hovered around $ 50 million , with the second phase pinned at

another $ 60 million . But most experts predict the costs could end up being in the hundreds of millions of dollars “I think they’re at a crossroads in terms of where to get equipment to do it and where to get money," Schiavo said. Truss suggested there will be future discussions about cost sharing with

Malaysia, China and other parties, including companies like Boeing and Rolls Royce, who may have vested interests in what happened. He said they will also seek out international partners to acquire more equipment, and that

the majority will have to be provided by the private sector. "Clearly they now realize that this is going to be an 'in for the long

haul' kind of a search ," deYoung said . "If they open up their search radius significantly in the next phase

then that might be a sign that they're not completely confident the pings were from the plane. And if that’s true, now the time scale for the searching goes up from a few years to many years and many ships."

A2: Now Not Key

This time counts – key to multiplicity of options and mitigating impact of debtBoccia 13{Romina, Research Coordinator in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at Heritage, “How the United States’ High Debt Will Weaken the Economy and Hurt Americans,” Backgrounder #2768 on Budget and Spending, 2/12, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/02/how-the-united-states-high-debt-will-weaken-the-economy-and-hurt-americans#THUR}

The I nternational M onetary F und,[9] the intergovernmental organization of 188 member states that seeks to ensure the stability of the

international monetary system, warned that the U.S. lacks a “credible strategy” to stabilize its mounting public debt.[10] Such a strategy must begin with putting entitlement spending on a more sustainable long-

term path. The sooner policymakers act , the less severe and the more gradual the necessary policy

changes can be. Policymakers should not delay , since the economic consequences , particularly the impact on

individuals in or planning retirement, would be pronounced and severe.

A2: Plan is a Drop in Bucket

Even if initial cost is low, Australia proves it spirals and disrupts budgetFallon 14{Daniel, syndicated Australian columnist, “Federal Budget 2014: $89.9m set Aside for MH370 Search,” Sydney Morning Herald, 5/14, http://www.smh.com.au/business/federal-budget/federal-budget-2014-899m-set-aside-for-mh370-search-20140514-388jo.html#ixzz33uuADHda#THUR}

The cost of the search for Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 continues to climb with the federal

government setting aside $ 89.9 million over two years in the budget as part of Australia's contribution to the

international effort. The Department of Defence will receive $27.9 million over two financial years to continue its activities, which have moved from an intensive air search for wreckage using AP-3C Orion aircraft out of Perth to an undersea search using

Australian Defence Vessel Ocean Shield to launch unmanned submarines. The Department of Infrastructure and Regional

Development will receive $2 million over two years to help fund the Joint Agency Coordination Centre (JACC), which has served as a hub to communicate information with the public and the families of the missing passengers since it

was established on 30 March 2014. The government is anticipating the cost of the search for MH370 will increase substantially , rising from $36 .3 million in this financial year to $53.5 million in 2014-15. The

Australian Transport Safety Bureau will receive $10.4 million in 2013-14 and then $49.6 million in 2014-15 to cover the procurement of specialist services from contractors to maintain the undersea search. Advertisement The government says the actual cost of the search could vary depending on the time it takes to locate the wreckage and the extent of the contribution from

other countries. The airliner disappeared on March 8 with 239 passengers and crew on board, sparking one of the biggest and most costly search efforts in aviation history.

Link – MH 370 – Orion-CURV-21

Plan’s technology particularly expensive – cost, also, explodes when “search” becomes “exploration”Austin 14{Henry, international correspondent on foreign and domestic issues, “Missing MH370: Only 'Handful' of Subs Capable of Hunting Jet,” NBC, 5/6, http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/missing-jet/missing-mh370-only-handful-subs-capable-hunting-jet-n97901#THUR}

Officials announced Monday that all of the data compiled in the hunt for the Boeing 777 will be re-examined to make sure the

right area is being scoured as part of a new $55 million phase of the operation. Capt. John Noble, the former general manager of

the International Salvage Union, told NBC News that it made sense to narrow down the search area as much as possible. “You'd be lucky if there was a handful of vehicles that can to go to the sort depths of the ocean that we are talking about here because they simply don't make them,” Noble said. A U.S. Navy deep-tow

search system called the Orion might be an option, Noble said. It can search to a maximum depth of 20,000 feet of seawater, according the U.S.

Navy Supervisor of Salvage and Diving. The Orion would operate in tandem with a remotely operated vehicle called Curv 21 which could salvage any wreckage. Most commercially owned remotely operated vehicles (ROV’s) aren’t designed to go to those depths because there simply isn’t the call for them, according to Dr. Simon Boxall at Britain’s University of Southampton. As a result, many of those built are used for government research projects. They have a distinct advantage over autonomous underwater vehicles like the Bluefin 21 sub which has been leading the search, because their cameras allow a live view of the seabed he said. The Bluefin’s data can only be downloaded and analyzed by researchers after it has resurfaced, he added. “An ROV will also have manipulators like claws built onto it,” he added. “So if you found a black box they would be capable of picking it up or they can attach cables to a wing so it can

be brought to the surface.” At around $17,000 per day , an ROV costs considerably more to run than the

Bluefin , Boxall said. A substantial support vessel like the Australian Defense Vessel, Ocean Shield would also be required as a sea base for the team because of the rough seas, Capt. Noble said. Ocean Shield has been used to launch the unmanned

Bluefin 21 submarine that has been scouring the ocean floor for the jet. “A similar vessel would cost the searchers almost $ 68,000 a day ,” he said. “So you’re looking at a huge amount after just a few months .” For Boxall however, it was a question of priorities as well as the time and money it would cost to use one of these vessels. “It’s a hard thing to say but this is a search operation rather than a search and rescue operation so do you pull a research team off their project for a year to look for something that may never be found or do you let them continue with their important scientific research ,” he said.

Link – Ocean Exploration

No ocean exploration funding now – plan causes huge, new costsCarlyle 13{Ryan, Subsea hydraulics engineer, B.S. in Chemical Engineering, “Why Don't We Spend More On Exploring The Oceans, Rather Than On Space Exploration?” Forbes, 1/31, http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2013/01/31/why-dont-we-spend-more-on-exploring-the-oceans-rather-than-on-space-exploration/#THUR}

So as someone whose job deals with exploring the ocean deeps — see my answer to Careers: What kinds of problems does a subsea hydraulics engineer solve? — I can tell you that the ocean is excruciatingly boring. The vast majority of the seafloor once you get >50 miles offshore is barren, featureless mud. On face, this is pretty similar to the empty expanses of outer space, but in space you can see all the way through the nothing, letting you identify targets for probes or telescopes. The goals of space exploration are visible from the

Earth, so we can dream and imagine reaching into the heavens. But in the deep oceans, visibility is less than 100 feet and travel speed is measured in single-digit knots. A simple seafloor survey to run a 100 mile pipeline costs a cool $50

million . The oceans are vast, boring, and difficult/expensive to explore — so why bother ? Sure, there are beautiful

and interesting features like geothermal vents and coral reefs. But throughout most of the ocean these are few and far between. This is a pretty normal view from a subsea robot: Despite the difficulty, there is actually a lot of scientific exploration going on in the oceans. Here’s a pretty good public website for a science ROV mission offshore Oregon: 2009 Pacific Northwest Expedition To reinforce my point about it being boring, here’s a blog entry from that team where they talk about how boring the sea floor is: 2009 Pacific Northwest Expedition What IS really interesting in the deep ocean is the exotic life. You see some crazy animals that are often not well-known to science. Something floats by the camera 5000 ft down, and you say “what the hell was that?” and no one knows. Usually it’s just some variety of jellyfish, but occasionally we find giant* isopods: Source: Giant isopod *This is a moderately small specimen. They have been recorded at 2.5 ft long. Or giant alien squid monsters: Unfortunately, deep-sea creatures rarely survive the trip to surface. Their bodies are acclimated to the high pressures (hundreds of atmospheres), and the decompression is usually fatal. Our ability to understand these animals is very limited, and their only connection to the surface biosphere is through a few food chain

connections (like sperm whales) that can survive diving to these depths. We’re fundamentally quite disconnected from deep ocean life. Also, there is no hope of ever establishing human habitation more than about 1000 ft deep. The pressures are too great, and no engineering or materials conceivable today would allow us to build livable-sized spaces on the deep sea floor . The two times humans have reached the deepest part of the ocean, it required a foot-thick flawless metal sphere with barely enough internal space to sit down. As far as I can tell, seafloor living is all but impossible — a habitable moon base would be vastly easier to engineer than a seafloor colony. See my answer to International Space Station: Given the actual space station ISS, would it be

cheaper to build the equivalent at 3-4-5 miles deep underwater? Why? To recap: we don’t spend more time/money exploring the ocean

because it’s expensive, difficult, and uninspiring. We stare up at the stars and dream of reaching

them, but few people look off the side of a boat and wish they could go down there.

Link – OOTW

Plan’s deployment of military assets in “Operations Other Than War” triggers environmental red tape and litigation – adds millions to the costDeMarco* and Quinn** 13{*Dr. Ronald A., Director of Environmental Programs, Office of Naval Research, **Commander John P., Judge Advocate for the US Navy, “Chapter VIII- The Impact of War and Military Operations other than War on the Marine Environment: Policy Making on the Frontiers of Knowledge,” International Law Studies 69, Ed. Richard J. Grunawalt, John E. King and Ronald S. McClain, 5/16, https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.usnwc.edu%2Fgetattachment%2Fb81ebfe1-9b25-4c76-a1be-6ef9080f9fd4%2FThe-Impact-of-War-and-Military-Operations-other-th.aspx&ei=SXmTU__kMZGjqAbNj4LIAg&usg=AFQjCNGMpfnD_chNyogYlB-ic4X7dU1Cvw&sig2=GG-ELqdF-pr_EQzDmH5KRg&bvm=bv.68445247,d.b2k&cad=rjt#THUR}

PART I: WHAT SHOULD BE KNOWN ABOUT THE IMPACTS OF WAR AND MOOTW ON THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT? Domestic

U.S. law imposes significant knowledge requirements on federal agencies, including the military, whose actions may affect the marine environment. The discussion below focuses on the three major statutes imposing these knowledge requirements.

National Environmental Policy Act The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) mandates formal documentation and full consideration of the environmental impacts of any proposal for "major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the

human environment."l In documenting such impacts, federal agencies must document and consider an extremely

broad universe of effects , including those that are direct, indirect, cumulative and connected, whether or not such effects are adverse or beneficial

to the environment.2 Recognizing that in some cases adequate scientific information may not be readily available, the regulations further require agencies to obtain the necessary information (i.e., do the scientific

studies) if the costs thereof are not "exorbitant.,,3 If the costs are exorbitant, or if the means to ascertain the information are unknown, then the agency must attempt to evaluate such impacts based on theoretical approaches or generally accepted

scientific research methods.4 The NEPA statute includes no enforcement provisions. Agency compliance with NEPA, however, is subject to

judicial review through "citizens' suits"- lawsuits brought by private citizens or groups against federal agencies. Accordingly,

when preparing environmental documentation, federal agencies strive mightily and at great expense to include sufficient scientific information to survive judicial review. Closely related to NEPA is Executive Order 12114,5 which requires environmental impact analysis for certain federal actions significantly affecting the environment of the global commons or of foreign nations. Although extremely broad in geographic scope, the Order

contains numerous exemptions from, and qualifications to its requirements, which in effect substantially circumscribe its mandate. The Order specifically disavows

creation of any right of action, hence the threat of potential legal action has not been an inducement for federal agency action under the Order. Nevertheless, the Order remains a mandate for collection and consideration of information regarding the effects of military activities on the marine environment. In response to the mandates of NEPA and Executive Order 12114, the Navy and Marine Corps have conducted numerous environmental studies , large and small, of the effect of military training operations on the

marine environment. The costs of these studies may range from the low thousands to several million dollars .

A2: Not that bad

Scientific uncertainty magnifies the cost of OOTW’s – huge costs inevitableDeMarco* and Quinn** 13{*Dr. Ronald A., Director of Environmental Programs, Office of Naval Research, **Commander John P., Judge Advocate for the US Navy, “Chapter VIII- The Impact of War and Military Operations other than War on the Marine Environment: Policy Making on the Frontiers of Knowledge,” International Law Studies 69, Ed. Richard J. Grunawalt, John E. King and Ronald S. McClain, 5/16, https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.usnwc.edu%2Fgetattachment%2Fb81ebfe1-9b25-4c76-a1be-6ef9080f9fd4%2FThe-Impact-of-War-and-Military-Operations-other-th.aspx&ei=SXmTU__kMZGjqAbNj4LIAg&usg=AFQjCNGMpfnD_chNyogYlB-ic4X7dU1Cvw&sig2=GG-ELqdF-pr_EQzDmH5KRg&bvm=bv.68445247,d.b2k&cad=rjt#THUR}

PART III: COPING WITH SCIENTIFIC UNCERTAINTY REGARDING THE IMPACT OF WAR AND MOOTW ON THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT As the above discussion

indicates, collection and analysis of data regarding the impacts of combat on the marine environment is a massive and complex undertaking . Even with concerted study efforts over time, it remains difficult

to predict with a great deal of certainty the long term impacts of combat on the marine environment. Because decisions regarding military impacts on the

marine environment will necessarily be made, by default if not through deliberate process, some means of dealing with this scientific uncertainty is required. What are the ramifications of this scientific uncertainty on military commanders and

policy makers? From a domestic law standpoint, the limited knowledge base creates a risk of being

challenged for noncompliance with domestic requirements, with the ever-present possibility of

disruptive enforcement action . From an international standpoint, the limited knowledge base creates other risks. With the benefit of historical

hindsight, our activities at sea will be judged in light of actual long term impacts, whether adequately anticipated by the scientific community or not. It is the unavoidable burden of the policy maker to assume the risk of scientific uncertainty when striking the appropriate balance between unrestricted military operations and environmental protection.

Internal Links

EXT – Debt Kills Economy

Federal debt spurs sudden fiscal crisis – empirics and most recent academic researchBoccia 13{Romina, Research Coordinator in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at Heritage, “How the United States’ High Debt Will Weaken the Economy and Hurt Americans,” Backgrounder #2768 on Budget and Spending, 2/12, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/02/how-the-united-states-high-debt-will-weaken-the-economy-and-hurt-americans#THUR}

America is on a dangerous budget path . Current spending and debt are dangerously high, and future spending and debt are on track to rise even higher in large part due to increasing entitlement spending. Academic research shows that advanced economies like the United States are at risk of significant and prolonged

reductions in economic growth when public debt reaches levels of 90 percent of GDP. High public debt threatens to drive interest rates up, to crowd out private investment, and to raise price inflation. The

implications would be severe and pronounced for all Americans, but most especially for the poor, the elderly, and

the middle class. U.S. policymakers should learn from Greece and Japan and avoid a fiscal crisis and economic stagnation brought about by public debt overhang. Growing federal debt also would increase the probability of a sudden fiscal crisis , during which investors would lose confidence in the government’s ability to manage the budget and the government would thereby lose its ability to borrow at

affordable rates. Such a crisis would…probably have a very significant negative impact on the country.

Debt rise decrease growth, hiders responses and spurs collapseBoccia 13{Romina, Research Coordinator in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at Heritage, “How the United States’ High Debt Will Weaken the Economy and Hurt Americans,” Backgrounder #2768 on Budget and Spending, 2/12, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/02/how-the-united-states-high-debt-will-weaken-the-economy-and-hurt-americans#THUR}

U.S. federal spending in 2013, combined with depressed receipts from a weak economy, is on track to result in a deficit of $850 billion. Publicly held debt in the United States will exceed 76 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2013, and chronic deficits are projected to push U.S. debt to 87 percent of the economy in 10 years.[1] Debt is projected to grow even more rapidly after 2023. Recent economic research, especially the work of Carmen Reinhart, Vincent Reinhart, and Kenneth Rogoff,

confirms that federal debt at such high levels puts the United States at risk for a number of harmful

economic consequences , including slower economic growth, a weakened ability to respond to

unexpected challenges, and quite possibly a debt-driven financial crisis .[2]

IL – Inflation

Debt spurs inflation – tanks economy, collapses dollar, trashes biz con and spikes poverty Boccia 13{Romina, Research Coordinator in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at Heritage, “How the United States’ High Debt Will Weaken the Economy and Hurt Americans,” Backgrounder #2768 on Budget and Spending, 2/12, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/02/how-the-united-states-high-debt-will-weaken-the-economy-and-hurt-americans#THUR}

Higher Inflation. The U nited S tates has, as do other countries with independent currencies, an additional option to monetize its debts:

replacing a substantial portion of outstanding debt with another form of federal liability—currency. The government could, through the Federal

Reserve, inflate the money supply. The resulting increase in the rate of price inflation would devalue the principal of the

remaining public debt. The resulting inflation would also destabilize the private economy , increase uncertainty, increase

real interest rates, and slow economic growth markedly. Inflation is particularly harmful for those Americans

on fixed incomes, such as the elderly who rely on Social Security checks, pensions, and their own savings in retirement. By raising the cost of

essential goods and services, like food and medical care, inflation can push seniors into poverty . Inflation and longer life expectancies can

mean that some seniors run out of their savings sooner than anticipated, then becoming completely dependent on Social Security. Inflation inflicts the most pain on the poor and middle class by reducing the purchasing power of the cash savings of American families. Inflation also means that everyone has to pay more for goods and services, including essentials like food and clothing. Moreover, severe inflation could dethrone the U.S. dollar as the world’s primary reserve currency . Thus far, a major saving grace for the U.S. government has been that, in comparison with other advanced nations with major currencies, such as Europe and China, the U.S. dollar has retained its status as the best currency option for finance and commerce.[16] If Washington policies continue on their current path of ever-higher sovereign debt and a risky Federal Reserve policy, both of which lack a credible crisis coping strategy, confidence in the U.S. economy and monetary policy regime could erode. Such a development would be unprecedented in size and magnitude and the impact on Americans and the economy would be massive

and severe.

IL – Interest Rates

Overhang causes higher interest rates – tanks growthBoccia 13{Romina, Research Coordinator in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at Heritage, “How the United States’ High Debt Will Weaken the Economy and Hurt Americans,” Backgrounder #2768 on Budget and Spending, 2/12, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/02/how-the-united-states-high-debt-will-weaken-the-economy-and-hurt-americans#THUR}

Debt overhang reduces economic growth significantly and for a prolonged period of time in three main ways. 1.

Higher Interest Rates. Creditors may lose confidence in the country’s ability to service its debt and demand higher interest rates to offset the additional risk. Or, interest rates may rise simply because the government is attempting to sell more debt than private bondholders are willing to buy at current prices. Either way, higher interest

rates raise the cost of the debt, and the government must then either tax its citizens more, which would reduce economic

activity ; reduce government spending in other areas; or take on even more debt, which could cause a debt spiral .

Higher interest rates on government bonds also lead to higher rates for other domestic investments ,

including mortgages, credit cards, consumer loans, and business loans. Higher interest rates on mortgages, car loans, and other loans would make it more costly for families to borrow money. Families may then have to delay purchasing their first home and other means of

building financial security. For many Americans, the dream of starting a business would no longer be in reach. Higher interest rates have a real

and pronounced impact on the lives of ordinary citizens and translate into less investment and thus slow growth

in the rest of the economy. A weaker economy in turn would provide fewer career opportunities and lower wages and salaries for workers. However, higher interest rates do not always materialize in countries suffering a debt overhang. According to Reinhart, Reinhart, and Rogoff, in 11 of the 26 cases where public debt was above 90 percent of GDP, real interest rates were either lower, or about the same, as during years

of lower debt ratios. Soaring debt matters for economic growth even when market actors are willing to absorb it at low interest.[14] Interpreted another way, in more than half of debt overhang cases, interest rates rose. In the case of the U.S., the Federal Reserve’s

policy of repeated quantitative easing has contributed to interest rates dropping to historical lows. Interest rates will likely rise at some point over the

next several years. The C ongressional B udget O ffice predicts that interest costs on the debt will more than double before the end of the decade, rising from 1.4 percent of GDP in 2013 to 2.9 percent as early as 2020.[15] High levels of U.S. public debt could push interest rates even higher with severe impacts for the American economy.

2NC Internal – Credit Rating

S&P Rating stable now – plan’s spending causes downgrade and prevents upgradeEisen 6/6{Ben, syndicated economics columnist, former research analyst at the Corporate Executive Board, BA in American studies (Cornell), “Standard & Poor’s is Concerned about the U.S. Debt Burden,” Market Watch via the Wall Street Journal, 2014, http://blogs.marketwatch.com/capitolreport/2014/06/06/standard-poors-is-concerned-about-the-u-s-debt-burden/#THUR}

Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services put out research Friday confirming the AA+ rating of the U.S.. Although it

outlines a broad set of economic and fiscal strengths that keep the rating near the top of the scale, one of the key concerns

holding down the rating is the government debt burden . The rating agency dropped the U.S. one notch in 2011 amid the first debt-ceiling debate, in which U.S. lawmakers were unable to reach a deal to avoid defaulting on government debt until the last

minute. That made S&P the only major ratings agency not to give the U.S. a sterling AAA score. Now, S&P says there’s a one-in-three chance the rating will change over the next two years . That means the U.S. could regain the

vaunted AAA rating if the agency sees more bipartisan efforts in fiscal policymaking, as well as, “ a general government debt burden decline more pronounced

than we currently expect.” Right now, those issues “ constrain the ratings .” The federal debt was $16.1 trillion at the end of fiscal year 2012, according to the Government

Accountability office. Here’s what it says about the U.S. debt burden: “The general government debt burden has doubled since 2007. Although it is projected to hold steady over the next several years, we, along with many other observers, expect the general government debt burden to rise toward the end of the decade absent measures to raise additional revenue and/or cut nondiscretionary expenditure.” But efforts to stem this potential rise remain difficult, particularly given the partisan environment in American politics: “Although both parties agree on the need to lower the government debt burden, the discussions about how this might be achieved are acrimonious . In the near term, including

the run-up to the presidential elections in 2016, we do not expect entitlement or tax reform to advance. We believe that renewed debate over the debt ceiling could resume after the midterm elections in November 2014 under certain scenarios. While we expect the discussions about the debt ceiling to be ultimately resolved as they have been, we still see risks that these debates entail.”

Debt makes it likely – trashes economy and stock marketMasters 13{Jonathan, economics editor for the CFR, graduate degree in social theory (New School University), B.A. in political science (Emory), “U.S. Debt Ceiling: Costs and Consequences,” Council on Foreign Relations, 10/4, http://www.cfr.org/budget-debt-and-deficits/us-debt-ceiling-costs-consequences/p24751#THUR}

The protracted and politically acrimonious debt limit showdown in the summer of 2011 prompted Standard and Poor's to take the unprecedented step of downgrading the U.S. credit rating from its triple-A status, and analysts

fear such brinksmanship in late 2013 could bring about similar moves from other rating agencies . "Failure to raise the federal

debt ceiling in a timely manner (i.e., several days prior to when the Treasury will have exhausted extraordinary measures and cash reserves) will prompt a formal review of the U.S. sovereign

ratings and likely lead to a downgrade," said Fitch Ratings, which maintains a "negative" outlook on the U.S. triple-A rating. A 2012 study by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office estimated that delays in raising the debt ceiling in 2011 cost taxpayers approximately $1.3 billion for FY 2011.

The stock market also was thrown into frenzy in the lead-up to and aftermath of the 2011 debt limit debate, with

the Dow Jones Industrial Average plunging roughly 2,000 points from the final days of July through the first days of August. Indeed, the Dow

recorded one of its worst single-day drops in history on August 8, the day after the S&P downgrade,

tumbling 635 points .

A2: Won’t Downgrade

Ratings stable now, but downgrade possible and high deficits make it likely – Moody’s specifically – our evidence is reverse causal that continued austerity stabilizes ratings Boccia 13{Romina, Research Coordinator in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at Heritage, “Moody’s: Further Deficit Reduction Needed to Maintain Stable Outlook,” The Daily Signal, 7/23, http://dailysignal.com/2013/07/23/moodys-further-deficit-reduction-needed-to-maintain-stable-outlook/#THUR}

Moody’s changed the outlook on the U.S. credit rating from negative to stable this week, citing

improving deficit s. While this is good news, policymakers should curb their enthusiasm about what this

means for the U.S. debt situation. The improvement could be fleeting , as Moody’s relies heavily on favorable

economic growth projections and assumes only moderate increases to interest on the federal debt. The

ratings agency also warned that further deficit reduction is needed to address rising spending on government health care

programs and Social Security over the longer term. The short-term improvement in the U.S. deficit comes on the heels of a growth-slowing major tax increase affecting nearly all Americans and signed into law by President Obama in December. Moreover, an improving housing market has increased the dividends the Treasury is collecting from mortgage giants Fannie

Mae and Freddie Mac. On the spending side, Part 2 of the Budget Control Act’s spending reductions—sequestration—reduced spending in the discretionary budget for 2013. And contrary to President Obama and others who predicted economic damage, the U.S. economy largely shrugged off these cuts. According to Moody’s, the U.S. economy “has demonstrated a degree of resilience to major reductions in the growth of government spending.” But sequestration reduces projected spending over the next decade by only about 2.5 percent. Major reductions in the growth of government spending

still need to be enacted. Among the largest risks today is complacency on the part of lawmakers in response to the short-lived improvement in the U.S. fiscal situation. Deficits projected at $642 billion by the Congressional Budget

Office for this year are “low” only when compared to their trillion-dollar-plus levels over the past four years. The U.S. deficit and debt situation actually worsened as a result of the recession, and corrective measures are even more urgent now than they were in 2007 .

2NC Internal – Crowd-Out

Plan’s government spending causes private crowd out – spurs total economic collapseBoccia 13{Romina, Research Coordinator in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at Heritage, “How the United States’ High Debt Will Weaken the Economy and Hurt Americans,” Backgrounder #2768 on Budget and Spending, 2/12, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/02/how-the-united-states-high-debt-will-weaken-the-economy-and-hurt-americans#THUR}

Crowding Out Private Investment. Economic growth, especially increasing per capita income, depends on the proper functioning of prices to

signal and markets to respond, but it also depends fundamentally on increasing the amount and quality of productive capital available to the workforce. The amount of capital employed in the economy needs to increase at least

to keep pace with the growth in the labor force to maintain current living standards, and must grow even faster—to increase the amount of capital per worker—to raise worker productivity and thus wages and salaries. Government

deficit spending and its associated debt subtracts from the amount of private saving available for private

investment, leading to slower economic growth . Unlike what staunch believers of government spending for economic stimulus

claim, government stimulus spending does the opposite of growing the economy. Less economic growth caused by high

government spending and debt results in fewer available jobs, lower wages and salaries, and fewer opportunities for career advancement.

Prolonged debt overhang in the United States, even at low interest rates, would be a massive drag on

economic growth , leading to significantly reduced prosperity for Americans. In the words of Reinhart, Reinhart, and Rogoff: “This

debt-without-drama scenario is reminiscent for us of T. S. Eliot’s (1925) lines in The Hollow Men: ‘ This is the

way the world ends / Not with a bang but a whimper.’ ”[17]

2NC Internal – Sacred Cow

Fiat makes plan’s spending off-budget – collapses investor confidence, snowballs and wrecks the economyGreenspan 96{Alan, former Chair of the Federal Reserve, B.S., M.A., and Ph.D. in economics (NYU), “Truth in Budgeting Act,” Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 49, April 17, to the House, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-1996-04-17/html/CREC-1996-04-17-pt1-PgH3497-3.htm#THUR}

Appropriations, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: On behalf of myself and the other members of the Board, I am pleased to respond to your letter of September 26 requesting comment on proposals to move the transportation trust funds off-budget. As a general matter, it has been the practice of the Board not to take positions on the details of the individual tax and spending issues that are before the Congress. However,

the shifting of certain spending categories off-budget raises some broader concerns, with implications

for discipline and control over federal outlays . Notably, moving some spending categories off-budget would

lead to fragmentation of the budgeting process and would detract from the unified budget as an indicator

of the government's fiscal operations and hence of the impact of the U.S. budget on credit markets and

the economy . Moreover, it could weaken the ability of the Congress to prioritize and control spending effectively. As the letters from OMB Director Rivlin and former-OMB Director Miller make clear, responsible budgeting requires a comprehensive framework for setting priorities and

assessing competing claims on national resources. The unified budget, as commonly presented to include the social security trust funds,

combines all fiscal transactions in one place. It thus helps policymakers and the public understand the trade-offs among government programs, and between public and private spending. Moreover, as the focal point of the budget process, it places individual programs on a more comparable footing as they compete for federal funding and thus helps the President and the Congress to resolve competing demands on the nation's resources. Moving

programs off-budget raises the risk that resource trade-offs would become obscured and

could engender cynicism in financial markets and the public at large about the commitment and ability of the government to control federal spending.

A2: Keynesianism – General

Keynesianism empirically denied – sequester and stock market predictions Wesbury 13{Brian S, Economist for The American Spectator, syndicated economics columnist, Member of the Academic Advisory Council of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, former adjunct professor of economics (Wheaton), MBA (Northwestern), “Keynesian Model Blew it Again,” First Trust, 6/17, http://www.realclearmarkets.com/docs/2013/06/keynesian-model-blew-it-again.pdf#THUR}

If there’s one economic conclusion we can make from recent data, it’s that the Keynesian model has failed - again. Remember that “fiscal cliff clock” on cable TV? Well, the year-end deal included an end to the payroll tax cut and then two months later, on March 1, the dreaded federal spending sequester went into effect. In other words, the Keynesian clock struck midnight, the economy was supposed to slow sharply, and a recession was possible. The theory was – still is in some quarters – that higher payroll taxes and less federal spending would reduce spendable incomes (especially for government workers and contractors) and hit consumer spending. This drop in spending would set off a multiplier effect that would drag down economic growth. One widely-followed Keynesian forecasting unit predicted an uptick in the unemployment rate in the second quarter and a decline in nonfarm payroll growth to 100,000 per month. And when March payrolls rose a tepid 88,000, Keynesians blamed it on the fiscal cliff and said “here we go, it’s started.” But the unemployment rate is lower in Q2 than in Q1 and nonfarm payrolls have risen an average of 155,000 since the sequester went into effect. Payroll growth during the same three months in 2012 was 147,000. Even the tepid March number was revised from 88,000 to 142,000. The Keynesians, expecting doom and gloom anytime the government cuts spending, have pounced on

any signal of soft economic growth . They jumped on the initial report of weakness in retail sales in

March and blamed it on the sequester, even though the last three times Easter had been in March, like this year, sales have been unusually weak compared to other indicators (2002, 2005 and 2008). But we found out this past week that core retail sales – which take out the monthly volatility caused by autos, gas, and building materials – have

been up eleven months in a row and didn’t miss a beat after the sequester went into effect. Assuming consumer

prices rose 0.1% in May (see our forecast table, below), "real" (inflation-adjusted) retail sales are up about 3% from a year ago. Total consumption, adjusted for inflation, is up 2.1% during the year-ended April 2013 versus the 1.8% growth during the year-ended April

2012 Meanwhile, equity investments, held by US households, are up about S800 billion in value since March 1. Taken at

face value, it seems like the effect of the sequester has been positive, not negative . Keynesians haven't

even been right about the stock market. We're not going to call anyone out by name, but we're thinking of a famous

Keynesian economist who is widely known for having made a prescient call about 2008-09, whose name starts with an "R" and sounds a lot like Houdini [Roubini]. It's true that he called the collapse in 2008-09, but he originally went bearish in 2005, especially after

Hurricane Katrina. Reports say that he recently turned bullish. So what if you sold in mid-2005 and waited until now to buy back in? Since mid-2005, the annualized total return on the S&P 500, including reinvested dividends, has been 6.2%. That's nothing compared to the late 1990s — but, hey, it ain't shabby either. In other words, completely ignoring the dire Keynesian advice, even when it was right, would have been profitable . In mid-2005, you could have bought a 10-year Treasury Note

that yielded 4%. Less drama for sure, but no clear advantage. Gold, on the other hand, was trading at about $430/oz. back in mid-

2005, so that would have been a great buy, but not an option normal Keynesians would have

recommended . The bottom line is that all this focus on government actions through the lens of a

Keynesian model has been basically worthless . Investors are better served when they follow free-

market economic theories that focus on production, not demand-side models that focus on spending and debt. And this

appears true in both the long, and the short, run .

Even if it generally works, economy is over-stimulated now and austerity is keyBarrington 6/6{Richard, Senior Financial Analyst, syndicated economics columnist, “The Over-Caffeinated Economy,” Forbes, 2014, http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneybuilder/2014/06/06/the-over-caffeinated-economy/#THUR}

The U.S. economy seems sluggish today, but ironically, it may also be over-stimulated . Like someone who has had too much caffeine but is on the last reserves of strength, the economy is showing some effects of fatigue that more stimulus might just make worse in the long run . A growing addiction In recent years, the standard for being literally over-caffeinated

has been raised. It used to be that a second cup of coffee or a couple cans of Coke was considered enough to put someone on the edge between alert and jittery. Now, with people carrying around pocket-sized shots of concentrated caffeine juice, people routinely sail well past jittery to a land of palpitations and hallucinations.

Similarly, it used to be that a little borrowing and some interest rate cuts were considered enough stimulus for a weak economy. Recently though, the standard for stimulus has been raised to include a variety of extraordinary measures . Unfortunately though, there are signs that the economy has been addicted

to these fiscal and monetary energy drinks for so long that they no longer have the desired effects.

Here are some signs that the economy may be over-caffeinated: Debt keeps rising . The U.S. government ran a budget surplus in 21 of the first 30 years of the 20th century. It has run only eight budget surpluses in the more than 80 years since, the last one in the year 2000. As much as people complain about government spending, many households are in no better shape, as consumer debt continues to grow. The fiscal stimulus of borrowing is no longer seen as a temporary measure , but as a permanent necessity. Housing seems dependent on near-record low mortgage rates. There has been some hand-wringing lately about the fact that the recovery in home prices has slowed down. That’s not to say prices are falling, but in an over-caffeinated economy, nothing short of double-digit annual increases will do. The Cleveland branch of the Federal Reserve recently noted that the slowdown is likely due to higher mortgage rates, and that conditions will get worse if rates rise to 5.5 percent. Prior to 2009, 30-year mortgage rates had rarely been as low as 5.5 percent. Now, apparently, the housing market is dependent on rates staying lower

than that. Stocks care more about interest rates than earnings. The stock market keeps rising despite some spotty earnings announcements, but if there is a hint that the Fed might raise rates much above zero, the market reacts like an over-tired child . The Fed seems to miss inflation . Recent writings by the

Fed express concern about inflation being too low, almost as if they are laying the groundwork for additional stimulus measures to pump up inflation. This is a bit like missing the headache that sometimes comes with too much caffeine, and taking more caffeine to try to bring on that headache.

Whether it is spending, interest rates or inflation, everybody seems touchy about something these days —

and that is a sure sign of being over-caffeinated . When people resort to too much caffeine to keep

themselves going, it often comes from a “there’s no tomorrow” philosophy. That’s never the case though: There is always a tomorrow, and the longer people try to deny it, the uglier the morning after will be.

A2: Keynesianism – A2: Krugman

Krugman’s version of Keynesianism particularly wrong -Spending only generates temporary job gains-Ignores inflation’s costs-Money neutrality crowds out gains-Government crowds out the private sector-Government delays and inefficiencies Dorfman 13 {Jeffery H., Professor Department of Agricultural & Applied Economics (Georgia), Ph.D. and B.S. in Agricultural Economics (University of California, Davis), former Coordinator at the Center for Agribusiness and Economic Development, Elected honorary member of AGHON Honorary Society, “Paul Krugman Is Wrong Even When He Is Right,” Forbes, 11/10, http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2013/11/10/paul-krugman-is-wrong-even-when-he-is-right/#THUR}

Paul Krugman’s latest New York Times column laments the long-term economic damage that is resulting from the continuing problem of elevated

unemployment, especially long-term unemployment. He correctly points out that the number of people unemployed for twenty-seven weeks or longer is still four times what it

was before the recession. Krugman is right that this waste of human talent is a tragedy. However, he is completely wrong about what caused this tragedy and how to fix it. Krugman believes the economy is weak due to cutbacks in government spending. He is on the right track, but has drawn the wrong conclusion. The government is certainly responsible for the weak economy and lack of job growth. However government spending is not the problem . As I have explained previously,

government deficit spending cannot generate permanent job gains. The money for the deficit must either be borrowed or printed. If it is borrowed, any jobs the government creates through its spending are at the cost of

the private sector jobs that would have been created by companies borrowing and investing the same money

if the government hadn’t soaked it up. If the money is printed, it creates temporary job gains at best until inflation catches up and money neutrality kicks in. Instead of the supposed lack of government spending, it is rather big government that is costing the economy jobs. Government spending tends to be wasteful , going to unproductive purposes and industries (Solyndra, Fisker Automotive, SunPower , First Solar , and Bright Source are some of the infamous failed government investments in green energy; a fuller list is

here). Thus, government spending will not create as many jobs per dollar as if the private sector had been allowed to spend the same money. Where the free market is an efficient (and ruthless) allocator of capital, the

government allocates money by political favors and the biases of a few politicians and bureaucrats. In addition to the ineffectiveness of government spending, both government regulations and policy uncertainty add to the

myriad methods by which government places the brakes on job creation . The Affordable Care Act and a host of other costly

regulations are continually increasing the cost of hiring employees and expanding businesses. Delays in policy making such as the endless dithering over approval or denial of the

Keystone Pipeline also provide incentives for businesses to not undertake investments but instead wait a little longer to see what the rules of the game and their costs of operation are going to be. The easiest way to settle the debate between the Keynesians, like Krugman, who believe that more government spending or monetary easing by the Fed will generate economic growth and the group of economists, like me, who

are arguing for less government as the solution is to look at the economy. Since the start of the recession in 2007, the federal government has added more “stimulus” spending to combat the recession than in all previous recessions combined, even after adjusting for inflation. At the same time, the Federal Reserve has quadrupled its balance sheet in an attempt to

boost the economy through loose monetary policy. Yet, the recovery from the recession is

the weakest of any post-WW II recovery. The unemployment rate that Krugman laments over is still well above normal four years past the end of the recession. Millions of Americans have left the labor force and while we do not know the motivation of all of them, surely many of them have simply given up hope of finding a job in this mediocre economy. Paul Krugman is correct to identify the high general unemployment rate and the large number of long-term unemployed people as a bad outcome due to poor government policy. He and I agree that it is a true tragedy. However, we disagree on the way that government caused this policy failure. While he thinks it is due to insufficient spending, it is actually due to too much spending and too many regulations. The

government response to the recession has not been too timid, b ut rather much too active and

assertive. That these actions are failing should be obvious to everyone . After all, if the extraordinary policies being pursued by the Fed and the Obama administration were working, so would be millions more Americans.

A2: Author Indicts – General

Prefer our studies – qualitative and quantitative structuresBoccia 13{Romina, Research Coordinator in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at Heritage, “How the United States’ High Debt Will Weaken the Economy and Hurt Americans,” Backgrounder #2768 on Budget and Spending, 2/12, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/02/how-the-united-states-high-debt-will-weaken-the-economy-and-hurt-americans#THUR}

Recent research confirms the dangers posed by high levels of government debt. Reinhart, Reinhart, and Rogoff examined over 110 years of economic data to conclude that advanced economies whose debt levels reach 90 percent of GDP

face much slower economic growth.[11] In 2009, Carmen Reinhart and Rogoff wrote This Time Is Different, a book The Economist called “ a

magisterial work on the causes and consequences of crises stretching back 800 years .”[12] Their

conclusions were based on a vast new accumulation of cross-country data, covering 66 countries across all regions of the world and spanning eight centuries. This dataset made it possible to study country debt episodes and crises much more comprehensively . Reinhart, Reinhart, and Rogoff’s recent

work on the impact of high public debt on growth and interest rates is based on this groundbreaking

dataset . Debt Major Drag on Economy The economists follow a descriptive approach, comparing economic variables for different countries as averages for debt-to-GDP ratios below and above 90 percent of GDP. Measures of

comparison include averages for real GDP growth, real (inflation-adjusted) short-term interest rates, and real long-term interest rates. Public debt overhang episodes are analyzed for the causes of the debt, whether from specific wars, financial crises and economic depression, domestic turmoil, or other factors. The researchers refer to sustained periods of gross country debt persisting above 90 percent of GDP for five years or more as “public debt overhang episodes.” Identifying 26 such episodes, of which 20 lasted for more than a

decade, the research shows that even if such episodes begin with short-lived dramatic events, such as war or a

financial crisis, the negative impact from high debt on growth lasts far beyond such events.

A2: Author Indicts – A2: Herndon

Error fixed and the thesis is still correct – independent papers confirmFurth 13{Salim, Senior Policy Analyst in Macroeconomics in the Center for Data Analysis at Heritage, doctorate and M.A. in economics (Rochester), “Debt and Growth in a Time of Controversy,” Issue Brief #3926 on Economy, 5/1, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/05/does-debt-hurt-growth-growth-in-a-time-of-debt#THUR}

Thomas Herndon and two professors at the University of Massachusetts attempted to replicate “Growth in a Time of Debt” and found an Excel

error and some controversial choices in using the data.[2] Some of those who disliked the paper all along are now declaring its findings “debunked.”[3] The replication by Herndon et al. was valuable, demonstrating once again the

importance of peer review. They fixed the Excel formula error and showed that with newly available data, Reinhart and Rogoff’s numbers could be improved, producing a less stark but no less compelling result .

They did not, however, “debunk” the paper, nor did their analysis speak to the many other papers on

the same topic, several of which are more rigorous than “Growth in a Time of Debt” and come to

similar conclusions .

Every substantive critique is wrong or doesn’t impact findingsFurth 13{Salim, Senior Policy Analyst in Macroeconomics in the Center for Data Analysis at Heritage, doctorate and M.A. in economics (Rochester), “Debt and Growth in a Time of Controversy,” Issue Brief #3926 on Economy, 5/1, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/05/does-debt-hurt-growth-growth-in-a-time-of-debt#THUR}

In their paper and subsequent discussions, Reinhart and Rogoff report the average performance of low-, medium-, high-, and very-

high-debt countries using two statistics: median and mean average. They emphasize the median because it is less sensitive to extremes. In the replication paper, however, Herndon et al. do not mention medians;

instead, they focus only on mean averages. The most embarrassing mistake that Reinhart and Rogoff made was to exclude five countries from calculations of mean averages. On its own, that increased the mean average growth for very-high-debt

countries just one-third of one percentage point. That error is worth correcting, but it is not enough to change any

of Reinhart and Rogoff’s conclusions. It certainly does not “debunk ” the paper , since it leaves intact the finding that the economic performance of very-high-debt countries is significantly inferior to those of other

countries. Another criticism was that Reinhart and Rogoff did not include some early post-war years of

data. Reinhart and Rogoff responded that they included all the data that they had gathered and vetted at the time. Some data that they had gathered had not been vetted in time for the 2010 paper. In later work, they have included more years and adjusted their numbers accordingly.[4] Herndon et al.’s updated calculation, since it is

based on a larger data sample, can improve the precision of Reinhart and Rogoff’s estimates without assigning any

blame . Herndon et al. also disagree with Reinhart and Rogoff’s weighting choice, which is admittedly extreme: It

weighs each country equally regardless of the number of data years available. Herndon et al., however, go to the opposite extreme ,

weighing each year equally without accounting for the fact that national trends persist across years, and find that it diminishes the mean average difference between very-high-debt and other countries. But they do not report

any difference in the median. In the end , all of Herndon et al.’s corrections and critiques show that countries with debt above 90 percent of GDP grow on average 2.0 percent less per year than low-debt countries and

1.0 percent less per year than countries with debt levels between 60 percent and 90 percent of GDP. Those numbers are quite

similar to Reinhart and Rogoff’s original median differences of 2.6 percent and 1.3 percent. Qualitatively,

Reinhart and Rogoff’s work remains fully intact , even when their data are in hostile hands .

Independent scholarship confirms Reinhart and Rogoff’s thesisFurth 13{Salim, Senior Policy Analyst in Macroeconomics in the Center for Data Analysis at Heritage, doctorate and M.A. in economics (Rochester), “Debt and Growth in a Time of Controversy,” Issue Brief #3926 on Economy, 5/1, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/05/does-debt-hurt-growth-growth-in-a-time-of-debt#THUR}

Herndon et al. revive a well-known—and accurate—critique of Reinhart and Rogoff’s work: It does not address causality. Does high debt cause low growth? Does low growth cause high debt? Does a third factor cause both simultaneously? Because economics cannot be tested in a laboratory, economists must use economic theory and rigorous statistical

methods to discern whether a measured correlation reflects an underlying causal relationship. Reinhart and Rogoff, and some of

their interpreters, may at times have oversold “Growth in a Time of Debt.”[5] On its own, that paper does not tell a causal story. It is important to recall that Reinhart and Rogoff’s great contribution has been to build a 200-year database of sovereign debt and economic

crises. But other authors have taken seriously the question of causation, using lagged data and econometric techniques, most notably Manmohan Kumar and Jaejoon Woo[6] and Stephen Cecchetti, Madhusudan

Mohanty, and Fabrizio Zampolli,[7] whose contributions have been discussed previously.[8] Others have attempted to find “instrumental variables,” an approach that is problematic when dealing with a phenomenon as broad as GDP growth. Using one set

of instruments, Cristina Checherita and Philip Rother find that there is a negative effect on growth once debt reaches approximately 100 percent of GDP.[9] Ugo Panizza and Andrea Presbitero use a different set of instruments but cannot

advance the discussion.[10] In a more recent paper, Panizza and Presbitero review the literature on this topic,

citing dozens of other papers written in the past three years.[11] They conclude that with the data limitations, estimates of debt drag are bound to be imprecise. They make the excellent point that debt threshold effects should generally be different across countries—a point that Reinhart and Rogoff also made in “Growth in a Time of Debt.”[12]

Impact

Turns Case – DA – Ocean Exploration

Deficits evaporate motive for ocean explorationConathan 13{Michael, Director of Ocean Policy at the Center for American Progress, “Space Exploration Dollars Dwarf Ocean Spending,” 6/20, National Geographic, http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2013/06/20/space-exploration-dollars-dwarf-ocean-spending/#THUR}

With or without the United States on board, the potential for economic development in the most remote places on the planet is vast and about to leap to the next level. Earlier this year Japan announced that it has discovered a massive supply of rare earth both within its exclusive economic zone and in international waters. This follows reports in 2011 that China sent at least one

exploratory mission to the seabed beneath international waters in the Pacific Ocean. There is a real opportunity for our nation to lead in this area, but we must invest and join the rest of the world in creating the governance structure for these activities. Toward the end of last

week’s hearing, Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK), who chairs the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, hypothetically asked where we would be today if we had spent half as much money exploring the oceans as we have spent

exploring space. Given the current financial climate in Congress, we won’t find the answer to his question on Capitol Hill . But there may be another way. Cameron is currently in

preproduction on the second and third “Avatar” films. He says the former will be set on an ocean planet. No one except he and his fellow producers at 20th Century Fox really know how much the first installment of the movie series cost, but estimates peg it at approximately $250 million—or 10 times the total funding for NOAA’s Ocean Exploration program. Since the original “Avatar” grossed more than $2 billion at the box office worldwide, if NASA isn’t willing to hand over a bit of its riches to help their oceanic co-explorers, maybe Cameron and his studio partners can chip a percent or two off the gross from “Avatar 2” to help fill the gap.

Come to think of it, if the key to exploring the oceans hinges either on Hollywood giving up profits or Congress increasing spending, maybe we are more likely to mine asteroids after all.

Disad turns the case – economic crises crush exploration possibilities by sapping private capital needed for partnershipsBallard 13{Robert D., former Navy officer, professor of oceanography (Rhode Island), discovered the Bismarck (!), Yorktown (!!), Titanic (!!!), “Forward-New Frontiers in Ocean Exploration: The E/V Nautilus 2012 Field Season and Summary of Mediterranean Exploration,” Oceanography 26(1), supplement, 64 pp, March, http://www.tos.org/oceanography/archive/26-1_supp.html#THUR}

Exploration Vessel Nautilus is about to enter its fifth year of operations when it begins a multiyear program of exploration in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea in June 2013. During the past four years, Nautilus and its Corps of Exploration have focused on the Black, Aegean, and

Mediterranean Seas, with a short expedition into the North Atlantic in 2011. Three primary factors guided this operational history. When Nautilus arrived in the Mediterranean Sea in late 2008 , it had limited capabilities for supporting

remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) in deep water. Because Nautilus is privately owned by the Ocean Exploration Trust and does not operate under a US flag, the Trust found support from private sources to fund major

improvements in the ship's infrastructure and capabilities, which became more

challenging with the onset of a global recession. During its first operating season in 2009, Nautilus had to anchor in relatively shallow water (100–200 m) to launch the Hercules/Argus vehicle

system, greatly limiting its ability to explore . Prior to its second operational season in 2010, Nautilus underwent a major overhaul in an

Istanbul dry dock that included the installation of a dynamic positioning system to make it possible to hold station. In 2011 and 2012 , additional improvements were made to enhance the habitability of the ship and to replace vehicle and satellite support vans with a permanent ROV shop and hangar facilities.

Turns Case – DA – Ocean Sciences

Recession and high deficits trash government R&D Spending – biomedical research provesMacilwain 12{Colin, editor of Research Europe and associate editor of Research Fortnight, masters in economic history (Birkbeck College, University of London), syndicated columnist on international research policy, “Funding in 2012: “Great Recession” Starts to Bite,” Science Direct, DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2012.01.005, 1/19, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867412000062#THUR}

This time last year, global spending on biomedical research was holding up reasonably well (Macilwain, 2011), especially

considering the forlorn state of the world's economy. But as 2012 dawns, the full impact of the great recession is

about to be felt in the laboratory, according to an informal Cell survey of research spending trends in 15 leading nations. It is tricky to compare biomedical research

spending across nations. Annual budgets are at different stages of development, and the best published data, which is collated by the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), is usually 2–3 years out of date. Although inflation should also be taken into account, salaries account for the bulk of research costs, and given that they are now frozen for publicly employed researchers in most Western nations, agencies do not need inflation-linked increases to maintain levels of activity. Accordingly, the anticipated changes in spending

noted here do not allow for national inflation rates. Nonetheless, by trawling through published documents and interviewing researchers,

officials, and analysts in 15 nations, it is possible to estimate how global funding for biomedical research is evolving at the beginning of 2012. Stimulus Shrinks in the US A cold wind was set in motion when Lehman Brothers went bust in October 2008, leading to an economic slowdown across Western nations. Now

in 2012, this economic cooling will hit laboratories , and it will be felt most fully by life scientists in the United States,

which spends more on biomedical research than the rest of the world combined, according to most assessments. The $30 billion budget of the National Institutes of

Health (NIH) has basically remained flat over the past 3 years, but it has maintained its spending power through a temporary $10 billion supplement for NIH in the

stimulus bill signed by President Barack Obama in February 2009. Money from that package, which peaked in 2010 and 2011, will now rapidly fade away. “You're going to go from $3 billion in stimulus funds to a few hundred million , between 2011 and 2013,” says Howard

Garrison, head of policy at the Federation of American Scientists for Experimental Biology (FASEB), which lobbies for biomedical research funding. At the same time, massive pressure on overall federal spending will virtually freeze NIH's core funding . On December 15, Congress

passed a core NIH budget for 2012 of $30.7 billion, ∼1% more than it received in 2011. This is clearly better than the 1.5% decrease applied to most other federal spending. However, with ∼ $1.5 billion less in stimulus funds and inflation slowly eroding spending power, US biomedical research faces an unprecedented cut of more than 5%, in real terms, during 2012. And 2013 is likely to be worse. After tortuous negotiations this October, a Congressional “supercommittee” failed to specify cuts in US government spending. This led Congress to implement a “sequestration” program that will automatically trim all government programs in 2013 and

would cut NIH by another 8%–10%, according to FASEB . It will be hard for either this Congress or the one elected in November to muster majorities to overturn the sequestration. Commentators believe that Democrats, in particular, may well block any changes to it, leaving NIH

and other agencies to bite the bullet. “Everyone says that across-the-board cuts are a crude way of doing things,” asserts

FASEB's legislative director, Jennifer Zeitzer. “But there would be political fall-out from tampering with the sequestration plan.” “Whether Democrats or Republicans are in charge, they are going to have to get to grips with the

deficit. Nobody sees science as exempt , but what the magnitude of the cuts will be [in future years]

is anyone's guess ,” says Jim Siedow, a plant biologist and vice-provost for research at Duke University in North Carolina. Before the budget deal was struck, Siedow was

planning for either a decrease or a very small increase in the 57% “overhead” payments that Duke receives on each NIH grant, which pay for its laboratories and services, such as libraries.

Turns Case – Impact – Asia War

Econ collapse turns Asia warAuslin 9 (Michael Auslin is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, 2/6/09, http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/115jtnqw.asp?pg=2)

AS THEY DEAL WITH a collapsing world economy, policymakers in Washington and around the globe must not forget that when a depression strikes, war can follow . Nowhere is this truer than in Asia , the most heavily armed region on earth and riven with ancient hatreds and territorial rivalries . Collapsing trade flows can lead to political tension , nationalist outbursts , growing distrust , and ultimately, military

miscalculation . The result would be disaster on top of an already dire situation. No one should think that Asia is on the verge of conflict.

But it is also important to remember what has helped keep the peace in this region for so long. Phenomenal growth rates in Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, China and elsewhere since the 1960s have naturally turned national attention inward, to development and stability. This has gradually led to increased political confidence, diplomatic initiatives, and in many nations the move toward more democratic systems. America has directly benefited as well, and not merely from years of lower consumer prices, but also from the general conditions of peace in Asia. Yet policymakers need to remember that even during these decades of growth, moments of economic shock, such as the 1973 Oil Crisis, led to instability and bursts of terrorist activity in Japan, while the uneven pace of growth in China has led to tens of thousands of armed clashes in the poor interior of the country. Now imagine such instability multiplied region-wide. The economic collapse Japan is facing, and China's potential slowdown, dwarfs any previous economic troubles, including the 1998 Asian Currency Crisis. Newly urbanized workers rioting for jobs or living wages, conflict over natural resources, further saber-rattling from North Korea, all can take on lives of their own. This is the nightmare of governments in the region, and particularly of democracies from newer ones like Thailand and Mongolia to established states like Japan and South Korea. How will overburdened political leaders react to internal unrest? What happens if Chinese shopkeepers in Indonesia are attacked, or a Japanese naval ship collides with a Korean fishing

vessel? Quite simply, Asia's political infrastructure may not be strong enough to resist the slide towards confrontation and conflict . This would be a political and humanitarian disaster turning the clock back decades in Asia. It would almost certainly drag America in at some point, as well. First of all, we have alliance responsibilities to Japan, South Korea, Australia, and the Philippines should any of them come under armed attack. Failure on our part to live up to those responsibilities could mean the end of America's credibility in Asia. Secondly, peace in Asia has been kept in good measure by the continued U.S. military presence since World War II. There have been terrible localized conflicts, of course, but nothing approaching a systemic conflagration like the 1940s. Today, such a conflict would be far more bloody, and it is unclear if the American military, already stretched too thin by wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, could contain the crisis. Nor is it clear that the American people, worn out

from war and economic distress, would be willing to shed even more blood and treasure for lands across the ocean.

Turns Case – Impact – Environment

Growth key to check environmental degradationSagoff 1997 (Mark, Director of the Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy at University of Maryland, College Park, Atlantic Monthly, June, v279, n6, p. 80-96, www.chem.brown.edu/chem12/readings/atlantic/consume.html)

Many have argued that economic activity, affluence, and growth automatically lead to resource depletion, environmental deterioration, and ecological collapse. Yet greater productivity and prosperity —which is what economists mean by growth—have become prerequisites for controlling urban pollution and protecting sensitive ecological systems such as rain forests. Otherwise, destitute people who are unable to acquire food and fuel will create pollution and destroy forests. Without economic growth , which also correlates with lower fertility, the environmental and population

problems of the South will only get worse . For impoverished countries facing environmental disaster, economic growth may be the one thing that is sustainable.

Economic growth key to the environmentSagoff 97 (Mark, Director of the Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy @ U of Maryland – College Park, Bioscience, October, v45, n9, p. 614)

Ecological economists assert that economic growth, as they define it, is unsustainable because it stresses the carrying capacity of the earth. Economic growth, in the conventional sense, however, bears no general relation to

environmental stress. Societies with large g ross d omestic p roduct s, such as Sweden, protect nature , while nations in the former Soviet bloc, with much smaller gross domestic products, such as Poland, have devastated their environments. The Scandinavian countries use their affluence to help countries with smaller economies, like Poland, clean up the environmental mess they have made. In impoverished nations , as consultant in

environment and development Norman Myers observes, people may “have no option but to over-exploit environmental resource stocks in order to survive,” for example, “by increasingly encroaching onto tropical forests amongst other low-potential lands” (Myers 1994, p. 128). The poorest of the poor , Myers writes,

are often the principal cause of deforestation , desertification, soil erosion, and extinction of species (Myers 1993). It is the absence of economic growth rather than its presence, then, that is a principal cause of rain forest destruction, desertification, erosion, and loss of biodiversity.

Turns Case – Impact – Heg/Military

Perceived economic strength dictates U.S. global influenceGelb 10 (Leslie, Senior Official – State and Defense Department and President Emeritus – CFR, “Fashioning a Realistic Strategy for the Twenty-First Century,” Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, 34(2), Summer, http://fletcher.tufts.edu/forum/archives/pdfs/34-2pdfs/Gelb.pdf)

Power is what it always has been. It is the ability to get someone to do something they do not want to do by means of your resources and your position. It was always that. There is no such thing in my mind as “soft” power or “hard” power or “smart” power or “dumb” power. It is people who are hard or soft or smart or dumb. Power is power. And people use it wisely or poorly. Now, what has changed is the composition of power in international affairs. For almost all of history, international

power was achieved in the form of military power and military force. Now, particularly in the last fifty years or so, it has become more and more economic . So power consists of economic power, military power, and diplomatic power, but the emphasis has shifted from military power (for almost all of history) to now, more economic power . And, as President Obama said in his West Point speech several months ago, our economy is the basis of our international power in

general and our military power in particular. That is where it all comes from. Whether other states listen to us and act on

what we say depends a good deal on their perception of the strength of the American economy . A big

problem for us in the last few years has been the perception that our economy is in decline.

US economic growth key to sustaining military primacyBeckley, Fellow International Security Program at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, ’12 (Michael- Professor PolSci Tufts, Winter, “China’s Century? Why America’s Edge Will Endure” International Security, Vol 36 No 3, ProjectMuse)Wealth functions as a source of power because it insulates a state from dependence on others and provides things of value that can be used in bargaining situations. As Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye point out, economic interdependence involves relations of asymmetric vulnerability.80 Wealthy states are better equipped to wield market access and economic sanctions as tools of influence over others. They also have more capital to fund technological innovation and military modernization. All states face the dilemma of balancing short-term spending against long-term economic growth. This predicament, however, is less acute for wealthy states,

which can sustain significant investments in innovation and military power with a relatively small percentage of their total resources. The ability to innovate, defined as the

creation of new products and methods of production, also constitutes a source of power. Like wealthy states, innovative countries are less dependent on others and more capable of producing goods that others value. Innovation also creates wealth and tends to beget further innovation as individual discoveries spawn multiple derivative products and improvements. Innovative activity therefore tends to cluster in [End Page 56] particular places and provide certain countries with significant

technological and military advantages. As Joshua Goldstein has shown, “The country creating a major cluster of innovations often finds immediate military applications and both propels itself to hegemonic status and maintains that status by that mechanism.”81 Military power is generally considered to be the “ultima ratio” of power because it functions as a decisive arbiter of disputes when it is used and shapes outcomes among states even when it is not. Military capabilities can be used to destroy, to back up coercive threats, and to provide protection and assistance. When performed well, these actions can alter the behavior of other states. Military superiority can also generate wealth by, for example, making a country a more secure and attractive place to invest, as well as provide the means to coerce other countries into making economic concessions. The RAND study found that nuclear weapons were of less importance than conventional capabilities for national influence. Thus, I do not consider them in the following analyses. The authors of the RAND study explain: “Even though nuclear weapons have become the ultima ratio regum in international politics, their relative inefficacy in most situations other than those involving national survival implies that their utility will continue to be significant but highly restricted. The ability to conduct different and sophisticated forms of conventional warfare will, therefore, remain the critical index of national power because of its undiminished utility, flexibility, responsiveness and credibility.”82 The key

point is that national power is multifaceted and cannot be measured with a single or a handful of metrics . In

the analyses that follow, I allot more space to economic indicators than to military indicators. This is not because economic power is

necessarily more important than military power, but rather because most declinist writings argue that the United States is in economic, not military, decline. Moreover, military power is ultimately based on economic strength. International relations scholars tend to view civilian and military realms as separate entities, but

militaries are embedded within economic systems. In a separate study, I show that countries that excel in producing commercial products and innovations also tend to excel in producing military force .83 Part of this advantage stems

from greater surplus wealth, which allows [End Page 57] rich states to sustain large military investments. Economically developed states, however, also derive military benefits from their technological infrastructures, efficient production capacities, advanced data analysis networks, stocks of managerial expertise, and stable political environments . In short,

economic indicators are, to a significant degree, measures of military capability. Focusing on the former, therefore, does not imply ignoring the latter.

Economy – A2: No Collapse – A2: Intervening Actors

Global institutions can’t check – too weak and regional regimes blockNgaire Woods 9/6/13 (Dean of the Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford, project syndicate, “global institutions after the crisis” http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-empty-promise-of-global-institutions-after-the-crisis-by-ngaire-woods)

When Lehman Brothers collapsed and the global financial crisis erupted five years ago, many glimpsed a silver lining: the promise of more effective global economic governance . But, despite a flurry of early initiatives, the world remains as far

from that goal as ever. The Financial Stability Board (FSB), established after the G-20 summit in London in April 2009, has no legal mandate or

enforcement powers , nor formal processes for including all countries . The I nternational M onetary F und still awaits the doubling of its capital (another early vow), while its existing resources are heavily tied up in Europe and its governance reforms are stalled. The World Bank has received a modest increase in resources, but it has yet to build capacity to lend rapidly and globally beyond existing borrowers and loan arrangements, and its income trajectory is diminishing. Yet the need for effective global economic governance remains more urgent than ever. Banks and other financial firms roam internationally, greatly assisted by market-opening rules embedded in trade and investment treaties, but with no legally enforceable responsibility to provision adequately for their own losses when things go wrong. Instead, massive risks have supposedly been held at bay by voluntary standards promulgated by a patchwork of public and private

“standard-setting” organizations. The crisis proved that t his was inadequate . The titans of Wall Street and the City of London were exposed as hugely over-leveraged.

Extraordinary profits when their bets paid off increased their financial and political power – which they still enjoy – with taxpayers left to bail them out when their bets turned bad. The G-20 promised stronger global institutions to

prevent this from recurring. But the FSB is not a treaty-based global regulator with enforcement powers. It continues to be a “standard setter” in a world with strong incentives to evade standards and negligible sanctions for doing so. Furthermore, although the FSB’s standards are ostensibly “universal,” it does not represent all countries or have formal mechanisms to inform and consult them. Regulators face a Sisyphean task , owing to the absence of strong and consistent political support for reining in the financial titans . A well-resourced financial sector intensively lobbies the most influential governments in global finance. The reforms of the IMF, another pillar of global financial management, cannot be implemented until the US Congress approves them – and there is no sign of that. Even the new Basel 3 banking standards have been diluted and postponed. For Brazil, Russia, India, and China, the delay in reforming the IMF is a serious annoyance. They became major contributors to the Fund’s emergency loan pool (the New Arrangements to Borrow) immediately after the crisis and now provide 15.5% of the NAB’s resources. But the greater voice and voting power that they were promised – commensurate with their status as four of the IMF’s top ten shareholders – has not been delivered. Even the selection of the organization’s managing director remains a European droit du seigneur. More seriously, an astounding 89.2% of the IMF’s General Resources Account is outstanding to European countries, with just three countries (Greece,

Portugal, and Ireland) accounting for 68%. The IMF’s resources are neither adequate nor available to respond to a crisis elsewhere. Similarly, the G-20’s pledge in 2009 to protect the poorest and most fragile countries and communities from the effects of the crisis remains unfulfilled. The World Bank is at the heart of these efforts, because it can pool risks globally and offset the capriciousness of official and private-sector aid flows, which create “donor darlings” (like Rwanda) and “donor orphans.” But, while the Bank has more than doubled its lending relative to the four years prior to 2008, this was achieved mostly by

front-loading existing loans. Crisis-hit countries that were not already borrowers were largely left out. The Bank’s failure to lend to new clients partly reflects its slowness. Even after its loan cycle had been speeded up, the Bank took an average of 13.5 months to approve credits – a long time for a country to await “emergency” help. But the Bank is also hampered by worsening resource constraints, as the biggest post-crisis capital infusions went to regional development banks. The African Development Bank’s capital was increased by 200%, as was the Asian Development Bank’s. The Inter-American Development Bank got a 70% increase. Meanwhile, the World Bank received an increase of 30%, while its lending arm for the poorest countries, the International Development Association, received an increase of only 18%.

Crucially, it is not obvious that the Bank has “buy-in” from emerging economies, with Brazil, Russia, India, and China, which pledged significant resources to the IMF, pledging only about 1% of IDA funding. Further exacerbating the Bank’s financial woes, its powerful creditors have opted to “pull back” its lending in order

to protect its resources. As a result, compared to the regional development banks, the Bank will be lending less to fee-paying clients, who provide income, and engaging in more “concessional lending,” which does not. The 2008 crisis highlighted the need for international cooperation to regulate finance and mitigate the effects of a crisis. Yet the global resources and instruments needed to manage (if not avert) the next crisis have not been secured . Instead, regions and countries are quietly finding their own ways to manage finance, create pooled emergency

funds, and strengthen development finance – an outcome that heralds a more fragmented and decentralized set of regulatory regimes and a modest de-globalization of finance and aid.

Institutions fail – lack of trustHarold James 8/2/13 (Professor of History and International Affairs at Princeton University and Professor of History at the European University Institute, Florence, project syndicate, “the snowden time

bomb” http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/edward-snowden-and-the-end-of-economic-summitry-by-harold-james)

In the aftermath of the global financial crisis, world leaders repeated a soothing mantra. There could be no repeat of the Great Depression, not only because monetary policy was much better (it was), but also because international cooperation was better institutionalized. And yet one man, the American former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden, has shown how far removed from reality that claim remains. Prolonged periods of strain tend to weaken the fabric of institutional cooperation . The two institutions that seemed most dynamic and effective in 2008-2009 were the I nternational M onetary

F und and the G-20; the credibility of both has been steadily eroded over the long course of the crisis.

Because the major industrial economies seem to be on the path to recovery – albeit a feeble one – no one

seems to care very much that the mechanisms of cooperation are worn out . They should. There are

likely to be many more financial fires in various locations, and the world needs a fire brigade to put them out. The IMF’s resources were extended in 2009, and the organization was supposed to be reformed in order to give emerging markets more voice. But little progress has been made. The Fund was the centerpiece of the post-1945 global economic system. It subsequently played a central role in the management of the 1980’s debt crisis and in the post-communist economic transition after 1989. But every major international crisis since then has chipped away at its authority. The 1997-1998 Asian financial crisis undermined its legitimacy in Asia, as many governments in the region

believed that the crisis was being exploited by the United States and US financial institutions. The post-2007 Great Recession discredited the IMF further for three

reasons. First, the initial phase of the crisis looked like an American phenomenon . Second, the IMF’s heavy involvement in the prolonged euro crisis looked like preferential treatment of Europe and Europeans. In particular, the demand that, because the world was focused on Europe, another European (and another French national) should succeed the IMF’s then-managing director, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, was incomprehensible to the large emerging-market

countries. Eventually, as in the Asian crisis, European governments and the European Commission fell out with the Fund and began to blame its analysis for having confused and unsettled markets. On the big issues underlying the global financial crisis – the problem of current-account imbalances and deciding which countries should adjust, and reconciling financial reform with a pro-

growth agenda – the IMF cannot say much more , or say it more effectively, than it could before the crisis. The G-20 was the great winner of the financial crisis. The older summits (the G-7 or, with the addition of Russia, the G-8), as well as the G-7 finance ministers’ meetings, were no longer legitimate. They consisted of countries that had actually caused the problems; they were dominated by the US; and they suffered from heavy over-representation of mid-sized European countries. The G-20, by contrast, brought in the big emerging markets, and its initial promise was to provide a way to control and direct the IMF. The new mood of global economic regime change was captured in the official photograph that was widely used in coverage of the most successful of the G-20 summits, held in London in April 2009. In the short term, the London summit mitigated financial contagion emanating from southern Europe; gave the World Bank additional resources to deal with the problem of trade finance for emerging-market exports; appeared to give the IMF more firepower and legitimacy; and seemed to catalyze coordinated fiscal stimulus to restore confidence. But only the more technical of these four achievements – the first two – stood the test of time.

Everything else that was agreed at the London summit turned sour. The follow-up summits were lame. The idea of coordinated fiscal stimulus became problematic when it became obvious that many European governments could

not take on more debt without unsettling markets and pushing themselves into an unsustainable cycle of increasingly expensive borrowing. And yet, however limited the London summit’s achievements proved to be, the summit

process itself was not fully discredited until Snowden’s intelligence revelations. It may be that leaders and their staffs were naive in believing that their communications were really secure. But Snowden’s revelations that the London summit’s British hosts allegedly monitored the participants’ communications make it difficult to imagine that the genuine intimacy of earlier summits can ever be recreated . And, with the espionage apparently directed mostly at representatives of emerging economies, the gulf between the advanced countries and those on the rise has widened further. World leaders appear partly ignorant and partly deceptive in responding to the allegations. They are probably right to emphasize how little they really know about surveillance. It is in the nature of complex data-gathering programs that no one really has an overview. But the lack of transparency surrounding data surveillance and mining means that, when a whistleblower leaks information, everyone can subsequently use it to build their own version of how and why policy is made. The revelations thus

encourage wild conspiracy theories. The substantive aftermath of the London summit has already caused widespread disenchantment with the G-20 process . The Snowden affair has blown up any illusion about trust between leaders – and also about leaders’ competence. By granting Snowden asylum for one year, Russian President Vladimir Putin, will have the bomber in his midst when he hosts this year’s summit in Saint Petersburg.

Economy – A2: No Collapse – A2: Resiliency

Not resilient – Economy improving but extremely fragile-Low consumer confidence-Slow GDP growth-Decreased capital expansion-Frictional unemployment-Lagging recession recoveryCook 5/12{Charlie, syndicated political analyst, Resident Fellow at the Harvard Institute of Politics, 2010 recipient of the Carey McWilliams award from the American Political Science Association, Georgetown grad, “Our Fragile Economy Still Needs Time to Gather Its Strength,” National Journal, 2014, http://www.nationaljournal.com/off-to-the-races/our-fragile-economy-still-needs-time-to-gather-its-strength-20140512#THUR}

Americans remain pretty pessimistic about the economy . The National Bureau of Economic Research calculates that the most recent

recession began in December 2007 and ended in June 2009. But that is certainly news to most Americans. In a March NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, 57 percent of respondents said they believe we are still in a recession , while 41 percent said we are not. Indeed, in the seven times that NBC/WSJ pollsters have asked the question since the latter half of 2001, a majority of Americans have felt that we were in a recession. While consumer confidence is on the rise and pretty close to the highest it has been since the last recession began,

we are nowhere near the levels of optimism and comfort that Americans felt during the period of 1992 until this

latest recession began in late 2007. We feel better, but nowhere near good . The recent economic reports that we only had a one-tenth of a

percentage point increase in the real gross domestic product is attributed to an unusually harsh winter; but a vibrant economy doesn't sustain that kind of hit from a tough winter alone. As

Mesirow Financial's Chief Economist Diane Swonk put it in a recent report to clients: "The economy came to a virtual standstill in the

first quarter [of 2014], adding insult to injury to an economy still struggling to recover ." She added that it

was "reflective of a fundamental weakening in a recovery that was already compromised ." This was

and remains a very fragile economy . The monthly survey of top economists conducted by Blue Chip Economic Indicators projects

that the economy, as measured by change in real GDP, will likely grow at a rate of 3.4 percent for the ongoing second quarter of this year, then 3.0 and 3.1 percent for the third and fourth quarters, respectively. And projections for 2015 remain basically at the 3.0 percent level. Obviously, this is far better growth than we have had during recessions; looking back over the last three-quarters of a century, mid-to-high single digits is more the norm, so the

economy will likely be growing—but compared with the pain we have gone through, n ot at nearly the rate we need

and would like to have. SHARE THIS STORY With projections calling for growth—but nothing like the

impressive growth we have seen in previous eras—businesses are slow to risk huge investments in new plants and equipment. To paraphrase economist Michael Drury of McVean Trading and Investments, without a surge in capital spending—

which is not happening— this economic cycle will remain lackluster , but last longer. Manufacturing and employment in that sector

is picking up strongly, but caution remains. Cornerstone Macro, a New York-based firm that advises its Wall Street clients on economics, policy, and investment strategy, said in a recent report that the manufacturing workweek is near a record high, and manufacturing wages are now on the increase after a stomach-churning plunge during the 2008 recession. The manufacturing employment rate for April was 5.6 percent, the largest increase in almost 30 years. Citing figures from the payroll firm ADP, the employment rate for small businesses—organizations with

fewer than 50 workers—is at a record high. Now almost 50 million people work for small businesses, almost double those working for large businesses of 500 or more employees. Hiring numbers for small, medium, and large firms are doing well, but not all of the unemployed have the skills for this new economy. The labor-participation rate (the percentage of the population working) is still languishing , and long-term

unemployment remains a critical problem. Sadly , the longer people are unemployed, the more their skills and marketability atrophy, and the harder it is for them to find a new job. We were in a pretty deep hole during the recession,

followed by an exceedingly sluggish recovery . Much of the good news in manufacturing is linked to the energy renaissance coming from the oil and gas sector. The International Energy Agency projects that the U.S. will surpass Russia and Saudi Arabia to become the world's top oil producer by 2015. Energy Information Administration figures show that U.S. crude-oil inventories are the highest since 1931, currently at almost 400 million barrels. This is roughly a third more than 10 years ago, and far greater than the 250 million during the energy crisis of the 1970's. U.S. oil production is now at double the amount of oil we import from OPEC,

a huge plus for the United States for both economic and geopolitical reasons. Heading into the recession that began in December 2007, imports far outstripped production. The bottom line is that while there is considerable good news, the bad news was so bad for so long, we

need much better news for a much longer period of time.

Uneven recovery means extreme fragility – county surveys prove – also proves discipline key to recoveryPhilipps 14{Jim, Manager at the National Association of Counties, “U.S. Economic Recovery Remains Uneven, Fragile across Counties,” NACO, 1/13, http://www.naco.org/newsroom/Documents/Press%20Release%20Documents/county%20tracker.pdf#THUR}

U.S. economic growth continued last year for the 3,069 county economies, but the recovery remained uneven and

fragile, according to an analysis of four economic performance indicators by the National Association of Counties

(NACo). As a result of the fragile and uneven recovery, many counties are continuing to struggle with their

budgets, meet financial obligations and provide essential public services. NACo’s new study, County Tracker 2013: On the Path to Recovery assesses the performance of the nation’s county economies by studying annual changes in four indicators – economic output (GDP), employment, the unemployment rate and home prices. The report also contains case studies to illustrate how specific county economies fared during the recession and recovery. The counties profiled include, Tarrant County, Texas (population 1.9 million), Los Angeles County, Calif. (10 million),

Linn County, Iowa (215,000) and Mountrail County, N.D. (9,000). The economic indicators analyzed by NACo suggest that 2013 was a year

of growth, but the recovery remained fragile. By 2013, the economic output (GDP) in about half of all county economies recovered or had no declines over the last decade. Home prices were in the same situation. But this is only part of the story . Jobs recovered in one quarter of county economies and in only 54 county

economies unemployment is back to pre-recession levels. The low unemployment recovery rates show

the fragility of the recovery. The recovery has been also uneven. All counties , large, mid-sized or small, have been

affected by the recession but the patterns of recovery vary significantly . Large county economies were at the core of the recession and the

recovery. Only 4 percent of the nation’s large county economies – in counties with more than 500,000 residents – delivered around 58 percent of the county economies’ output (GDP) growth and a similar share of the added jobs over the recovery. Large county economies in the South such as in Tarrant County, Texas bounced back quickly. “While blessed with an economic diversity that enabled us to withstand the national recession better than other areas of the country, we were most impressed with the resilience of Tarrant County’s manufacturing and housing sectors, which allowed them to respond quicker to developing opportunities,” said Roy Brooks, commissioner, Tarrant County, Texas, and chair of NACo's Large Urban County Caucus (LUCC). Employment in medium-size county economies was more stable during the recession, but had a mixed record in 2013. About half of the medium-sized county economies – in counties with populations between 50,000 and 500,000 residents – had shorter and/or shallower job recessions than the national average. “One of the factors that helped stabilize Linn County’s economy through the recession was the amount of post-flood construction and revitalization that took place,” said NACo President Linda Langston, supervisor, Linn County, Iowa. “Nearly $1 billion was reinvested throughout our community from federal, state, local and private sources in the five years since the flood. Linn County also has the benefit of the value-added agriculture industry and expanding new start-up

businesses that helped to fully restore us to pre-recession levels.” The recovery in small county economies covered the entire scale of

potential outcomes. Twenty-seven small county economies – in counties with fewer than 50,000 residents – had no recession or fully recovered across all four indicators by

2013. The housing market downturn was mild in small county economies, with more than half not going through home price declines or already returned to pre-recession home price levels by

2013. This fragile and uneven recovery across county economies adds to the challenges that counties

face currently . Most counties survived through the recession because of their

fiscally prudent approaches . “Los Angeles County would not have weathered the recession as

strongly as we did without our focus on fiscal prudency , as well as the partnerships we have with our labor unions, who have foregone cost of

living increases to avoid furloughs and layoffs,” said Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Chairman Don Knabe, member of the NACo Large Urban County Caucus. “Our frugality

has paid off through the rough economic times . Nevertheless, as we see improvements , we must

remain disciplined and continue to operate within our means .” Counties with fast growing economies,

such as Mountrail County, N.D. have a hard time to keep up with the necessary service delivery. “The fast growth that Mountrail County experienced for the last several years has been great with jobs, but tough on the county’s infrastructure and on the county’s residents on fixed incomes,” said Greg Boschee, commissioner, Mountrail County, N.D. Other counties, with challenged economies are finding new ways to maintain services and prepare their counties for the future. “Trying to run county government in a contracting economy and declining population base has its challenges. But similar to running a business, if you are successful at making your organization as efficient as possible in delivering quality goods or services in trying times, you prepare your

organization for greater success during more favorable times” said Matthew McConnell, commissioner, Mercer County, Pa. In addition to the situation of their economy, all counties face a triple threat from the uncertainty around major federal policy changes ,

from tax reform, entitlement reform and appropriation cuts, not accompanied by cuts in unfunded mandates and federal regulations. “The national economic numbers mask the growth patterns on the ground ,” said Emilia Istrate, NACo’s director of research and lead author of the report. “The dynamics within county economies affect the capacity of counties to deliver services and meet their financial obligations. The County Tracker offers a reminder that the U.S. economy happens on the

ground , in the 3,069 county economies that provide the basis for county governments. As fiscal tightening continues to limit the scope of state and federal investment, it is becoming imperative for states and the federal government to work with counties to maintain the fundamentals of the U.S. economy – county economies.”

Economy – A2: No Impact – General

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

What do these trends mean in the short and medium term? The Great Depression showed how social and global chaos followed hard on economic collapse . The mere fact that parliaments across the globe, from America to Japan, are unable to make responsible, economically sound recovery plans suggests that they do not know what to do and are simply hoping for the least disruption. Equally worrisome is the adoption of more statist economic programs around the globe, and the concurrent decline of trust in free-market systems. The threat of instability is a pressing concern. China, until last year the world's fastest growing economy, just reported that 20

million migrant laborers lost their jobs. Even in the flush times of recent years, China faced upward of 70,000 labor uprisings a year. A sustained downturn poses grave and possibly immediate threats to Chinese internal stability . The regime in Beijing may be faced with a choice of repressing its own people or diverting their energies outward, leading to conflict with China's neighbors. Russia, an oil state completely dependent on energy sales, has had to put down riots in its Far East as well as in downtown Moscow. Vladimir Putin's rule has been predicated on squeezing civil liberties while providing economic largesse. If that

devil's bargain falls apart, then wide-scale repression inside Russia, along with a continuing threatening posture toward Russia's neighbors, is likely. Even apparently stable societies face increasing risk and the threat of internal or possibly external conflict. As Japan's exports have plummeted by nearly 50%, one-third of the country's prefectures have passed emergency economic stabilization plans. Hundreds of thousands of temporary employees hired during the first part of this decade are being laid off. Spain's unemployment rate is expected to climb to nearly 20% by the end of 2010; Spanish unions are already protesting the lack of jobs, and the specter of violence, as occurred in the 1980s, is haunting the country. Meanwhile, in Greece, workers have already taken to the streets. Europe as a whole will face dangerous ly increasing tensions between native citizens and immigrants, largely from poorer Muslim nations, who have increased the labor pool in the past several decades. Spain has absorbed five million immigrants since 1999, while nearly 9% of Germany's residents have foreign citizenship, including almost 2 million Turks. The xenophobic labor strikes in the U.K. do not

bode well for the rest of Europe. A prolonged global downturn , let alone a collapse , would dramatically raise tensions inside these countries . Couple that with possible protectionist legislation in the United States, unresolved ethnic and territorial disputes in all regions of the globe and a loss of confidence that world leaders actually know what

they are doing. The result may be a series of small explosions that coalesce into a big bang .

Yes conflict escalates to nuclear warMerlini 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 .

Economy – A2: No War – General

Perception alone causes global instabilityHarold James 7/3/13 (Professor of History and International Affairs at Princeton University and Professor of History at the European University Institute, Florence, project syndicate, “financial crisis and war” http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/financial-crisis-and-war-by-harold-james#6ObpMZcq3uXv7puL.99)

The approach of the hundredth anniversary of the outbreak of World War I in 1914 has jolted politicians and commentators worried by the fragility of current global political and economic arrangements. Indeed, Luxembourg’s

prime minister, Jean-Claude Juncker, recently argued that Europe’s growing north-south polarization has set the continent back by a century. The lessons of 1914 are about more

than simply the dangers of national animosities. The origins of the Great War include a fascinating precedent concerning how financial globalization can become the equivalent of a national arms race , thereby increasing the

vulnerability of the international order. In 1907, a major financial crisis emanating from the United States affected the rest of the world and demonstrated the fragility of the

entire international financial system. The response to the current financial crisis is replaying a similar dynamic. Walter Bagehot’s 1873 classic Lombard Street described the City of London as “the greatest combination of economic power and economic delicacy that the world has ever seen.” In one influential interpretation, popularized by the novelist, Labour Party MP, and future Nobel Peace Prize laureate Norman Angell in 1910, the interdependency of the increasingly complex global economy made war impossible. But the opposite conclusion was equally plausible: Given the extent of fragility, a clever twist to the control levers might facilitate a military victory by the economic hegemon. The aftermath of the 1907 crash drove the hegemonic power of the time – Great Britain – to reflect on how it could use its financial clout to enhance its overall strategic capacity. That is the conclusion of an important recent book, Nicholas Lambert’s study of British economic planning and the First World War, entitled Planning Armageddon. Lambert demonstrates how, in a grand strategic gamble, Britain began to marry its military – and especially naval – predominance and its global financial leadership. Between 1905 and 1908, the British Admiralty developed the broad outlines of a plan for financial and economic warfare against Europe’s rising power, Germany. Economic warfare, if implemented in full, would wreck Germany’s financial system and force it out of any military conflict. When Britain’s naval visionaries confronted a rival in the form of the Kaiser’s Germany, they understood how power could thrive on financial fragility. Pre-1914 Britain anticipated the private-public partnership that today links technology giants such as Google, Apple, or Verizon to US intelligence agencies. London banks underwrote most of the world’s trade; Lloyds provided insurance for the world’s shipping. These financial networks provided the information that enabled the British government to discover the sensitive strategic vulnerabilities of the opposing alliance. For Britain’s rivals, the financial panic of 1907 demonstrated the necessity of mobilizing financial power themselves. The US, for its part, recognized that it needed a central bank analogous to the Bank of England. American financiers were persuaded that New York needed to develop its own commercial trading system to handle bills of exchange in the same way as the London market and arrange their monetization (or “acceptance”). The central figure in pushing for the development of an American acceptance market was Paul Warburg, the immigrant younger brother of a great Hamburg banker who was the personal adviser to Germany’s Kaiser Wilhelm II. The Warburg brothers, Max and Paul, were a transatlantic tandem, energetically pushing for German-American institutions that would offer an

alternative to British industrial and financial monopoly. They were convinced that Germany and the US were growing stronger year by year, while British power would erode. Some of the dynamics of the pre-1914 financial world are now reemerging . In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, financial institutions

appear both as dangerous weapons of mass economic destruction , but also as potential instruments for the application of national power. In managing the 2008 crisis, foreign banks’ dependence on US-dollar funding constituted a major weakness, and required the provision of large swap lines by the Federal Reserve. Addressing that flaw requires renationalization of banking, and breaking up the activities of large financial institutions. For European bankers, and some governments, current efforts by the US to revise its approach to the operation of foreign bank subsidiaries within its territory highlight that imperative. They view the US move as a new sort of financial protectionism and are threatening retaliation. Geopolitics is intruding into banking practice elsewhere as well. Russian banks are trying to acquire assets in Central and Eastern Europe. European banks are playing a much-reduced role in Asian trade finance. Chinese banks are being pushed to expand

their role in global commerce. Many countries have begun to look at financial protectionism as a way to increase their political leverage . The next step in this logic is to think about how financial power can be directed to national advantage in the case of a diplomatic conflict. Sanctions are a routine

(and not terribly successful) part of the pressure applied to rogue states like Iran and North Korea. But financial pressure can be much more powerfully applied to countries that are deeply embedded in the global economy. In 1907, in the wake of an epochal financial crisis that almost brought a complete global collapse, several countries started to think of finance primarily as an instrument of raw power that could and should be turned to national advantage. That kind of thinking brought war in 1914. A century later, in 2007-2008, the world experienced an even greater financial shock, and

nationalistic passions have flared up in its wake. Destructive strategies may not be far behind.

Decline causes escalatory wars in multiple regionsKemp 10 (Geoffrey, Director of Regional Strategic Programs – Nixon Center and Former Director of the Middle East Arms Control Project – Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 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 proliferation 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

Economy – A2: No War – A2: No Diversionary Theory

Yes diversionary theory Rothkopf 9 – David Rothkopf, Visiting Scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 3-11, 2009, “Security and the Financial Crisis,” Testimony Before the House Armed Services Committee, CQ Congressional Testimony, lexis

--Destabilizing Bilateral or Regional Effects of the Crisis: The weakening of states can produce instability that spills across borders or can produce social pressures that increase migration and create associated tensions along borders. The rise of opposition groups can create an opportunity for like-minded neighbors to support their activities and thus cause rifts and potential conflicts to spread. Political and economic weakness in nations can be seen by opportunistic neighbors (some wishing to produce distractions from their own crises) as an invitation to intervene in their neighbors politics or even to step in and take control of neighboring

territories or to seek to use force to resolve in their favor long-simmering disputes . In the same vein, old animosities may be

inflamed by the crisis either because they produce tensions that play into the origins of old rivalries or because political leaders seek to play on those rivalries to produce a distraction from their inability to manage the economic crisis . Need may enhance tensions and produce conflicts over shared or disputed resources. A desire to preserve national resources, jobs, or capital may produce reactive economic, border or other policies that can increase tension with neighbors. This can include both trade and capital markets protectionism (in traditional and new forms see

below), closed or more tightly monitored borders, more disputes on cross-border issues and thus both an increase in tensions and a decreased ability to effectively cooperate with neighbors on issues of common concern.

New Impact – Dollar Heg

Increased debt spurs inflation – collapses dollarBoccia 13{Romina, Research Coordinator in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at Heritage, “How the United States’ High Debt Will Weaken the Economy and Hurt Americans,” Backgrounder #2768 on Budget and Spending, 2/12, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/02/how-the-united-states-high-debt-will-weaken-the-economy-and-hurt-americans#THUR}

Higher Inflation. The U nited S tates has, as do other countries with independent currencies, an additional option to monetize its debts:

replacing a substantial portion of outstanding debt with another form of federal liability—currency. The government could, through the Federal

Reserve, inflate the money supply. The resulting increase in the rate of price inflation would devalue the principal of the

remaining public debt. The resulting inflation would also destabilize the private economy , increase uncertainty, increase

real interest rates, and slow economic growth markedly. Inflation is particularly harmful for those Americans

on fixed incomes, such as the elderly who rely on Social Security checks, pensions, and their own savings in retirement. By raising the cost of

essential goods and services, like food and medical care, inflation can push seniors into poverty . Inflation and longer life expectancies can

mean that some seniors run out of their savings sooner than anticipated, then becoming completely dependent on Social Security. Inflation inflicts the most pain on the poor and middle class by reducing the purchasing power of the cash savings of American families. Inflation also means that everyone has to pay more for goods and services, including essentials like food and clothing. Moreover, severe inflation could dethrone the U.S. dollar as the world’s primary reserve currency . Thus far, a major saving grace for the U.S. government has been that, in comparison with other advanced nations with major currencies, such as Europe and China, the U.S. dollar has retained its status as the best currency option for finance and commerce.[16] If Washington policies continue on their current path of ever-higher sovereign debt and a risky Federal Reserve policy, both of which lack a credible crisis coping strategy, confidence in the U.S. economy and monetary policy regime could erode. Such a development would be unprecedented in size and magnitude and the impact on Americans and the economy would be massive

and severe.

Dollar collapse causes U.S. isolationism, global economic collapse, and nuclear warMandelbaum 8 (Michael, Professor of Foreign Policy – Johns Hopkins University, The Case for Goliath: How America Acts as the World’s Government in the Twenty-First Century, p. 224)

If closer scrutiny does turn the public against the American role as the world’s government—if mounting domestic obligations or a major, traumatic event or series of events such as the collapse of the dollar or a terrorist attack even more deadly than those of

September 11 should cause the U nited S tates to decrease dramatically the scope of its international activities —the world would become a messier, more dangerous, and less prosperous place. At best, an

American withdrawal would bring with it some of the political anxiety typical during the Cold War and a measure of the economic

uncertainty that characterized the years before World War II. At worst, the retreat of American power could lead to a repetition of the

great global economic failure and the bloody international conflicts the world experienced in the 1930s and 1940s.

Indeed, the potential for economic calamity and wartime destruction is great er at the outset of the new century

than it was in the first half of the preceding one because of the greater extent of international economic interdependence and the

higher levels of prosperity—there is more to lose now than there was then—and because of the presence, in large numbers, of nuclear

weapons .

New Impact – Poverty

Raising the ceiling spurs inflation – tanks economy, collapses dollar, trashes biz con and spikes poverty Boccia 13{Romina, Research Coordinator in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at Heritage, “How the United States’ High Debt Will Weaken the Economy and Hurt Americans,” Backgrounder #2768 on Budget and Spending, 2/12, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/02/how-the-united-states-high-debt-will-weaken-the-economy-and-hurt-americans#THUR}

Higher Inflation. The U nited S tates has, as do other countries with independent currencies, an additional option to monetize its debts:

replacing a substantial portion of outstanding debt with another form of federal liability—currency. The government could, through the Federal

Reserve, inflate the money supply. The resulting increase in the rate of price inflation would devalue the principal of the

remaining public debt. The resulting inflation would also destabilize the private economy , increase uncertainty, increase

real interest rates, and slow economic growth markedly. Inflation is particularly harmful for those Americans

on fixed incomes, such as the elderly who rely on Social Security checks, pensions, and their own savings in retirement. By raising the cost of

essential goods and services, like food and medical care, inflation can push seniors into poverty . Inflation and longer life expectancies can

mean that some seniors run out of their savings sooner than anticipated, then becoming completely dependent on Social Security. Inflation inflicts the most pain on the poor and middle class by reducing the purchasing power of the cash savings of American families. Inflation also means that everyone has to pay more for goods and services, including essentials like food and clothing. Moreover, severe inflation could dethrone the U.S. dollar as the world’s primary reserve currency . Thus far, a major saving grace for the U.S. government has been that, in comparison with other advanced nations with major currencies, such as Europe and China, the U.S. dollar has retained its status as the best currency option for finance and commerce.[16] If Washington policies continue on their current path of ever-higher sovereign debt and a risky Federal Reserve policy, both of which lack a credible crisis coping strategy, confidence in the U.S. economy and monetary policy regime could erode. Such a development would be unprecedented in size and magnitude and the impact on Americans and the economy would be massive

and severe.

Poverty is equivalent to nuclear war and makes macro-conflict inevitableGilligan 96 – James Gilligan professor of Psychiatry at the Harvard Medical School, Director of the Center for the Study of Violence, and a member of the Academic Advisory Council of the National Campaign Against Youth Violence. Violence: Our Deadly Epidemic and its Causes. 1996. P. 191-196

The deadliest form of violence is poverty . You cannot work for one day with the violent people who fill our prisons and mental hospitals for the criminally insane without being forcible and constantly reminded of the extreme poverty and discrimination that characterizes their lives. Hearing about their lives, and about their families and friends, you are forced to recognize the truth in Gandhi’s observation that the deadliest form of violence is poverty. Not a day goes by without realizing that trying to understand them and their violent behavior in purely individual terms is impossible and wrong-headed. Any theory of violence, especially a psychological theory, that evolves from the experience of men in maximum security prisons and hospitals for the criminally insane must begin with the recognition that these institutions are only microcosms. They are not where the major violence in our society takes place,

and the perpetrators who fill them are far from being the main causes of most violent deaths. Any approach to a theory of violence needs to begin with a look at the structural violence in this country. Focusing merely on those relatively few men who commit what we define as murder could distract us from examining and learning from those structural causes of violent death that are far more significant from a numerical or public health, or human, standpoint. By “structural violence” I mean the increased rates of death, and disability suffered by those who occupy the bottom rungs of society, as contrasted with the relatively lower death rates experienced by those who are above them. Those excess deaths (or at least a demonstrably large proportion of them) are a function of class structure; and that structure is itself a product of society’s collective human choices,

concerning how to distribute the collective wealth of the society. These are not acts of God. I am contrasting “structural” with “behavioral violence ,” by which I mean the non-natural deaths and injuries that are caused by specific behavioral actions of individuals against individuals, such as the deaths we attribute to homicide, suicide, soldiers in warfare, capital punishment, and

so on. Structural violence differs from behavioral violence in at least three major respects. *The lethal effects of structural violence operate continuously , rather than sporadically, whereas murders, suicides, executions, wars, and other forms of behavioral violence occur one at a time . *Structural violence operates more or less independently of individual acts; independent of individuals and groups (politicians, political parties, voters) whose decisions may nevertheless have lethal consequences for others. *Structural violence is normally invisible, because it may appear to have had other (natural or violent)

causes. [Continued… (9 Paragraphs Later…)] The finding that structural violence causes far more deaths than behavioral violence does is not limited to this

country. Kohler and Alcock attempted to arrive at the number of excess deaths caused by socioeconomic inequities on a worldwide basis. Sweden was their model of the nation that had come closes to eliminating structural violence. It had the least inequity in income and living standards, and the lowest discrepancies in death rates and life expectancy; and the highest overall life expectancy in the world. When they compared the life expectancies of those living in the other socioeconomic systems against Sweden, they found that 18 million deaths a year could be

attributed to the “structural violence” to which the citizens of all the other nations were being subjected. During the past decade, the discrepancies between the rich and poor nations have increased dramatically and alarmingly. The 14 to 18 million deaths a year caused by structural violence compare with about 100,000 deaths per year from armed conflict . Comparing this frequency of deaths from structural violence to the frequency of those caused by major military and political violence, such as World War II (an estimated 49 million military and civilian deaths, including those by genocide—or about eight million per year, 1939-1945), the Indonesian massacre of 1965-66 (perhaps 575,000) deaths), th Vietnam war (possibly two million, 1954-1973), and even a hypothetical nuclear exchange between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. (232 million), it was clear that even war cannot begin to compare with structural violence , which continues year after year. In other words, every fifteen years, on the

average, as many people die because of relative poverty as would be killed by the Nazi genocide of the Jews over a six-year period. This is , in effect, the equivalent of an ongoing , unending, in fact accelerating, thermonuclear war, or genocide , perpetrated on the weak and poor every year of every decade, throughout the world. Structural violence is also the main cause of behavioral violence on a socially and epidemiologically significant scale (from homicide and suicide to war and genocide). The question as to which of the two forms of violence—structural or behavioral—is more important, dangerous, or lethal is moot, for they are inextricably related to each other, as cause to effect.

New Impact – Readiness

Continued debt crushes readinessFurth 13{Salim, Senior Policy Analyst in Macroeconomics in the Center for Data Analysis at Heritage, doctorate and M.A. in economics (Rochester), “Debt and Growth in a Time of Controversy,” Issue Brief #3926 on Economy, 5/1, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/05/does-debt-hurt-growth-growth-in-a-time-of-debt#THUR}

In the United States, the question is not whether gross debt at 90 percent of GDP is acceptable. With gross U.S. debt

now over 100 percent of GDP, that milestone has been passed . Rather, the question is whether the nation will continue on a path that promises to take us to debt at 200 percent of GDP within 25 years. If the U.S. continues to borrow at profligate levels to pay for routine spending, it may not be able to borrow to

defend itself in an unforeseen war or to ease the pain of the next great recession.[13]

That collapse causes global warSpencer 00 – Jack Spencer, Senior Research Fellow at The Heritage Foundation's Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, “The Facts About Military Readiness”, Heritage Backgrounder #1394, 9-15, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2000/09/bg1394-the-facts-about-military-readiness

Military readiness is vital because declines in America's military readiness signal to the rest of the

world that the U nited S tates is not prepared to defend its interests . Therefore, potentially hostile

nations will be more likely to lash out against American allies and interests, inevitably leading to U.S.

involvement in combat. A high state of military readiness is more likely to deter potentially hostile

nations from acting aggressively in regions of vital national interest, thereby preserving peace .

A2: Readiness Low – General

Warfighting high – British and US cooperation solve all of your warrantsWeisgerber 13{Marcus, National security journalist covering the Pentagon, “U.K., U.S. Look To Preserve Capabilities,” Defense News, 3/30, http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130330/DEFREG02/303300006/U-K-U-S-Look-Preserve-Capabilities#THUR}

The American and British militaries are examining ways to preserve critical warfighting capabilities

honed over the past decade of fighting side-by-side in Afghanistan and Iraq, as combat operations wind down and defense spending declines on both sides of the Atlantic. One U.S. service chief, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jon Greenert, even hinted that the British and

Americans could share geographical presence requirements , with U.S. and British ships trading off in a rotation, but he cautioned that such an

agreement would be “unprecedented” and require long-term, ironclad commitments. Over a dinner and an all-day conference, the uniformed leadership from both nations

discussed strategic priorities and how each country could sustain the level of interoperability U.S. and British forces have achieved over the past 12 years of close coordination through two wars and numerous training events. They also want to apply operational lessons learned to the threats facing each nation, according to a source familiar with the talks. Officials from both

countries called the end of combat operations in Afghanistan an “inflection point.” “We charted a course to ensure that they remain our strongest partner ,”

said Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, during a briefing Thursday at the Pentagon. The military leaders discussed the British plan to “further integrate in to Europe ”; the U.S. military strategy to emphasize engage ment in the Asia-Pacific region; and the

economic challenges facing each nation, Dempsey said. Beyond that, the substance of the talks remained a closely held secret. But this much was abundantly clear: The two countries will remain the close st of allies and recognize they will be fight ing side by side on some future battlefield before long, the source said. Gen. Sir David Richards, chief of Britain’s Defence Staff, said in a statement Thursday: “We will build on these talks to ensure we’re properly structured to cooperate bilaterally, in coalition with others and as part of NATO

with our closest military ally.” It was the first meeting of all the military leaders from the U.S. and U.K. since 1948. The chiefs dined together Tuesday and spent Wednesday at National Defense University in Washington for the strategic discussions. They even posed for a photo on the top floor of Roosevelt Hall, the same room that hosted a 1942 meeting of the so-called Combined Chiefs of Staff. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel stopped by the meetings, albeit briefly. “I would say that he [Dempsey] allowed me to come over, but only allowed me to spend 15 minutes,” Hagel said with a chuckle at Thursday’s briefing. Dempsey said he intends submit a report about the talks to Hagel. The meetings of the military leaders pave the way for British Defence Secretary Philip Hammond’s visit to the United States this year. Former U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta met with Hammond and British Prime Minister David Cameron in January. The defense chiefs from both countries discussed a range of threats facing each nation, including nation-states, terrorism and piracy, a source said. They also talked about ways to maintain war-fighting capabilities despite budget cuts. The U.S. is preparing to cut $41 billion from its 2013 budget over the next six months and faces additional cuts to future spending. British officials — who, despite a much smaller total defense budget, have faced steep percentage cuts in defense spending — stressed to their U.S. counterparts the need to make careful, calculated decisions

during this process, the source said. British officials told their American counterparts that reform is scary business, but worth the risk to deliver greater capability for given resources by fundamentally changing how to do business. Asked what he hoped to learn from his Royal

Navy counterpart when it comes to budget cutting, Greenert, during an interview Wednesday with Defense News and its sister paper, Navy Times, said: “Keeping your eyes on your core competencies is very important.” Part of that future cooperation could include divvying up assets

to meet joint requirements, he said. The Royal Navy is building two aircraft carriers from which F-35B joint strike fighters will operate. The stealthy jets will

also be flown by the U.S. military. British pilots will jointly train with their U.S. counterparts, Greenert said, hinting at future

coordination of carrier deployments.

A2: Readiness Low – A2: Sequestration

Sequestration and associated cuts exaggerated – flexibility and adaption solveMataconis 13{Doug, syndicated political columnist, “Did the Pentagon Exaggerate the Effects of Sequestration?” Outside the Beltway, 5/26, http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/did-the-pentagon-exaggerate-the-effects-of-sequestration/#THUR} From the time that the ink was dry on the Budget Control Act of 2011, the bill which solved the summer-long standoff over raising the

debt ceiling and setup a plan under which automatic budget cuts would kick in unless Congress came up with an alternative plan, we were hearing warnings that the sequestration cuts contained in the bill would be devastating to America’s defense. Within days after the bill became law, then Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said that the cuts would be a “doomsday mechanism” that would wreck the defense budget and his departments ability to adequately

fund the nation’s defense. He was joined by Republican Members of Congress who asserted that the sequestration cuts would devastate the defense budget. After the so-called Super-

Committee failed to come up with a plan to replace sequestration, Republicans in Congress began to repeat the same rhetoric and, as early as February 2012, Republican Senators such as John McCain and Lindsey Graham were pushing to void the defense side of the sequestration

cuts. The reality, of course, that there was very little evidence that the sequestration cuts would have the impact that the Pentagon, Republicans, and defense lobbyists were saying at the time . Now, with the nation

nearly two months into sequestration, it’s beginning to look like the Pentagon was exaggerating the impact of the sequestration cuts

quite substantially : WASHINGTON — A funny thing happened on the way to a predicted disaster: The Pentagon is learning to live with the

automatic budget cuts its leaders had warned would threaten national security if they took effect. The change from near-hysteria to sober

assessment starts at the top with new Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel , a former maverick Republican senator from Nebraska

who’s long pushed for serious restructuring of military spending. He replaced Leon Panetta in February. Defense analysts say the forced spending reductions - called a sequester on Capitol Hill - and the arrival of a new Pentagon chief are compelling military leaders to focus on core national security needs and to operate more efficiently after the expenditure of what will reach $5 trillion on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and a near doubling of the overall defense budget from 2001 to 2011. “Things have settled down since the sequester started,” retired Army Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, an analyst

with the Center for Advanced Defense Studies in Washington who speaks regularly with top military officers and civilian Pentagon leaders, told McClatchy. “They’re looking at how, with a lower budget, to maintain real focus on real threats,” Shaffer said. “The generals are reluctant to speak publicly about it, but there have been no detrimental effects on mission-critical capabilities.”Among the core capabilities that Shaffer said remain unharmed are a broad range of global exercises and deployments involving carrier battle groups

and military training teams; military operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere that the Pentagon classifies as “critical” or “sensitive”; and military schools and combat training. A little-noticed provision, contained in the stopgap funding bill that Congress passed in March, gave the Pentagon more

flexibility than other federal agencies in applying its $42 billion share of the automatic cuts through Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year. While other agencies must apply the cuts

equally across all programs, the Pentagon may transfer funds among programs in order to take into account critical national security tasks. Following the terms of

the August 2011 debt-ceiling deal, which put the across-the-board spending cuts in place if Congress failed to find more targeted ones, Obama exempted the nation’s 1.4 million active-duty troops from pay cuts or furloughs. Notwithstanding the flexibility that

Congress has given to the Pentagon — a flexibility not dissimilar to that granted to the Department of Transportation that allowed the FAA to avoid the closure of air traffic control towers — it seems quite apparent that the scenarios of doom that were pitched to us by defense lobbyists, hawkish Republicans, and Pentagon itself simply

haven’t lived up to reality . There has been no noticeable impact on national security, no apparent impact on defense preparedness, and, other than the cancellation of the appearances of the Navy Blue Angels at some airshows and the lack of military fly-overs at

a few sporting events, no real noticeable public impact from the sequestration cuts at all, As far as actual defense preparedness goes, there again have been no reports of any noticeable impact on the ability and readiness of the U.S. military to carry out the missions assigned to it as well as being prepared for any potential threats.

Even with cuts US still outspends everyoneMataconis 13{Doug, syndicated political columnist, “Did the Pentagon Exaggerate the Effects of Sequestration?” Outside the Beltway, 5/26, http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/did-the-pentagon-exaggerate-the-effects-of-sequestration/#THUR}

That last part is a point that we’ve made here at OTB several times in the past. The United States spends far more than any other

nation on the planet on its military , and if you add in the spending of American allies the difference between what is spent

between us and nations like China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea is astronomical . The assertion that the relatively minor cuts that sequestration puts in place would be a serious threat to national security , as

claimed by then-Secretary Clinton, many members of Congress and the Senate, and of course the defense industry was never really credible to begin with. Now that the cuts have actually gone into effect, we’re beginning to see that those claims were far from accurate . So, yes, it would appear that the Pentagon was at the very least stretching the truth when

it claimed that the cuts would be devastating, because they quite clearly haven’t been.

Affirmative

Uniqueness

Econ Low

Econ low – housing, unemployment, commodities – prefer our evidence – it’s future predictiveKohl 5/27{David, professor emeritus in the Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics (Virginia Tech), two-time recipient of the American Agricultural Economics Association’s Outstanding Teaching Award, “Economic Indicators and Confusing Signals,” Corn and Soybean Digest: Road Warrior, 2014, http://cornandsoybeandigest.com/blog/economic-indicators-and-confusing-signals#THUR}

The U.S. economy is showing mixed signals . The lead economic index (LEI) which foretells the future of the economy has been

increasing in recent months, most recently up 0.4%, which is bullish for the economy. Sixty percent of the factors that make up the LEI are exhibiting positive signs. The purchasing manager index (PMI) also illustrates a positive growth oriented economy for the next few months. The readings have consistently been above 50, a metric that suggests an expanding economy. Another positive sign is 78.6% factory capacity utilization. For comparison, at the height of the great economic recession of 2009, this figure dropped to 68%, the lowest ever recorded.

Confusing Signals Despite the forward-looking good news, housing, which is a pivotal part of the economy,

is still struggling. With one in seven jobs in America tied to housing, this engine of the economy is improving at a modest pace. Ideally, housing starts range between 1.1 million and 1.5 million annually. In recent months, this metric has been in the 900,000 range, and it increased to 1.072 million in April. Reasons for the struggle include higher mortgage rates, students with over $1 trillion of student loan debt collectively, increased regulation of mortgage lenders, the desire to rent rather than own a home, and affordability of housing with flattening or reduced wage scales. Another area of the economy that is struggling is unemployment. While the rate has declined to 6.3%,

the U-6 unemployment rate which includes the long-term unemployed, discouraged workers and people mismatched in the workforce is at 12.3%. While many jobs are available, the particular skill sets needed may not be available, creating

a gap. This is particularly true in the agriculture industry with more use of technology and innovation, which requires a highly skilled

agricultural workforce. Oil prices remain stubbornly high impacting consumer purchases. Copper prices, a

bellwether of world economic growth and inflation, have declined by approximately 25% year-over-year. Yes, first quarter

gross domestic product (GDP) growth was a paltry 0.1%. Everyone he is blaming the winter weather, but there may be other factors involved. Further tracking of economic indicators in the summer and fall may provide a clear path, but for now the economy is muddling along!

EXT – General

Decline across the board – GDP, housing, inventories, consumption – only increased spending reverses thatFoley 5/30/14“Here’s Why the U.S. Economy Shrank After Three Years of Growth” MEGHAN FOLEY- Syndicated Reporter-Bachelor’s degree from the University of California at Berkeley and a Master’s degree from Boston University., MAY 30, 2014, http://wallstcheatsheet.com/business/heres-why-the-u-s-economy-shrank-after-three-years-of-growth.html/#ixzz33zNmIWG6

In the first-quarter of this year, the United States economy contracted for the first time in three years. At the end of April, the U.S. Department of Commerce calculated that gross domestic product — the broadest measure of economic activity — expanded at an anemic 0.1 percent rate in the first three months of 2013. That initial estimate of first-quarter growth was far lower than the 1.2 percent rate expected by economists and a significant decline from the 2.6 percent rate of growth recorded in the final three months of 2013. U.S. economic output clearly showed the extremely cold winter weather had stunted growth, but economists disagreed about the implications the quarter’s results. “Here’s why I’m not so worried about Q1 GDP: The components that are weak aren’t persistent, while those that are strong tend to persist,” Justin Wolfers, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, tweeted just ahead of the release. But Euler Hermes economist Dan North argued in an interview with The New York Times that even though “people have gotten used to [sub-3 percent growth] as the new normal,” economic growth is still very weak. Upon a second look, using “more complete source data” than was available when the advanced estimate was made earlier this year, government economists determined that GDP did not grow in the first-quarter, but rather contracted at a 1 percent annual rate. Comparatively, economists had expected growth to slow to a 0.6-percent decline. Consumers were big spenders in the first-quarter, propping up growth as they have for much of the recovery. But other sectors of the U.S. economy that have buoyed the recovery higher in recent quarters slumped in the early months of this year, dragging down growth. Much of the hurt was brought on by the winter weather. Frigid temperatures caused U.S. manufacturing output to record its biggest decrease in more than 4 and a half years in January; kept job creation weak in December and January; and blanketed construction projects with snow and ice, pushing housing starts to nearly a three-year low in January. That reality left personal consumption expenditures as the single biggest boost to economic output in the first three months of the year. But even consumer spending was impacted by the weather, which curtailed foot traffic at many retailers. Why a Contraction? The decrease in real GDP in the first-quarter primarily reflected negative contributions from nearly all major categories — business inventory investment, trade, both

residential and nonresidential fixed investment, and state and local government spending — suggesting that economic malaise was widespread. Generally, the Commerce Department’s revision of first-quarter growth did little to change the overall economic narrative, but higher-than-expected imports — which are treated as a subtraction in GDP calculations — and business inventories that grew slower than originally estimated pushed first-quarter economic output into negative territory. U.S. exports declined at 6 percent rate, a slightly smaller drop than the 7.6 percent initially calculated, but imports ticked up 0.7 percent, completely reversing the 1.4 percent drop originally estimated. Nonresidential fixed investment — a measure of business spending on equipment, structures, and software — declined 1.6 percent, an improvement from the government’s previous estimate of a 2.1 percent decline. The housing market — which slowed early in the year due to the weather, higher mortgage rates, and ongoing consumer caution — remained a significant drag as well; residential fixed investment contracted at a 5 percent pace and subtracted 0.16 percentage point from GDP growth, after contributing 0.33 percentage point to U.S. economic output for all of last year.

Further, slow growth in business inventories was the unfortunate — but expected — side effect of the big buildup in private inventories, which boosted economic growth in the third-quarter of 2013. With consumer spending too slow too bring down those inventories substantially, businesses were left with a hangover that weighed on first-quarter GDP. Inventories subtracted 1.62 percentage points from GDP growth, a massive jump from the initial estimate of 0.57 percentage points. An increase federal government spending, the first in a year and a half, and further growth in personal consumption expenditures

only slightly offset those drags on economic growth. Plus, the positive contribution made by federal government spending was completely erased by decreases at the state and local government level. Overall, government spending subtracted 0.15 percentage points from GDP for the quarter, compared with an initial estimate of a 0.09 percentage-point subtraction.

EXT – Housing

Key industries show decline - Housing, retail, auto sales Kranzler 6/2/14“The U.S. Economy: Deep Recession Coming” Dave Kranzler, Investment Research Dynamics -Seeking Alpha, Jun. 2, 2014, http://seekingalpha.com/article/2249803-the-u-s-economy-deep-recession-coming

A second key driver of GDP growth is the housing market. As I have detailed in previous articles on new and existing homes,

there has been a definitive downtrend in month-to-month sequential sales volume that began in July 2013. I've also detailed how the big buy-to-rent institutional investment buyer, which has been the primary driver of home sales and price gains over the last 18 months, has largely withdrawn as a buyer of homes this year. To be sure, the individual "flipper" buyer is still active, although I suspect that segment of demand will begin to fade as new and existing home inventory continues to build and sales continue to decline. While April new and existing home sales showed seasonal gains from March to April, they both registered declines year over year, with existing home sales down 6.8% and new homes sales down 4.2%. The year-over-year declines have been persistent for several months now. In addition, it is likely that the May existing home sales report released later this month will show a continuing deterioration in the housing market based on the

recent Pending Home Sales report the details of which I discussed in the linked article. The pending home sales metric reflects both

declining demand despite rising home inventory. With the recent housing market data showing a probable continued slowdown in homes sales, I believe it confirms that the housing component of GDP will likely affect the GDP calculation negatively in Q2. While there are other factors which I believe will contribute to a further contraction in the GDP in Q2, the

deterioration in retail sales and the housing market as I've outlined above are two of the most significant factors. I also believe that auto sales, which have been largely fueled by subprime auto lending (see my previous articles for details),

will soon start to track negatively month to month on a consistent basis and contribute to further contraction in the U.S. economy.

Housing market is trash – hurts overall economy and investor confidenceElboghdady 5/28{Dina, syndicated reporter covering consumer advocacy and the housing market, “Freddie Mac: Many of the Nation’s Housing Markets are Stalling,” 2014, Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/05/28/freddie-mac-many-of-the-nations-housing-markets-are-stalling/#THUR}

The bad news keeps piling up on the housing front , this time with glum statistics from mortgage giant

Freddie Mac, which declared Wednesday that many of the nation’s housing markets are stalling . The third installment

of Freddie’s “Multi-Indicator Market Index” (or MiMi), which sizes up homebuying activity and other factors, found that only 10

states and the District of Columbia fall in the “stable” range, as do four of the 50 metro areas included in the

index – San Antonio, New Orleans, Austin and Houston. The outlook for the rest of the housing market looks bleak . “Less than half of the housing markets MiMi covers are showing an improving trend, whereas at this time

last year more than 90 percent of these same markets were headed in the right direction,” Frank Nothaft, Freddie’s chief economist, said in a statement. The index draws from various data sources, including Freddie’s own business with more than 2,000 mortgage lenders across the country, to assess the health of the single-family housing market. The company said it benchmarks a market’s performance against that market’s historical norm, taking into account home purchase applications, employment, mortgage delinquencies and other factors. It then averages the weighted indicators to pull together a composite value, with a score of zero indicating a stable market. Based on the index, Freddie labels a market “weak” when its value falls below a negative 2 or “elevated” when it ranks above 2. It does not factor in cash-only sales, which make up roughly 40 percent of home sales today, or loans that do not meet Freddie Mac criteria. The national value of the index stood at -3.06 points in March, with a three-month flat trend in housing activity. Freddie

crunched numbers going back to 2001, and found that the all-time low was -4.49 in November 2010, during the depths of the housing crisis. North Dakota was the highest-ranked “stable” state, with Wyoming, the District of Columbia,

Alaska and Louisiana among the top of the list of 10 states that are considered to be in balance. Even before the index came out,

Freddie had revised its forecast for the housing market downward . Earlier this month, Nothaft said

there are “various imbalances” holding it back , most notably the job market . “Housing needs

stronger, and just as important, sustained levels of job creation to get the housing engine firing on all

cylinders,” he said. Other industry gauges show that sales of existing homes were down nearly 7 percent from the

same time a year ago, home prices are starting to moderate, and builders still lack confidence in the housing market.

Link UQ – MH 370 Link – Spending Now

Current plans for the flight trigger the link but don’t solve- huge spending (1.2 million just approved for this month alone)Yan 5/7“With No Hard Evidence, Hunt for MH370 to get Deeper, Broader and Pricier,” HollyYan- CNN World, 5/7/14, http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/07/world/asia/malaysia-missing-plane/#

After 61 days and no tangible evidence, officials from Malaysia, China and Australia will hunker down Wednesday to plot the next steps in the hunt for MH370. Their tasks: Review all the information gathered so far and figure out what tools will be needed

in the next stage of the search -- a deeper, broader probe of the Indian Ocean. Two things are certain: This new phase will be

expensive and even more difficult. Australia estimates it will cost $60 million, with the breakdown of who's going to pay for what yet to be determined. Search for Flight 370 to expand New phase launched in hunt for missing plane Is the MH370 search back at 'square one'? Photos: The search for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 Photos: The search for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 But perhaps the greatest challenge now will be scouring unchartered territory. A key element of the new phase will be a detailed mapping of the ocean floor. "We know that the water is very deep," Australian Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss said this week. "And for the next stage involving sonar and other autonomous vehicles, potentially at very great depths, we need to have an understanding of the ocean floor to be able to undertake that kind of search effectively

and safely." The next phase will focus on 60,000 square kilometers of the ocean floor, a process that could take six to eight

months . Truss said he's not sure how deep the ocean is in the expanded search area because "it's never been mapped." Search enters new,

'more difficult' $60 million phase The tools Searchers plan to use more highly specialized technology, including towed side-scan sonar and more autonomous underwater vehicles. Truss said most of the new equipment will likely have to come from the private sector. "You can count on one hand the number of devices that can do this work, when you talk about towed sonar devices," said Angus Houston, chief coordinator of the joint search effort, said Monday. Truss said he's optimistic that the new devices will be in the water within a month or two. In the meantime, he said, the Bluefin-21 drone will continue underwater missions. The Bluefin-21 has already scanned 400 square kilometers of the Indian Ocean floor , but with no luck . The United States has authorized the use of the drone for

another month. The cost? About $40,000 a day . While the Bluefin-21 provides greater resolution than deep-towed sonar devices, the drone can only go about 4.5 kilometers deep.

Link UQ – Ocean Exploration Link – Spending Now

More ocean funding inevitable – Obama pushWoglom 14“Obama Pushes for Needed Boost in Ocean Funding” Emily Woglom- Vice President, Conservation Policy and Programs, for Ocean Conservancy, March 4, 2014, http://blog.oceanconservancy.org/2014/03/04/obama-pushes-for-needed-boost-in-ocean-funding/

The White House released President Obama’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2015 today. The proposal appears to be good news for the ocean and a great first step toward strong funding for ocean-health programs next year. Of course, the budget documents that the administration released today are only part of the picture. They detail the big-picture, top-level budget numbers with only a small number of details, and individual program budgets won’t be released until later. So what can we tell from what has been released so far? Last year, we focused on some key questions to help decide how the ocean is faring in the federal budget process. In particular, we asked whether the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) top-line budget number is sufficient, and whether there was appropriate balance between NOAA’s “wet” ocean and “dry” non-

ocean missions. When it comes to NOAA’s overall budget numbers, things look pretty good. Regarding the balance between wet and dry missions, the single biggest increase goes to the satellite line office, but the National Ocean Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service both see healthy increases as well. We will not know details until

additional numbers are released, but we do not see any red flags to suggest that things are way out of balance. Here are some key takeaways based on what we know today: Overall NOAA Funding Looks Strong: The White House demonstrated support for increased funding at NOAA. NOAA

programs lead cutting-edge research on ocean health and support smart ocean management. NOAA is also the central agency tasked with ending overfishing. While NOAA’s FY

2014 funding level is an improvement over FY 2013’s abysmal sequestration level, the proposal from the White House shows how far we still have to go: It calls for a $174 million increase over FY 2014, recommending $5.5 billion in funding for NOAA in FY 2015.

A Slew of programs just got new fundingWatters 6/6/14“Four Ways the Senate Supports Ocean Investments” June 6, 2014 by Jeff Watters- Acting Director of Government Relations for Ocean Conservancy, http://blog.oceanconservancy.org/2014/06/06/four-ways-the-senate-supports-ocean-investments/#more-8450 Just a week after the House of Representatives passed its proposed budget for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA), the Senate Appropriations Committee unanimously approved its NOAA proposal, funding research and

activities that influence the health and strength of our ocean economy and coastal communities. The Senate proposal takes a cue from

President Obama’s request, and would invest in several key ocean programs. It would: Fund ocean acidification research at $11 million, recognizing our need to understand how acidification will impact businesses and ecoystems, as well as the need to develop tools to mitigate its impacts. Although this proposal is still $4 million less than the President’s request, the Senate level is a strong step towards protecting marine environments and the communities that depend on them. Provide at least $5 million for competitive Regional Coastal Resilience Grants, which will help communities prepare for changes to marine ecosystems, climate impacts, and economic shifts. These grants will bring together partners on a regional scale to promote resilience and address shared risks. Increase Climate Research funding by $2.19 million to support the Arctic Research Program. Temperatures in the Arctic are warming at twice the rate of the global average and seasonal sea ice is diminishing rapidly. Funding to expand and improve NOAA’s Arctic Observing Network is critical to track and understand these profound changes and provide products that support our ability to adapt. Provide the requested $6 million for NOAA’s Marine Debris program, which supports existing monitoring and research efforts to better understand accumulation rates of debris and debris sources. The program catalyzes scientific research efforts to quantify the direct and indirect economic impacts caused by marine debris on coastal communities and economies that rely on them.

IL UQ – Debt Now

Current debt levels trigger the DA – interest ratesGiles and Harding 14“IMF warns on rising debt levels” Chris Giles and Robin Harding- Correspondents at the Financial Times, April 9, 2014, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e9bd67de-bfd6-11e3-b6e8-00144feabdc0.html#axzz33y9PWWrG

Rising levels of debt prompted by five years of ultra-low interest rates could exacerbate the dangers of bringing monetary policy back to normal, the International Monetary Fund warned on Wednesday. In its twice yearly Global

Financial Stability Report, the fund noted that “the scaling back of certain extraordinary policy supports has not been accompanied by adequate preparations for a new environment of normalised, self-sustaining growth”. Although the IMF has warned about the potential dangers of the exit from US quantitative easing for at least a year, its new concern is that prolonged low interest rates will make any exit even more difficult. “The key message is that strong policy actions are needed to definitely turn the corner from the great financial crisis and engineer a successful shift from ‘liquidity-driven’ to ‘growth-driven’ markets,” said José Viñals, director of the IMF’s monetary

and capital markets department. Saying the timing of an exit was “critical”, the IMF warned that there might be no easy way to normalise policy without significant financial turmoil. “Undue delay could lead to a further build-up of financial stability risks, and too rapid an exit could jeopardise the economic recovery and exacerbate still-elevated debt burdens in some segments of the economy,” the report warned.

Any link to the DA is shot – debt quadrupling by 2024Jeffrey 5/7/14“Fed Chair: ‘Deficits Will Rise to Unsustainable Levels’” Terence P. Jeffrey, May 7, 2014 http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/fed-chair-deficits-will-rise-unsustainable-levels

Federal Reserve Chairman Janet Yellen, referencing the Congressional Budget Office's long-term budget projections, told the Joint Economic Committee of Congress today that under current policies the federal government’s deficits “will rise to unsustainable levels.” In the 10-year budget projections it released in April, the CBO estimated that the federal government will run $7.618 trillion in deficits from 2015 through 2024. At the same time, the CBO

projected that the federal government’s debt held by the public would rise from $11.983 trillion at the end of fiscal 2013 to $20.947 trillion by the end of 2024. The debt held by the public is the part of the U.S. government debt that is not held by the federal government itself. It primarily consists of marketable Treasury securities, including bills, notes and bonds. It does not include what the government calls “intragovernmental debt," which is the money the Treasury has borrowed out of the Social Security Trust Fund and other government trust funds to pay current expenses. The total debt of the federal government at the end of fiscal 2013--including both the debt held by the public and the intragovernmental debt--was $16.719 trillion. The CBO estimates that by 2024, the total debt of the federal government will be $27.159 trillion—of which $20.947 trillion will be debt held by the public. If that projection holds up, the federal debt held by the public in 2024 would be more than four times the $5.035 trillion

federal debt held by the public at the end of 2007.

Link

Link Defense – Credit Rating

No downgrade and no impact even if it happens-General global trend to downgrade-Because ratings reflect SQ they’re already considered-Few Money Markets would have to pull out-Empirically denied 2011-Relative other high US ratingsZhang 13{Moran, finance and economics reporter, master’s degree in business journalism (Northwestern), “US Debt Ceiling 2013: Implications of a Sovereign Credit Rating Downgrade,” International Business Times, 10/16, http://www.ibtimes.com/us-debt-ceiling-2013-implications-sovereign-credit-rating-downgrade-1428494#THUR}

“The chaos in Washington has left the U.S. at greater risk of losing its remaining AAA credit ratings even if an imminent default is

avoided. However, while this would be a political embarrassment, the impact on financial markets and

the wider economy should be limited, ” said Julian Jessop, the London-based chief global economist of Capital Economics, in a note to clients. Jessop noted that there are two possible scenarios. The first, also the more likely scenario, is where some deal is done in Congress to raise the debt ceiling but the U.S. is still downgraded a notch or two by one or more of the major rating agencies -- S&P, Moody's and Fitch. The second, and potentially more damaging, is where the U.S. government does default on some of its debt, prompting much more substantial changes in ratings from all the agencies. The U.S. has already lost its AAA rating with one agency, S&P, which lowered the long-term rating by one notch, to AA+, in August 2011, after the last debt-ceiling crisis. Moody’s and Fitch continue to rate the U.S. as AAA, but Fitch warned Tuesday that it was putting the U.S. credit rating on negative watch, a step that would precede an actual downgrade. Fitch said it expects the debt limit will be raised soon, but added, “the

political brinkmanship and reduced financing flexibility could increase the risk of a U.S. default.” However, a downgrade this time around likely won’t

be disastrous , according to Jessop. For a start, a one notch downgrade by Fitch could simply be seen as

catching up with S&P . A further downgrade by S&P itself seems less likely , as S&P revised the outlook on its long-term rating from negative to stable as recently as June this year. Regarding whether the credit rating agency would

downgrade the U.S., S&P’s chief John Chambers said Wednesday on “CBS This Morning” that the agency “will have to see what the government’s response is. Our assumption is that there will be a plan, that’s why we rated AA+ with a stable outlook. However the mere fact that

we’re having these discussions led us to conclude two years ago that it simply wasn’t appropriate to have a AAA rating on the U.S. government.” The impact of the S&P downgrade in 2011 was limited by the fact that the U.S. retained its top rating with Fitch and Moody’s, which allowed some investors who can only hold AAA paper to keep their U.S. Treasurys.

Nonetheless, very few institutions are constrained in this way. “The main risk is probably to money market funds, but they invest mainly in short-term debt with a separate rating, which the S&P has maintained at the top level of A-1+," Jessop said, adding that even with a lower rating, U.S. government debt would remain “high grade” and 0 percent risk-weighted under the Basel rules. More generally, rating changes tend to

reflect economic, political and fiscal developments that are clear for all to see, and hence already reflected in

market prices . There was nothing new in the concerns that Fitch has raised about the debt-ceiling crisis. “In any event, the pool of AAA-rated

issuers has shrunk after the global financial crisis, so that being rated a notch lower is no longer such

a big deal . France and the U.K. have lost AAA ratings in recent years, and other European sovereigns have

been downgraded much further, with very little market impact ,” Jessop said .

No Fitch downgrade and Rankings irrelevant – confidence fine, debt ceiling rise solves and no impact on stocks long-termIsidore 13

{Chris, Senior economics columnist, “Don't Sweat a U.S. Credit Downgrade,” 10-16, CNN Money, http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/16/news/economy/credit-downgrade-impact/#THUR}

Two years ago, an 11th-hour deal to raise the debt ceiling wasn't enough to stop Standard & Poor's from downgrading the nation's credit rating. And that downgrade sparked a plunge in stocks. But 16 economists surveyed by CNNMoney Wednesday

morning aren't worried about either scenario this time around. That's even after credit rating agency Fitch

warned late Tuesday that the U.S. rating is at risk due to "political brinkmanship." Fitch said it may downgrade the U.S. even

if the deal to raise the debt ceiling that was just announced by the Senate passes Congress before Treasury runs out of cash. But economists aren't

buying Fitch's threat . They say the risk of a downgrade will vanish when the debt ceiling is raised.

"Unlike Southern Europe, the ability of the U.S. to service its debt is not an issue at this point in

time," said Sean Snaith, a professor at the University of Central Florida. "This is a political, procedural crisis, not a crisis based

on economic fundamentals ." But even if there is another downgrade, 75% of the economists aren't

worried about the market reaction, or any kind of hit to the economy. "The stock market might drop,

but it would quickly rebound once a deal is done," said James Smith of Parsec Financial Management. "Treasury yields have

already gone up a lot from the 'taper tantrum', so the 10-year won't move much, if at all." And economists

do expect a downgrade if Congress doesn't reach a deal soon. Even if the Treasury Department keeps paying investors who hold U.S. Treasuries while missing payments due to others -- such as Social Security recipients, Medicare providers and government contractors -- 11 of the 16 economists forecast a downgrade. "If the Treasury misses any payments, it would be considered a form of a default," said Brett Ryan of Deutsche Bank. But five of the economists believe a downgrade can be avoided as long as Treasury doesn't miss any debt payments. "If Treasury prioritizes debt service, a downgrade will not be justified," said Patrick O'Keefe of

accounting firm Cohn Reznick. Sixty percent of the economists said that if it were up to them, the U.S. keep its AAA rating. They say the U.S. is still in better shape than most other countries , and that there is little

risk that bond-holders won't eventually get paid.

Link Defense – Crowd Out

Crowd Out link wrong – interest rates disprove this Republican scare tacticHall 13{Kevin G., syndicated national economics reporter, “Is Government Spending ‘Crowding Out’ Private Sector? No,” McClatchy News, 3/20, http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/03/20/186450/is-government-spending-crowding.html#THUR}

Republicans like to say that federal spending is “crowding out” investment by the private sector. That’s scary sounding,

but it isn’t actually happening . The notion that rising federal spending is hurting the private sector is a key part of the Republican argument in the current clash over the federal budget deficit . Republicans want to cut spending, not raise taxes, and argue that the spending by itself is dangerous. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, argued in 2011 that government spending was “crowding out private investment and threatening the availability of capital” in the U.S. economy. “If you allow these debts to continue to grow, they’d crowd out the private sector,” Rep. Kevin McCarthy, a California Republican who’s a member of his party’s leadership team in the House, said this week on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “They’d crowd out the opportunity for small businesses to grow.

That’s why the economy continues to linger.” Yet while it’s true that federal deficits pose risks to the economy if left unattended and growing, there’s no sign that they’ve put a drag on the current economy . Most mainstream

economists blame the impaired housing market and consumers paying off debt and building savings as factors that have dampened demand for goods and services in the economy. “You would expect that if there were ‘crowding out,’ that the government borrowing is somehow competing with private-sector borrowing, you’d expect that to show up in interest rates, and it is not. They’re at rock bottom ,” said Nariman Behravesh, chief economist for forecaster IHS Global Insight. “Is ‘crowding out’ a potential problem sometime in the future? Yes. Is it a problem right now? No, it is not.” That view is shared by Scott Anderson, chief economist for Bank of

the West in San Francisco. “Deficits as a share of the U.S. economy have risen sharply at times with little to no discernible impact

on the level of U.S. interest rates. In fact, just a cursory look at periods when the U.S. ran large deficits as a

share of (the total economy) – 1983, 1991-92, 2008-2012 – we actually saw declines in nominal long-term (lending) rates,” said Anderson. He noted that the yield, or return on investment for bondholders, has not and did not rise sharply. “So the link between high levels of government spending and borrowing does not appear to raise the

cost of money during these periods and therefore would not crowd out private consumption and investment, ” Anderson said. When does “crowding out” occur? Economists think it happens when there are large

deficits at a time of full employment and strong growth. That’s when the excessive government borrowing can discourage private investment and raise the cost of borrowing for consumers

and businesses. A real-world example of this would be China, where the economy is booming, yet lending rates are very high relative to the United States. In China, inefficient state-owned companies borrow heavily from state-owned banks. “Small private companies are ‘crowded out’ from the Chinese credit market,” Behravesh said, suggesting that innovation and entrepreneurship associated with small business, both important ingredients for

growth, are being held back. Meanwhile, the United States has subpar growth and a 7.7 unemployment rate that hardly qualifies as full employment. Interest rates hover around historical lows while more than 12 million Americans were unemployed and another 8 million underemployed last month. In a paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research in April 2005, Columbia University economist R. Glenn Hubbard and Federal Reserve economist Eric Engen declared as “inconclusive” the link between government debt and interest rates.

Hubbard headed George W. Bush’s White House Council of Economic Advisers from 2001 to 2003. “While analysis of the effects of government debt on interest rates has been ongoing for more than two decades, there is little empirical consensus

about the magnitude of the effect , and the difference in views held on this issue can be quite stark,” they wrote.

Your link arg is a total myth – crowding-in outweighsAmy 11

[“The Deficit Scare: Myth vs. Reality” Douglas J. Amy, Professor of Politics at Mount Holyoke College, 2011, http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=30&p=3]

But what about the conservative argument that public spending “crowds out” private investment, to the detriment of economic growth? They maintain that if the government is borrowing a lot money, that is money that the private sector cannot invest to increase its production and productivity. This has to undermine economic growth, right? The answer is “ No, not necessarily .” As most economists point out, government spending also has a “crowding in” effect

that actually encourages more private investment . That is because much of the money that the government borrows and spends goes to the private sector. Private industry must then prepare to provide the various goods and services demanded by the government – such as weapons systems, green energy systems,

new roads and schools, etc. In order to do this, these businesses must invest in new production facilities and

greater productivity. This “crowding in” effect thus helps to mitigate any negative effects that public

borrowing has on the private sector by indirectly encouraging more private investment and business

growth .

Link Defense – MH 370

Plan’s under 1.5 million – not even .01% of current debtTime 13“Navy Goes to Great Depths to Determine Cause of Air Force Crash” By Mark Thompson-Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter for Time, 1/10/13, http://nation.time.com/2013/01/10/navy-goes-to-great-depths-to-determine-cause-of-air-force-cause/

Getting to the downed craft was no small undertaking. According to the company: In early August 2012, at the direction of the Naval Sea Systems Command’s Director of Ocean Engineering, Supervisor of Salvage and Diving (SUPSALV), Phoenix mobilized the

Navy’s ORION deepwater side scan sonar system, the CURV 21 remotely operated vehicle (ROV), and the Navy’s motion compensated, 30,000 pound Fly-Away Deep Ocean Salvage System (FADOSS). All equipment was transported over land from Phoenix’s facility in Largo, Maryland to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware. From there, military transport aircraft moved the equipment to Hawaii, where the gear was loaded aboard USNS Navajo (T-ATF 169). After a 10-day transit to the crash site, underwater search operations commenced using the Navy’s 20,000 fsw [feet of seawater] depth search system, ORION. After searching the initial planned search area spanning a 2 x 4 nautical mile (nm) area, search operations shifted to another high-probability area and the suspected F-16 debris field was quickly identified. Next, Phoenix personnel deployed the CURV 21 deepwater ROV system and conducted a detailed video survey of the area in which several high priority items, including the Flight Data Recorder and engine, were identified. Over the next 10 days, the Phoenix team piloted the CURV 21 ROV through 12 dives and recovered all critical items desired by the embarked accident investigating board. Phoenix spokesman Peter LeHardy says his company has a Navy contract for such work as deep as 20,000 feet. It does the work with Navy gear it maintains and operates. “Recovering the F-16 was well within our capabilities,” he adds. “Our deepest effort to date was a recovery of a subsea sensor back in 2010, at a depth of 18,558 feet.” The Navy said the operation cost it $1.4 million.

Link Defense – Sacred Cows

Farm bill thumpsTCS 14{Taxpayers for Common Sense, “Sacred Cows Come Home to Roost,” 2/7, http://www.taxpayer.net/library/weekly-wastebasket/article/sacred-cows-come-home-to-roost#THUR}

The President’s signing of the farm bill today marks a monumental defeat for taxpayers and victory for the old Washington spending bulls . Like shepherds guarding their flock, for nearly three years the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees opposed nearly every common sense effort to rein in spending on

the already highly profitable agriculture sector. With the signing of this bill, special interests wolves have been set free to devour

taxpayer dollars while the ordinary taxpayer is about to be fleeced . The Agricultural Act of 2014 (H.R. 2642) is the product of a long, non-transparent journey with unfortunately more downs than ups. Ever since the four Agriculture Committee leaders tried to jam a trillion dollar backroom-written farm bill into the failed Super Committee on deficit reduction, they’ve tried to keep the public, and even their own committees, from influencing the bill.

When the Super Committee crumbled, they painted their already crafted trillion-dollar bill as an “emergency” response to the 2012 drought. Then they tried to sell their paltry projected savings as a part of the fiscal cliff deal. Anything that moved was an opportunity to hitch onto. And even when the bills did make it to the House and

Senate floors, the bulk of taxpayer-friendly amendments were never even given a chance . In fact, just 15 out of the 259 submitted

were even allowed a vote in the Senate. And after the House bill was defeated in June of 2013, it was rushed back up three weeks later amongst a cloud of misinformation and without any

further amendments or debate. When you hide the work of Congress you get something like this bill – a Grade-A

example of bipartisan binging . One wasteful program that sent out checks no matter what (direct payments) is replaced with three new entitlement programs designed to send checks for “shallow” (their words, not ours) dips in income. The counter-cyclical program of government-set

minimum prices for crops is eliminated and replaced with… a program of government-set minimum (but much higher than before) prices called “Price Loss Coverage.” And tucked into page 312 is a section prohibiting the Obama Administration from saving money by renegotiating the sweetheart deal crop insurance companies receive for participating in the highly subsidized federal crop insurance program. In 2010, the Administration reduced the guaranteed rate of return for insurance companies (i.e., profit) from 17 percent to a more “reasonable” industry average level of 13 percent, saving taxpayers $6

billion, but the Ag Committees refuse to ever let such sane policymaking repeat itself. The farm bill is also a classic example of a committee

dominated by parochial interests thwarting the will of the majority. In hashing out the differences between the two, a task

monopolized yet again by the four leaders, a number of interesting decisions were made. Floor amendments that added to the cost of the bill—for example adding crop insurance policies for pennycress (a weed used in biofuels), alfalfa (cheap hay), and losses due to food recalls—made it into the final legislation. Cost-savings amendments that would cap overall spending on new shallow loss entitlements, eliminate the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s duplicative catfish inspection office (we already have one in the FDA), deny farm subsidies to city dwellers, and trim crop insurance subsidies for millionaires (an

amendment that passed the Senate twice) were all abandoned . Oh, and a requirement that lawmakers and Cabinet Secretaries publicly disclose their crop insurance

subsidies? Yeah they just couldn’t make that fit. When given the choice between bowing to special interests or fighting for taxpayers, they said no to no one except those wanting to save taxpayer dollars . Legislation that sets our nation’s

agriculture policies for the next five to ten years is too important to be left to a handful of folks working behind closed doors. If President Obama followed his own FY14 budget priorities, he

would veto this expensive, status quo piece of legislation. Taxpayers deserve a more cost-effective, accountable, responsive, and transparent farm safety net, not yet another farm bill that spares the sacred cows by sheering

taxpayers.

Reject links about the fiat of the plan – “normal means” is contrived and can mean anything. Prefer aff choice – especially on a topic with bad solvency mechanisms

“Should” is desirable, not certainAC 99 (Atlas Collaboration, “Use of Shall, Should, May Can,” http://rd13doc.cern.ch/Atlas/DaqSoft/sde/inspect/shall.html)

shall 'shall' describes something that is mandatory . If a requirement uses 'shall', then that requirement _will_ be satisfied without fail. Noncompliance is

not allowed. Failure to comply with one single 'shall' is sufficient reason to reject the entire product. Indeed, it must be rejected under these circumstances. Examples: # "Requirements shall make use of the word 'shall' only where compliance is mandatory." This is a good example. # "C++ code shall have comments every 5th line." This is a bad example. Using 'shall' here is too

strong. should 'should' is weaker . It describes something that might not be satisfied in the final product, but that is

desirable enough that any noncompliance shall be explicitly justified. Any use of 'should' should be examined carefully, as it probably means that something is not being stated

clearly. If a 'should' can be replaced by a 'shall', or can be discarded entirely, so much the better. Examples: # "C++ code should be ANSI compliant." A good example. It may not be possible to be ANSI compliant on all platforms, but we should try. # "Code should be tested thoroughly." Bad example. This 'should' shall be replaced with 'shall' if this requirement is to be stated anywhere (to say nothing of defining what 'thoroughly' means).

Internal Link

Keynesianism – Frontline

The problem is demand- reigning in the debt only exacerbates the problem – reject their authors – it’s politically charged and uses skewed data.Interest rates are super low btw and won’t change over more spendingKrugman 5/1/14“Why Economics Failed” PAUL KRUGMAN- NY Times, PHD at MIT, Nobel Prize winner, best economist everrrrrr, MAY 1, 2014, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/02/opinion/krugman-why-economics-failed.html

In what sense did economics work well? Economists who took their own textbooks seriously quickly diagnosed the nature of our economic malaise: We were suffering from inadequate demand. The financial crisis and the housing bust created an environment in

which everyone was trying to spend less, but my spending is your income and your spending is my income, so when everyone tries to cut spending at the same time the result is an overall decline in incomes and a depressed economy. And we know (or should know) that depressed economies behave quite differently from economies that are at or near full employment. For example, many seemingly knowledgeable people — bankers, business leaders, public officials — warned that budget deficits would lead to soaring interest rates and inflation. But economists knew that such warnings, which might have made sense under normal conditions, were way off base under the conditions we actually faced. Sure enough, interest and inflation rates stayed low. And the diagnosis of our troubles as stemming from

inadequate demand had clear policy implications: as long as lack of demand was the problem, we would be living in a world in which the usual rules didn’t apply. In particular, this was no time to worry about budget deficits and cut spending, which would only deepen the depression. When John Boehner, then the House minority leader, declared in early 2009 that since American families were having to tighten their belts, the government should tighten its belt, too, people like me cringed; his remarks betrayed his economic ignorance. We needed more government spending, not less, to fill the hole left by inadequate private demand. But a few months later President Obama started saying exactly the same thing. In fact, it became a

standard line in his speeches. Nor was it just rhetoric. Since 2010, we’ve seen a sharp decline in discretionary spending and an unprecedented decline in budget deficits, and the result has been anemic growth and long-term unemployment on a scale not seen since the 1930s. So why didn’t we use the economic knowledge we had?

One answer is that most people find the logic of policy in a depressed economy counterintuitive. Instead, what resonates with the public are misleading analogies with the finances of an individual family, which is why Mr. Obama began echoing

Mr. Boehner. Continue reading the main storyContinue reading the main story Advertisement And even supposedly well-informed people balk at the notion that simple lack of demand can wreak so much havoc. Surely, they insist, we must have deep structural problems, like a work force that lacks the right skills; that sounds serious and wise, even

though all the evidence says that it’s completely untrue. Meanwhile, powerful political factions find that bad economic analysis serves their objectives. Most obviously, people whose real goal is dismantling the social safety net have

found promoting deficit panic an effective way to push their agenda. And such people have been aided and abetted by what

I’ve come to think of as the trahison des nerds — the willingness of some economists to come up with analyses that tell powerful people what they want to hear, whether it’s that slashing government spending is actually expansionary,

because of confidence, or that government debt somehow has dire effects on economic growth even if interest rates stay low. Whatever the

reasons basic economics got tossed aside, the result has been tragic. Most of the waste and suffering that have afflicted Western economies these past five years was unnecessary. We have, all along, had the knowledge and the tools to restore full employment. But policy makers just keep finding reasons not to do the right thing.

Deficit spending key to growth – WWII provesAmy 11[“The Deficit Scare: Myth vs. Reality” Douglas J. Amy, Professor of Politics at Mount Holyoke College, 2011, http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=30&p=3]

Conservatives are also wrong when they argue that deficit spending and a large national debt will inevitably undermine economic growth. To see why, we need to simply look back at times when we have run up large deficits and increased the national debt. The best example is World War II when the national debt soared to 120% of GDP – nearly twice the size of today’s debt. This spending not only got us out of the Great

Depression but set the stage for a prolonged period of sustained economic growth in the 50s and 60s.

Massive investments were made in science and technology, American workers were re-trained and re-

employed, private investment was encouraged , and consumer purchasing power was increased . That 25-year post-war economic boom, with the most rapid increase in living standards in our history,

would not have happened without the stimulus of all this deficit spending. History also shows that balancing the budget does not necessarily ensure a spurt of economic growth. In fact, in most periods when we have not had deficits, such as the 1990s, this was followed by an economic recession .6 So

there is clearly little historical evidence to show that deficits and debt inevitably hurt economic growth.

Deficit spending good – your authors cook the books and are epistemological trash-Fills in for weak private investment-Resolves high unemploymentKrugman 13“Dwindling Deficit Disorder” PAUL KRUGMAN- NY Times, PHD at MIT, Nobel Prize winner, best economist everrrrrr, March 10, 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/11/opinion/krugman-dwindling-deficit-disorder.html?_r=1&

For three years and more, policy debate in Washington has been dominated by warnings about the dangers of budget deficits. A

few lonely economists have tried from the beginning to point out that this fixation is all wrong, that deficit spending is actually appropriate in a depressed economy. But even though the deficit scolds have been wrong about everything so far — where are the soaring interest rates we were promised? — protests that we are having the wrong conversation have consistently fallen on

deaf ears. What’s really remarkable at this point, however, is the persistence of the deficit fixation in the face of rapidly changing facts. People still talk as if the deficit were exploding , as if the United States budget were on an unsustainable

path; in fact, the deficit is falling more rapidly than it has for generations, it is already down to sustainable levels, and it is too small given the state of the economy. Start with the raw numbers. America’s budget deficit soared after the 2008 financial crisis and the recession that went with it, as revenue plunged and spending on unemployment benefits and other safety-net programs rose. And this rise in the deficit was a good thing ! Federal spending helped sustain the economy at a time when the

private sector was in panicked retreat ; arguably, the stabilizing role of a large government was the main reason the Great Recession didn’t turn into a full replay of the Great Depression. But after peaking in 2009 at $1.4 trillion, the deficit began coming down. The Congressional Budget Office expects

the deficit for fiscal 2013 (which began in October and is almost half over) to be $845 billion. That may still sound like a big number, but given the state of the economy it really isn’t. Bear in mind that the budget doesn’t have to be balanced to put us on a fiscally sustainable path; all we need is a deficit small enough that debt grows more slowly than the economy . To take the classic example, America never did pay off the debt from World War II — in fact, our debt doubled in the 30

years that followed the war. But debt as a percentage of G.D.P. fell by three-quarters over the same period. Right now, a sustainable deficit would be around $460 billion . The actual deficit is bigger than that. But according to new

estimates by the budget office, half of our current deficit reflects the effects of a still-depressed economy. The “cyclically adjusted” deficit — what the

deficit would be if we were near full employment — is only about $423 billion, which puts it in the

sustainable range ; next year the budget office expects that number to fall to just $172 billion. And that’s why

budget office projections show the nation’s debt position more or less stable over the next decade. So we do not, repeat do not , face any kind of

deficit crisis either now or for years to come . There are, of course, longer-term fiscal issues: rising health costs and an aging population will put the

budget under growing pressure over the course of the 2020s. But I have yet to see any coherent explanation of why these longer-run concerns should determine budget policy right now. And

as I said, given the needs of the economy, the deficit is currently too small. Put it this way: Smart fiscal policy involves having the government spend when the private sector won’t, supporting the economy when it is weak and reducing debt only when it is strong. Yet the cyclically adjusted deficit as a share of G.D.P. is currently about what it was in 2006, at the height of the housing boom — and it is headed down. Yes, we’ll want to reduce deficits once the economy recovers , and there are gratifying signs that a solid recovery is finally under

way. But unemployment, especially long-term unemployment, is still unacceptably high. “The boom,

not the slump, is the time for austerity,” John Maynard Keynes declared many years ago. He was right — all you have

to do is look at Europe to see the disastrous effects of austerity on weak economies. And this is still nothing like a

boom. Now, I’m aware that the facts about our dwindling deficit are unwelcome in many quarters. Fiscal fearmongering is a major industry

inside the Beltway, especially among those looking for excuses to do what they really want, namely dismantle Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. People whose careers are heavily invested in the

deficit-scold industry don’t want to let evidence undermine their scare

tactics ; as the deficit dwindles, we’re sure to encounter a blizzard of bogus numbers purporting to

show that we’re still in some kind of fiscal crisis. But we aren’t . The deficit is indeed dwindling, and the case for making the deficit a central policy concern, which was never very strong given low borrowing costs and high unemployment , has now completely vanished.

No Internal – General

No set threshold where debt impacts GDPPescatori 14{Andrea, Economist at the Research Department of the IMF, former fellow at the Bank of Italy and Economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, Ph.D. in economics (Universitat Pompeu Fabra in Barcelona, Spain), this report was coauthored by Damiano Sandri and John Simon (1st is an economist at the IMF and has an M.A. and PhD in Economics from the Johns Hopkins University + 2nd has a PhD from MIT and is a Senior Economist at the IMF), “Debt and Growth: Is There a Magic Threshold?” WP/14/34, 2014, IMF, http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2014/wp1434.pdf#THUR}

Is there a particular threshold in the level government debt above which the medium-term growth prospects are dramatically compromised? The answer to this question is of critical importance given the historically high

level of public debt in most advanced economies. Yet there is currently no agreement on the answer and it is the subject of heated academic and political debate. One camp has argued that high levels of debt are associated with particularly large negative effects on growth. For example, an influential series of papers by Reinhart and Rogoff (2010, 2012) argues that there is a threshold effect whereby debt above 90 percent of GDP is associated with dramatically worse growth outcomes. An opposing perspective is advanced by those who dispute the notion that there is a clear debt threshold above which debt sharply reduces growth and raise endogeneity concerns whereby weak growth is the cause of particularly high levels of debt. Thus, according to this view, the priority should be increasing growth rather than reducing debt and, consequently, that much less short-term fiscal austerity is appropriate. This paper makes a contribution to the debate by presenting new empirical evidence based on a different way of analyzing the data and a sizeable dataset. Our methodology is based on the analysis of the relation between debt and growth over longer periods of time that has the potential to attenuate the concerns

of reverse causality from growth to debt. Our results do not identify any clear debt threshold above which medium-term growth prospects are dramatically compromised . On the contrary, the association between debt and medium-term growth becomes rather weak at high levels of debt, especially when controlling for the average growth performance of country peers. We also find evidence that the debt trajectory can be just as important, and possibly more important , than the level of debt in

understanding future growth prospects. Indeed, countries with high but declining levels of debt have historically grown just as fast as their peers. We also find, however, that high levels of debt are weakly associated with higher output volatility. This suggests that high levels of debt may still be associated with market pressure or fiscal and monetary policy actions that, even if they do not have particularly large negative effects on medium-term growth, destabilize it.

No Internal – A2: Reinhart and Rogoff (Boccia)

Study massively flawed – trashes validity of austerity supportersHerndon 13{Thomas, Graduate student in economics UMass Amherst, “Does High Public Debt Consistently Stifle Economic Growth? A Critique of Reinhart and Rogoff,” Political Economy Research Institute, April, http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/working_papers/working_papers_301-350/WP322.pdf#THUR}

We replicate Reinhart and Rogoff (2010a and 2010b) and find that coding errors, selective exclusion of available data, and unconventional weighting of summary statistics lead to serious errors that

inaccurately represent the relationship between public debt and GDP growth among 20 advanced economies in

the post-war period. Our finding is that when properly calculated, the average real GDP growth rate for countries carrying a public-debt-to-GDP ratio of over 90 percent is actually 2.2 percent, not -0.1 percent as published in

Reinhart and Rogoff. That is, contrary to RR, average GDP growth at public debt/GDP ratios over 90 percent is not

dramatically different than when debt/GDP ratios are lower. We also show how the relationship between public

debt and GDP growth varies significantly by time period and country. Overall , the evidence we review

contradicts Reinhart and Rogoff's claim to have identified an important stylized fact, that public debt loads greater than 90

percent of GDP consistently reduce GDP growth.

RR’s permeation into austerity defenders means you reject all their evidence – forms the basis for all other authors’ assumptionsHerndon 13{Thomas, Graduate student in economics UMass Amherst, “Does High Public Debt Consistently Stifle Economic Growth? A Critique of Reinhart and Rogoff,” Political Economy Research Institute, April, http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/working_papers/working_papers_301-350/WP322.pdf#THUR}

According to Reinhart's and Rogoff's website,1 the findings reported in the two 2010 papers formed the basis for testimony before the Senate Budget Committee (Reinhart, February 9, 2010) and a Financial Times opinion piece \Why We

Should Expect Low Growth amid Debt"(Reinhart and Rogo , January 28, 2010). The key tables and figures have been reprinted in additional Reinhart and Rogo publications and presentations of Centre for Economic Policy Research and the Peter G.

Peterson Institute for International Economics. A Google Scholar search for the publication excluding pieces by the authors

themselves finds more than 500 results .2 The key findings have also been widely cited in popular media.

Reinhart's and Rogoff's website lists 76 high-profile features , including The Economist, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, Fox News, National Public Radio, and MSNBC, as well as many international publications and broadcasts. Furthermore, RR 2010a is the only evidence cited in the \Paul Ryan Budget" on the consequences of high public debt for economic growth. Representative Ryan's \Path to Prosperity" reports A well-known study completed by economists Ken Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart con forms this common-sense conclusion. The study found conclusive empirical evidence that gross debt (meaning all debt that a government owes, including debt held in government trust funds) exceeding 90 percent of the economy has a significant negative effect on economic growth. (Ryan 2013 p. 78) RR have clearly exerted a major influence in recent years on public policy debates over the management of government debt

and fiscal policy more broadly. Their findings have provided significant support for the austerity

agenda that has been ascendant in Europe and the United States since 2010

Their errors are enough to flaw public policy and demand rejection of austerityHerndon 13{Thomas, Graduate student in economics UMass Amherst, “Does High Public Debt Consistently Stifle Economic Growth? A Critique of Reinhart and Rogoff,” Political Economy Research Institute, April, http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/working_papers/working_papers_301-350/WP322.pdf#THUR}

The influence of RR's findings comes from its straightforward, intuitive use of data to construct a stylized fact

characterizing the relationship between public debt and GDP growth for a range of national economies. However, this laudable effort at clarity notwithstanding, RR has made significant errors in reaching the conclusion that countries

facing public debt to GDP ratios above 90 percent will experience a major decline in GDP growth.9 The key

identified errors in RR, including spreadsheet errors, omission of available data, weighting, and transcription, reduced the measured average GDP growth of countries in the high public debt category. The full extent of those errors transforms the reality of modestly diminished average GDP

growth rates for countries carrying high levels of public debt into a false image that high public debt ratios inevitably entail sharp declines in GDP growth. Moreover, as we show, there is a wide range of GDP growth performances at every level of public debt among the 20 advanced economies that RR survey. RR's incorrect stylized fact has contributed substantially to ensuring that \traditional debt management issues

should be at the forefront of public policy concerns" (RR 2010a p. 578). Specifically, RR's findings have

served as an intellectual bulwark in support of austerity politics. The fact that RR's findings are wrong

should therefore lead us to reassess the austerity agenda itself in both Europe and the United States

It gets linearity and causality wrongHerndon 13{Thomas, Graduate student in economics UMass Amherst, “Does High Public Debt Consistently Stifle Economic Growth? A Critique of Reinhart and Rogoff,” Political Economy Research Institute, April, http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/working_papers/working_papers_301-350/WP322.pdf#THUR}

We additionally refute the RR evidence for an “historical boundary " around public debt/GDP of 90 percent, above

which growth is substantively and non-linearly reduced. In fact, there is a major non-linearity in the relationship between public debt and GDP growth, but that non-linearity is between the lowest two public

debt/GDP categories, 0{30 percent and 30{60 percent, a range that is not relevant to current policy debate.

For the purposes of this discussion, we follow RR in assuming that causation runs from public debt to GDP growth. RR concludes, \At the very minimum, this would suggest that traditional debt management issues should be at the forefront of public policy concerns" (RR 2010a p. 578).

In other work (see, for example, Reinhart and Rogo (2011)), Reinhart and Rogoff acknowledge the potential for

reverse causality , i.e., that weak economic growth may increase debt by reducing tax revenue and increasing public expenditures. RR 2010a and 2010b, however, make clear that the implied direction of causation runs from public debt to GDP growth.

Study’s errors at the heart of the discussions -- at worst, terminal impact defense-No threshold-Impact exaggerated -Not causalKrugman 13{Paul, Professor of Economics and International Affairs (Princeton), Centenary Professor (LSOE), Awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, “Debt and Growth: The State of the Debate,” New York Times, 5/31, http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/31/debt-and-growth-the-state-of-the-debate/#THUR}

1. There is no threshold at 90 percent, even though that claim has dominated a lot of policy discussion for

three years. The appearance of such a threshold in the original Reinhart-Rogoff paper was an artifact of

missing data (not deliberately, and perhaps unavoidably, but that’s not the issue here ) plus an odd statistical technique . Indeed, it

was in large part an artifact of the treatment of just one country, New Zealand, in the postwar years. 2. There is a mild negative correlation

between debt and growth. Even if this is interpreted as a causal relationship, however, it is not a

strong enough correlation to justify the debt panic of recent years . Brad DeLong’s version: as best as I can tell we are talking that an increase in debt from 50% of a year’s GDP to 150% is associated with a reduction in growth rates of 0.1%/year over the subsequent five years… 3. There is pretty good evidence that the relationship is not, in

fact, causal, that low growth mainly causes high debt rather than the other way around. We’ve spent three years letting policy be dominated by unwarranted fears .

Impact

A2: Turns the Case

DA doesn’t turn the case – Obama will block NOAA cuts even in bad economic conditionsConathan 13{Michael, Director of Ocean Policy at the Center for American Progress, “An Ocean Champion in the White House,” Center for American Progress, 4/26, http://americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2013/04/26/61493/an-ocean-champion-in-the-white-house/#THUR}

It should come as no surprise that a president who grew up in Hawaii and has been known to enjoy the occasional vacation on Martha’s Vineyard

would prioritize policies that result in the improved management of America’s oceans and coasts. In the past few weeks, President Barack Obama

has met such expectations . His administration released a final implementation plan for the National Ocean

Policy that he established by executive order in 2010. It also finalized a budget for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or

NOAA, which, even in a time of sequestration and fiscal austerity, asks for an 11 percent boost from current funding levels.

Both actions show that the administration understands the challenges facing our marine resources and is willing to

prioritize them . President Obama’s National Ocean Policy has drawn fire from Capitol Hill, primarily from congressional Republicans who have painted it as yet another example of government intrusion. House

Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (R-WA) has decried it as an imposition of a new “job-killing regulation.” Rep. Hastings and his colleagues peppered administration witnesses at a 2011 hearing on the National Ocean Policy, concerned that the policy might constitute a jurisdictional overreach that could make life more difficult for agriculture and other industries with “upstream impacts”—and apparently unwilling to accept the idea that

the policy neither creates any new regulations nor kills any jobs. Message received, Chairman Hastings. The updated implementation plan released earlier this month includes new language asserting in no uncertain terms that the concerns of pro-small-government Republicans have been heard. “The Policy does not create new regulations , supersede current regulations, or modify any agency’s established mission, jurisdiction, or authority.

Rather, it helps coordinate the implementation of existing regulations and authorities … in the interest of more efficient decision-making,” it reads. As a result, the policy received endorsements from both the National Corn Growers’ Association and the American Soybean Association, the latter of which called out the plan as a “serious and thoughtful” example of “regulatory streamlining.” Overall, the National Ocean Council did a bang-up job of taking notes, internalizing comments, and taking them into consideration before finalizing its implementation plan. And it didn’t just pay attention to members of

Congress, but also to the folks who commented on the draft plan or raised issues with the policy in general. One aspect of the plan that drew a great deal of consternation is its call for comprehensive ocean management on a regional scale—in effect, the development of regional plans to prioritize certain ocean activities in appropriate areas. Many coastal regions in this country are already participating in what the implementation plan calls “regional

planning bodies,” which are coordinated management entities among neighboring states. In fact, several of these regional ocean partnerships predate even the first draft of the National Ocean Policy released in 2010. While the final implementation plan clearly articulates the benefits of a regional approach to ocean management and planning, it also recognizes that differences in priorities, problems, and ecosystems exist across different areas of the country. In the Northeast, for example, plans aim to resolve conflicts between future offshore-wind-energy development and existing fishing interests, while the Pacific Coast’s priorities will differ since offshore wind cannot be developed there at this time because of technological limitations. Alaska has resisted implementing any of the principles of comprehensive ocean planning at all, prompting sharp criticism from its congressional delegation of the draft implementation plan that would

have required regional planning bodies to be developed in all regions. Many Alaskans viewed this imposition as top-down government meddling in what they consider to be state affairs. Recognizing the need for each region to come to its own conclusions about how best to manage the areas that it knows best, the final implementation plan stresses that regional ocean-planning efforts are voluntary, not mandatory. “States … may choose to participate on regional planning bodies,” reads the final version, which goes on to say that, “Should all states in a region not choose to participate … a regional planning body will not be established.” Even with these changes to the regional ocean-planning structure, the plan received a lukewarm reception from Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), the newly minted ranking member of the Senate Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard. During a hearing earlier this week, Sen. Rubio expressed his concern about the plan, saying that, “Too often the administration puts forth ‘voluntary’ … documents like the National Ocean Policy that, when all is said and done, we’re faced with a new regulatory regime with questionable value and severe economic consequences.” Fishermen, particularly recreational fishermen, also balked at the lack of attention the initial draft of the National Ocean Policy paid to their issues. Commercial fishermen have been plying our waters since before the nation was founded, and anglers comprise arguably the most populous group of ocean users at more than 12 million strong,

according to NOAA. Many feared that the National Ocean Policy would infringe upon their access to fish, even spawning a conspiracy—briefly reported

by ESPN as news—that it was the Obama administration’s goal to shut down America’s waters to fishing. The final implementation plan should help assuage these unfounded fears, as it specifically states that one of its goals is to “ensure continued access” for recreational fishermen and another is to improve the “science that supports increased sustainable fishing opportunity.” If that’s not enough to convince fishermen that this administration has their back,

they need look no further than the president’s fiscal year 2014 budget request for NOAA. At a time when squeezing pennies out of the federal government is nearly impossible, this budget actually calls for an 11 percent increase in the agency’s funding from current levels. This includes boosts to fishery stock assessments, surveys, and monitoring—programs

critical to ensuring that fishery managers have the best possible data with which to set catch limits and other fishery regulations that ensure

maximum possible access for fishermen today and into the future. Increased ocean funding isn’t just good news for folks who enjoy trips to

Hawaii and Martha’s Vineyard. The National Ocean Economics Program has found that ocean-related industries generate more than $258 billion of our gross domestic product, or GDP, and employ more than 2.7 million Americans, with 1.9 million of those jobs in the recreation and tourism industries. This research was fundamental to the establishment of CAP’s Blue Economy Initiative, which seeks to better define the economic value of healthy oceans and coasts. Protecting and sensibly managing our oceans and coasts is more than a ticket to a few nice vistas and

vacation spots—it’s an economic imperative. And these recent actions by the Obama administration prove that they get the

message.

Dollar Defense – Heg Irrel

No impact to hegFettweis, 11 (Christopher J. Fettweis, Department of Political Science, Tulane University, 9/26/11, Free Riding or Restraint? Examining European Grand Strategy, Comparative Strategy, 30:316–332, EBSCO)

It is perhaps worth noting that there is no evidence to support a direct relationship between the relative level of U.S. activism and international stability. In fact, the limited data we do have suggest the opposite may be true.

During the 1990s, the United States cut back on its defense spending fairly substantially. By 1998, the United States was spending $100 billion less on defense in real terms than it had in 1990 .51 To internationalists, defense hawks and believers in hegemonic stability, this irresponsible “peace dividend” endangered both national and global security. “No serious analyst of American military capabilities,” argued Kristol and Kagan, “doubts that the defense budget has been cut much too far to meet America’s responsibilities to itself and to world peace.”52 On the other hand, if the pacific trends were not based upon U.S. hegemony but a strengthening norm against interstate war, one would not have expected an increase in global instability and violence. The verdict from the past two decades is fairly plain: The world grew more peaceful while the U nited S tates cut its forces. No state seemed to believe that its security was endangered by a less- capable United States military, or at least none took any action that would suggest such a belief. No militaries were enhanced to address power vacuums, no security dilemmas drove insecurity or arms races , and no regional balancing occurred once the stabilizing presence of the U.S. military was diminished . The rest of the world acted as if the threat of international war was not a pressing concern, despite the reduction in U.S. capabilities. Most of all, the United States and its allies were no less safe. The incidence and magnitude of global conflict declined while the United States cut its military spending under President Clinton, and kept declining as the Bush Administration ramped the spending back up. No complex statistical analysis should be necessary to reach the conclusion that the two are unrelated. Military spending figures by themselves are insufficient to disprove a connection between overall U.S. actions and international stability. Once again, one could presumably argue that spending is not the only or even the best indication of hegemony, and that it is instead U.S. foreign political and security commitments that maintain stability. Since neither was significantly altered during this period, instability should not have been expected. Alternately, advocates of hegemonic stability could believe that relative rather than absolute spending is decisive in bringing peace. Although the United States cut back on its spending during

the 1990s, its relative advantage never wavered. However, even if it is true that either U.S. commitments or relative spending account for global pacific trends, then at the very least stability can evidently be maintained at drastically lower levels of both. In other words,

even if one can be allowed to argue in the alternative for a moment and suppose that there is in fact a level of engagement below which the United States cannot drop without increasing international disorder, a rational grand strategist would still recommend cutting back on engagement and spending until that level is determined. Grand strategic decisions are never final; continual adjustments can and must be made as time goes on. Basic logic suggests that the United States ought to spend the minimum amount of its blood and treasure while seeking the maximum return on its investment. And if the current era of stability is as stable as many believe it to be, no increase in conflict would ever occur irrespective of U.S. spending, which would save untold trillions for an increasingly debt-ridden nation. It is also perhaps worth noting that if opposite trends had unfolded, if other states had reacted to news of cuts in U.S. defense spending with more aggressive or insecure behavior, then internationalists would surely argue that their expectations had been fulfilled. If increases in conflict would have been interpreted as proof of the wisdom of internationalist strategies, then logical consistency demands that the lack thereof should at least pose a problem. As it stands, the only evidence we have regarding the likely systemic reaction to a more restrained U nited S tates suggests that the current peaceful trends are unrelated to U.S. military spending . Evidently the rest of the world can operate quite effectively without the presence of a global policeman. Those who think otherwise base their view on faith alone.

Dollar Defense – Resilient

Dollar is resilientEH 8 (Economics Help, “US Dollar Predictions 2009”, 12-18, http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/economics/us-dollar-predictions-2009/)

It is difficult to predict the dollar because there are few different factors pulling the dollar in different directions. Firstly, the dollar has been surprisingly resilient since the US slipped into its worst recession and US interest rates tumbled to near 0%. The resilience of the dollar is not based on economic fundamentals but, a general unwinding of positions and the ‘dash for cash ’ Firstly, the dollar benefit from hedge funds and investment trusts deciding to get out of emerging economies. As they sold securities in emerging economies they generally were sold for dollars increasing demand for dollars. Secondly, the prospect of deflation means that people are wanting to hold more cash. In many economies it is

the dollar which is seen as the reserve currency, so there has been an increase in demand for dollar holdings as security against deflation and falling curencies.

Economy Defense – No War

No impact to economic decline – prefer new dataDaniel Drezner 14, IR prof at Tufts, The System Worked: Global Economic Governance during the Great Recession, World Politics, Volume 66. Number 1, January 2014, pp. 123-164

The final significant outcome addresses a dog that hasn't barked: the effect of the Great Recession on cross-border conflict and violence. During the initial stages of the crisis, multiple analysts asserted that the financial crisis would lead states to increase their use of force as a tool for staying in power.42 They voiced genuine concern that the global economic downturn would lead to an increase in conflict—whether through greater internal repression, diversionary wars, arms races, or a ratcheting up of great power conflict. Violence in the Middle East, border disputes in the South China Sea, and even the disruptions of the Occupy movement fueled impressions of a surge in global public disorder. The

aggregate data suggest otherwise , however . The Institute for Economics and Peace has concluded that "the average level of peacefulness in 2012 is approximately the same as it was in 2007 ."43 Interstate violence in particular has declined since the start of the financial crisis, as have military expenditures in most sampled countries. Other studies confirm that the Great Recession has not triggered any increase in violent conflict , as Lotta Themner and Peter Wallensteen conclude: "[T]he pattern is one of relative stability when we consider the trend for the past five years."44 The secular decline in violence that started with the end of the Cold War has not been reversed. Rogers Brubaker observes that "the crisis has not to date generated the surge in protectionist nationalism or ethnic exclusion that might have been expected."43

No econ decline war---best and most recent dataDrezner, 12 (Daniel W. Drezner, Professor, The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, October 2012, “The Irony of Global Economic Governance: The System Worked,” http://www.globaleconomicgove rnance.org/wp-content/uploads/IR-Colloquium-MT12-Week-5_The-Irony-of-Global-Economic-Governance.pdf

The final outcome addresses a dog that hasn’t barked: the effect of the Great Recession on cross-border conflict and violence. During the initial stages of the crisis, multiple analysts asserted that the financial crisis would lead states to increase their use of force as a tool for staying in power.37 Whether through greaterinternal

repression, diversionary wars, arms races, or a ratcheting up of great power conflict , there were genuine concerns that the global economic downturn would lead to an increase in conflict. Violence in the Middle East, border disputes in the South China Sea,

and even the disruptions of the Occupy movement fuel impressions of surge in global public disorder. ¶ The aggregate data suggests

otherwise , however. The Institute for Economics and Peace has constructed a “Global Peace Index” annually since 2007. A key conclusion

they draw from the 2012 report is that “The average level of peacefulness in 2012 is approximately the same as it was in

20 07. ”38 Interstate violence in particular has declined since the start of the financial crisis – as have

military expenditures in most sampled countries. Other studies confirm thatthe Great Recession has not triggered any increase in violent conflict ; the secular decline in violence that started with the end of the Cold War has not been

reversed.39 Rogers Brubaker concludes, “the crisis has not to date generated the surge in protectionist nationalism or ethnic exclusion that might have been expected.”40¶ None of these data suggest that the global economy is operating swimmingly. Growth remains unbalanced and fragile, and has clearly slowed in 2012. Transnational capital flows remain depressed compared to pre-crisis levels, primarily due to a drying up of cross-border interbank lending in Europe. Currency volatility remains an ongoing concern. Compared to the aftermath of other postwar recessions, growth in output, investment, and employment in the developed world have all lagged

behind. But the Great Recession is not like other postwar recessions in either scope or kind; expecting a standard “V”-shaped recovery was unreasonable. One financial analyst characterized the post-2008 global economy as in a state of “contained depression.”41 The key word is “contained,” however. Given the severity, reach and depth of the 2008 financial crisis , the proper comparison is with Great Depression . And by that standard, the outcome variables look impressive. As Carmen Reinhart

and Kenneth Rogoff concluded in This Time is Different: “that its macroeconomic outcome has been only the most severe global recession since World War II – and not even worse – must be regarded as fortunate.”42

No impactBarnett 9 (Thomas, Senior Strategic Researcher – Naval War College, “The New Rules: Security Remains Stable Amid Financial Crisis”, Asset Protection Network, 8-25, http://www.aprodex.com/the-new-rules--security-remains-stable-amid-financial-crisis-398-bl.aspx)

When the global financial crisis struck roughly a year ago, the blogosphere was ablaze with all sorts of scary predictions of, and commentary regarding, ensuing conflict and wars -- a rerun of the Great Depression leading to world war, as it were. Now, as global economic news brightens and recovery -- surprisingly led by China and emerging markets -- is the talk

of the day, it's interesting to look back over the past year and realize how globalization's first truly worldwide recession has had virtually no impact whatsoever on the international security landscape. No ne of the more than three-dozen

ongoing conflicts listed by GlobalSecurity.org can be clearly attributed to the global recession . Indeed, the last new entry (civil conflict between Hamas and Fatah in the Palestine) predates the economic crisis by a year, and three quarters of

the chronic struggles began in the last century. Ditto for the 15 low-intensity conflicts listed by Wikipedia (where the latest entry is the Mexican "drug war" begun in 2006). Certainly, the Russia-Georgia conflict last August was specifically timed, but by most accounts the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics was the most important external trigger (followed by the U.S. presidential campaign) for that sudden spike in an almost two-decade long struggle between Georgia and its two breakaway regions. Looking over the various databases, then, we see a most familiar picture: the usual mix of civil conflicts, insurgencies, and liberation-themed terrorist movements. Besides the recent Russia-Georgia dust-up, the only two potential state-on-state wars (North v. South Korea, Israel v. Iran) are both tied to

one side acquiring a nuclear weapon capacity -- a process wholly unrelated to global economic trends . And with the

U nited S tates effectively tied down by its two ongoing major interventions (Iraq and Afghanistan-bleeding-into-Pakistan), our

involvement elsewhere around the planet has been quite modest , both leading up to and following the onset of the economic crisis: e.g., the usual counter-drug efforts in Latin America, the usual military exercises with allies across Asia, mixing it up with pirates

off Somalia's coast). Everywhere else we find serious instability we pretty much let it burn , occasionally pressing the Chinese -- unsuccessfully -- to do something. Our new Africa Command, for example, hasn't led us to anything beyond advising and training local forces. So, to sum up : No significant uptick in mass violence or unrest (remember the smattering of urban riots last

year in places like Greece, Moldova and Latvia?); The usual frequency maintained in civil conflicts (in all the usual places); Not a single

state-on-state war directly caused (and no great-power -on-great-power crises even triggered ); No great

improvement or disruption in great-power cooperation regarding the emergence of new nuclear powers (despite all that diplomacy); A modest scaling back of international policing efforts by the system's acknowledged Leviathan power (inevitable given the strain); and No serious efforts by any rising great power to challenge that Leviathan or supplant its role. (The worst things we can cite are Moscow's occasional deployments of strategic assets to the Western hemisphere and its weak efforts to outbid the United States on basing rights in Kyrgyzstan; but the best include China and India stepping up their aid and investments in Afghanistan and Iraq.) Sure, we've finally seen global defense spending surpass the previous world record set in the late 1980s, but even that's likely to wane given the stress on public budgets created by all this unprecedented "stimulus" spending. If anything, the friendly cooperation on such stimulus packaging was the most notable great-power dynamic caused by the crisis. Can we say that the world has suffered a distinct shift to political radicalism as a

result of the economic crisis? Indeed, no. The world's major economies remain governed by center-left or center-right political

factions that remain decidedly friendly to both markets and trade. In the short run, there were attempts across the board to insulate

economies from immediate damage (in effect, as much protectionism as allowed under current trade rules), but there was no great slide into "trade wars." Instead, the W orld T rade O rganization is functioning as it was designed to function, and regional

efforts toward free-trade agreements have not slowed. Can we say Islamic radicalism was inflamed by the economic crisis? If it was, that

shift was clearly overwhelmed by the Islamic world's growing disenchantment with the brutality displayed by violent

extremist groups such as al-Qaida. And looking forward, austere economic times are just as likely to breed connecting evangelicalism as

disconnecting fundamentalism. At the end of the day, the economic crisis did not prove to be sufficiently frightening to provoke major economies into establishing global regulatory schemes, even as it has sparked a spirited -- and much needed, as I argued last week -- discussion of the continuing viability of the U.S. dollar as the world's primary reserve currency. Naturally, plenty of experts and pundits have attached great significance to this debate, seeing in it the beginning of "economic warfare" and the like between "fading" America and "rising" China. And yet, in a world of globally integrated production chains and interconnected financial markets, such "diverging interests" hardly constitute signposts for wars up ahead. Frankly, I don't welcome a world in which America's fiscal profligacy goes undisciplined, so bring it on -- please! Add it all up and it's fair to say that this global financial crisis has proven the great resilience of America's post-World War II international liberal

trade order. Do I expect to read any analyses along those lines in the blogosphere any time soon? Absolutely not. I expect the fantastic

fear-mongering to proceed apace. That's what the Internet is for.

Economy Defense – Resilient

Economy resilient – debt ceiling and gridlock prove even if crises hinder growth, they don’t prevent itPerez 13{Tom, US Secretary of Labor, former law professor (Maryland), M.A. Public Policy (Harvard), Ph.D. in Law (Harvard), “The Resilience of the American Economy,” US Department of Labor, 11/8, http://social.dol.gov/blog/the-resilience-of-the-american-economy/#THUR}

The American economy is resilient . October’s jobs report demonstrates continued steady growth ,

with the addition of 212,000 total private sector jobs in October. The unemployment rate, which fell in September to a nearly-five

year low of 7.2 percent, remains essentially unchanged at 7.3 percent, while American manufacturers added

19,000 jobs in the month of October. But while American businesses continue to add jobs — 7.8 million over the last 44

months of private sector job growth — they do so in spite of Congress , not because of it. October’s job growth was undoubtedly restrained by the brinksmanship and uncertainty created by the federal government shutdown and the near-default on the nation’s debt. The American economy is resilient, but it is not immune to manufactured crises. We see signs that suggest the shutdown had a discouraging effect on America’s continued recovery. We remain concerned about the drop in the labor force participation rate, and American workers on

temporary layoffs rose by nearly 448,000, the largest monthly increase in the history of that series of data. The American people deserve leadership that focuses on growing the economy — not holding it hostage. Let’s keep our eye on the ball by passing immigration reform, which has bipartisan support and would inject a trillion dollars into the economy, and investing in infrastructure upgrades that would create thousands of middle class jobs right now. Instead of erecting political roadblocks, let’s work together to pave bipartisan roads

to full recovery. Today’s employment numbers are a reminder that while the economy continues to grow

and create new jobs , it remains on uncertain footing. Too many Americans still find the rungs on the ladder of opportunity beyond their reach. We need to move forward with common-sense proposals that will create jobs, strengthen the middle class, reduce our deficit and expand opportunity for American families. The president and I stand ready to work with Congress to do just that.

2014 economy particularly resilientMantell 14{Ruth, syndicated economic reporter, “Leading Data Signal ‘Resilient’ Economy in 2014,” Market Watch via Wall Street Journal, 2/20, http://www.marketwatch.com/story/leading-data-signal-resilient-economy-in-2014-2014-02-20#THUR}

The economy will likely “ remain resilient ” in the first half of 2014, with underlying conditions

improving , the Conference Board said Thursday as it reported monthly growth and stable trends for its gauge

of leading economic indicators. The LEI rose 0.3% in January, following no change in December, signaling an economy “that is expanding moderately , although the pace is somewhat held back by persistent and severe inclement weather,” said Ken

Goldstein , a board economist. Effects from the harsh winter have also shown up in recent data on retail sales and housing . Unfortunately, the poor weather

makes it tough for economists to clearly identify trends underlying month-to-month economic volatility. Some of the economic activity that has been

delayed by poor weather, such as home construction, could spring back in coming months . Elsewhere Thursday, reports were mixed on how poor weather is impacting manufacturers. A gauge from the Federal Reserve Bank of

Philadelphia signaled that a sharp drop in February for its regional manufacturing gauge was largely due to winter storms. Meanwhile, a separate barometer that covers U.S. manufacturing showed that growth picked up this month to the highest level since 2010, indicating a rebound from the winter slowdown. The LEI is a weighted

gauge of 10 indicators designed to signal business cycle peaks and troughs. Among the 10 indicators tracked by the Conference Board’s index, five made positive contributions in January, led by the interest rate spread. The largest negative

contribution came from building permits. Meanwhile, core capital goods orders — these are the sort of big-ticket investments companies make when they are confident about their future — were neutral last month. “If the economy is going to move on to a faster track in 2014 compared to last year, consumer demand and

especially investment will need to pick up significantly from their current trends,” Goldstein said. On a brighter note, trends for the LEI

reflect stability . Over the six months through January, the LEI rose 3.1%, close to a gain of 3.2% for the six-month period

that ended in December.

Poverty Defense – Alt Causes

Poverty inevitable – alt causes overwhelm Baker and Weisbrot, 3 (Dean and Mark, Co-Directors – Center for Economic and Policy Research, “False Promises on Trade”, 7-25, http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0725-02.htm)

Similarly, most of sub-Saharan Africa is suffering from an un-payable debt burden. While there has been some limited relief offered in recent years, the remaining debt burden is still more than the debtor countries spend on health care and education. The list of problems imposed on developing countries can be extended at length bans on the industrial policies that led to successful

development in the west, the imposition of patents on drugs and copyrights on computer software and recorded material,

inappropriate macro-economic policies imposed by the IMF and the World Bank. All of these factors are likely to

have far more severe consequences for the development prospects of low and middle-income countries than the agricultural policies of rich countries.

Poverty Defense – Declining

New tech solves poverty—mobile tech enables money transfers, microfinance loans, helps small businesses, new market information, businesses can reach customers and suppliers, enables entrepreneurshipWest, 13 (Darrell M. – Vice President and Director of Governance Studies and Director of the Center for Technology Innovation at the Brookings Institution and former John Hazen White Professor of Political Science and Public Policy and Director of the Taubman Center for Public Policy at Brown University, 5/16, “Alleviating Poverty: Mobile Communications, Microfinance and Small Business Development Around the World”, Brookings, http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2013/05/16-poverty-mobile-microfinance-business-west)

Poverty is one of the most pressing problems around the world. According to statistics from the World Bank, nearly one-quarter of the global population lives at or below the poverty line of $1.25 per day.[i] With so many people struggling for basic subsistence, it is hard for those affected to get out of poverty, gain access to capital, or develop small firms or businesses that help them build a better life.

Yet with the growth of mobile technology, there are new opportunities for individuals and small businesses to lift themselves up. People can use handheld devices to make monetary transfers , arrange for

microfinance loans, establish small enterprises , and improve their economic circumstances . This helps

them alleviate poverty and create a better situation for themselves and their families.

Jeffrey Sachs, director of Columbia University's Earth Institute, said that wireless communication is a

breakthrough technology that helps to solve the worst problems associated with health care, poverty, and educational

access. "Now in every village where I go, someone's got a cell phone, somebody can make an emergency call, someone can find out the price on the market, someone can start a business empowered by the fact that they can reach a customer or a supplier, someone can drive a taxi or a truck for that reason as well. Everything is changing," said Sachs.[ii]In this Mobile Economy Project report, Darrell West looks at the growth of handheld devices and investigates the barriers to doing business in the developing world. In particular, West

explores how mobile devices enable individual entrepreneurship and small business development . Despite

the presence of barriers such as corruption , lack of transparency and capital, and poor infrastructure in many parts of the

developing world, there are successful ventures enabled by mobile tech nology.

Poverty is rapidly decreasingWolf 3 (Martin, Associate Editor and Chief Economics Commentator – Financial Times “Are Global Poverty and Inequality Getting Worse?”, Prospect Magazine, March, http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?i d=4982)

All data on incomes and income distribution are questionable, above all those generated in developing countries. But, contrary to what you say, World Bank researchers have calculated the numbers in extreme poverty-less than $1 a day-on a consistent basis, in recent studies. The data shows a decline since 1980 of 200m people in the category of the absolutely poor. This is a fall from 31 per cent of the world's

population to 20 per cent (not 24 per cent, which is the proportion in developing countries alone). That is a spectacularly rapid fall in poverty by historical standards. It makes a nonsense of the idea that poverty alleviation has been blighted by globalisation. Now turn to the even murkier area of inequality. Here you argue that if we exclude China and India, there is no obvious trend in

inequality. But why would one want to exclude two countries that contained about 60 per cent of the world's poorest people two decades ago and still contain almost 40 per cent of the world's population today? To fail to give these giants their due weight in a discussion ofglobal poverty alleviation or income distribution would be Hamlet without the prince. You then write that changes in relative average incomes across countries are not what we are really interested in, "which is the income distribution among all the world's people or households." This is wrong in itself. If a country's average income rises rapidly, it does also possess greater means for improving the lot of the poor. Maybe the government refuses to use the opportunity, but a successor government could. In any case, we do possess data on relative household incomes. In a Foreign Affairs article, David Dollar and Aart Kraay of the World Bank report a big decline in world-wide income inequality since its peak in about 1970. The study builds on work that goes back to 1820. The underlying method is to calculate the percentage gap between a randomly selected individual and the world average. The more unequal the distribution of world income, the bigger that gap becomes. They report that this gap peaked at 88 per cent of world average income in 1970, before falling to 78 per cent in 1995, roughly where it was in 1950. The chief driver of changes in inequality among households is changes between countries, not within them. This was also the finding of Branko Milanovic's study of global household income distribution between 1988 and 1993, which you cite approvingly. You rely on this study to support the thesis of rising household inequality. But it contains at least four defects. First, there are well-known inconsistencies between data on household expenditures and national accounts. Second, the methods used generate no increase in rural real incomes in China, which is inconsistent with most views of what

actually happened. Third, the period of five years is very short. Fourth and most important, this was an atypical period, because India had an economic upheaval in 1991, while China's growth was temporarily slowed by the Tiananmen crisis. My conclusion is that the last two decades saw a decline not just in absolute poverty but also in world-wide inequality among households. The chief explanation for this was the fast growth of China and, to a lesser extent, of India. This progress was not offset by rising inequality within them. In the case of India there was no such rise. In China there has been a rise in inequality in the more recent period of its growth, largely because of controls on the movement of people from the hinterland to the coastal regions.

Readiness Defense – Alt Causes

Readiness collapse inevitable – equipment shortfallsPerry and Flournoy, 6 (William and Michael, “The US Military: Under Strain and at Risk”, National Defense Magazine, May, http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2006/may/TheU.S.MilitaryUnder.htm)

The Army and the Army National Guard also have experienced equipment shortfalls that increased the level of risk to forces

deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan and reduced the readiness of units in the United States. From the beginning of the Iraq war until as late as last year, the active Army experienced shortages of key equipment — such as radios, up-armored Humvees, trucks,

machine guns, rifles, grenade launchers, and night vision equipment — for troops deploying overseas. While many of these shortfalls have now been addressed for deployed units, the readiness ratings of many non-deployed units have dropped . This is particularly worrisome because some of these units are slated to deploy later this year. This situation is even worse for Army National Guard units, many of which have had to leave their equipment sets in Iraq for arriving units. Th ese readiness shortfalls are only likely to grow as the war in Iraq continues to accelerate the wear-out rate of all categories of equipment for ground forces.

Readiness Defense – No Impact

No impact – we’ve survived periods of low readinessNSN, 8 (National Security Network 8 (May 13, http://www.nsnetwork.org/node/850)

Our military is second to none, but eight years of negligence, lack of accountability , and a reckless war in Iraq have left our ground forces facing shortfalls in both recruitment and readiness . Every service is out of balance and ill-prepared. We need a new strategy to give the military the tools it needs for the challenges we face today. And we need leadership that meets our obligations to the men and women who put their lives on the line. Overview The U.S. military is a fighting force second to none. It didn’t get that way by accident – it took decades of careful stewardship by civilian as well as military leaders in the Pentagon, the White House, and on Capitol Hill. But eight years of Administration recklessness, and a lack of oversight from conservatives on Capitol Hill, have put the military under enormous strain. Active-duty generals at the highest levels have said that “the current demand for our forces is not sustainable… We can’t sustain the all-volunteer force at the pace that we are going on right

now” (Army Chief of Staff George Casey, April 2008); that in terms of readiness, many brigades being sent back to Afghanistan and Iraq were “not where they need to be” (Army Vice-Chief of Staff Richard Cody, SASC subcommittee

hearing, April 14, 2008); and that “we cannot now meet extra force requirements in places like Afghanistan” (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mullen on National Public Radio, April 2008). Readiness and Response: Two-thirds of the Army – virtually all of the brigades not currently deployed to Afghanistan or Iraq – are rated “not combat ready.” The dramatic equipment shortages of a few years ago have been improved but not completely remedied. Recruitment and Retention: These conditions of service, and the strains they place on military family members, have hindered Army efforts (and to a

lesser extent those of the Marine Corps) to recruit and retain the requisite number and quantity of service members. The Army has been forced to lower its educational and moral standards and allow an increasing number of felons into its ranks . It is also struggling to keep junior officers, the brains of the force, who represent the height of the military’s investment in its people – and whose willingness to stay on represents a crucial judgment on Administration policies. The Marine Corps, America’s emergency 911 force, is under similar strain. The Commandant of the Marine Corps said in February 2008 that the Marines will not be able to maintain a long term presence in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The National Guard and Reserve are already suffering from severe shortages of equipment and available combat personnel. In many states, the Army National Guard would struggle to respond to a natural or man-made disaster – just as the Kansas National Guard struggled to respond to the severe tornados last year. How, and whether, we rebuild our military in the wake of the fiasco in Iraq will likely shape it for the next generation. Too much of our military posture is left over from the Cold War. Our forces are being ground down by low-tech insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the most immediate threat confronting the U.S. is a terrorist network that possesses no tanks or aircraft. We must learn the lessons of Iraq and dramatically transform our military into a 21st century fighting force ready to confront the threats of today and tomorrow.

Readiness isn’t key to hegGeorge 99 (James, Former Congressional Professional Staff Member for National Security Affairs, “Is Military Readiness Overrated?”, Cato Institute, 5-27, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5445)

Military readiness promises to be a major issue when Congress marks up a defense bill later this year. Some members of Congress are already using readiness as a reason to increase funding in the emergency spending bill for the war in Yugoslavia. Most experts cite the initial stages of the Korean

War and the Hollow Force of the late 1970s as cautionary examples of being ill-prepared. A closer look at both those examples, however, shows that they really had little to do with readiness . Moreover, the current crisis in Yugoslavia illustrates once again why

readiness may be overrated and the funds better spent elsewhere. Although often used as a generic term for all military

capabilities, readiness--defined as the ability to respond with appropriate force with little or no warning--is only one of four pillars of military preparedness . The other pillars are force structure, modernization and sustainability . Thus, an effective military force depends on much more than just readiness . Interestingly, the two favorite examples cited by readiness alarmists fail to prove their case. The performance of Task Force Smith, an ill-prepared battalion quickly sent to the front and fairly easily routed by the North Koreans during the initial days of the Korean War, is often cited as the worst case. "No More Task Force Smiths" has become a mantra for the Army. However, critics of Task Force Smith fail to point out that U.S. commanders made the most basic of military mistakes--including grossly underestimating the enemy and sending TFS to an exposed position. When such blunders occur, the end result will be the same whether it is an ill-trained

Task Force Smith in Korea or well-trained Marines in Beirut or elite Rangers in Somalia. Moreover, critics also fail to mention that barely a month later the U nited S tates stabilized the situation in South Korea, and in another month the Marines conducted their famous Inchon Landing. In fact, without the Chinese intervention, the United States would have won the Korean War a few months after it began. Not

bad for a U.S. force that was supposedly ill-prepared. Similarly, the Hollow Force of the late 1970s was not primarily a readiness problem but a combination of many factors--including a military characterized by low morale after Vietnam, serious drug and racial problems, the erroneous induction of too many mentally substandard recruits and low pay eroded further by high inflation. At the same time, major structural changes were transforming the U.S. military, including the introduction of women into the regular forces, the switch from a draft to an all-volunteer force and the initiation of the Total Force Concept that placed more reliance on the Reserves. Given all of that turbulence, no wonder we had a Hollow Force. Often overlooked, however, is how quickly those problems were solved. In some cases, solutions were found without spending a dime. For example, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Thomas Hayward instituted his "Not in my Navy" program of zero tolerance for drugs. The drug problem was solved almost overnight. The induction of too many mentally substandard recruits by mistake which had lowered standards, was identified and corrected. That correction solved most other personnel problems (and should be a warning to people who want to lower standards today). Some members of Congress are now using the crisis in Yugoslavia to get more funds for readiness by arguing that the military is now stretched "too thin." (Congress doubled President Clinton's request for $6 billion in emergency spending for the war.) In fact, the situation is quite the opposite. Leaving aside the question of whether the United States should even be involved in Yugoslavia, the new Clinton Doctrine, which does not plan to use ground troops ( a position that is supported by many Republicans), limits the stress placed on the military. Those decisions are all deliberate political actions that have absolutely nothing to do with readiness. Under a well-conceived strategy, even a modestly capable force will probably perform well; but under a poorly conceived strategy, even a force with the highest degree of readiness

will probably have serious problems. The experiences of Task Force Smith and the Hollow Force, as well as the invocation of a Clinton Doctrine that eschews the use of ground forces, have major implications. More forces, for example, could be placed in the reserves and scarce funds spent elsewhere . In addition, the military could switch to what Sen. John McCain (R- Ariz.) has called "Tiered Readiness:" a few forces would be kept on expensive ready status and be augmented by reserve forces that could be mobilized if a substantial threat to U.S. security arose. Military readiness is certainly important, and no one is suggesting a return to the truly shallow force

of the late 1940s or the Hollow Force of the 1970s. But a close look at those forces shows that their difficulties involved much

more than just poor readiness .