These Da's

7/30/2019 These Da's

1/12

DAWater Tradeoff

Water infrastructure funding is shaky and barely sufficient, but it will be the first to be cutAmbrosio 2/14(Patrick, 2012, immunologist, EPA Proposal Cuts Water Infrastructure Funds, Increases Air, Water Pollution Grants,http://www.bna.com/epa-proposal-cuts-n12884907868/, jkim)

Government wide Effort to Cut Spending EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told reporters during a Feb. 13 telephone news

briefing that the proposed budget is part of a government wide effort to reduce spending and find cost savings. It demonstratesthe fiscal responsibility called for at this moment, Jackson said. Some difficult choices are being made in this budget. In other

environmental spending, the president's proposed budgetfor the Energy Department emphasizes development ofclean energy sources. The budget proposal also includes a slight increase in funding for the Interior Department. (See relatedstories in this issue on the Interior Department and clean energy programs.) Moreover, the administration's budget requests a 1.4percent increase in federal research programs, including increases for the National Nanotechnology Init iative and climate change.

Pipeline safety programs also wouldseea significant budget increase. (See related stories in this issue on nanotechnology,climate change, and pipeline safety). Proposed Cuts to WaterRevolving FundsMost ofthe savings achievedin the president's proposed EPA budget are the result of a $359 million decrease in fundingfor the clean water and drinking water staterevolving funds. Thebudgetproposal calls forapproximately $1.18 billion for the clean water state revolving fund, which provides funds forwastewater treatment and watershed management programs. This is a 19.8 percent reductionfrom theapproximately $1.47 billion enacted in fiscal 2012. The drinking water state revolving fund would see a smaller decrease under

the president's budget, which allows for $850 million in fiscal 2013. The drinking water state revolving fund received $918

million in fiscal 2012. The revolving funds allow states to make loans to municipalities to fundwater infrastructure projects. EPA said in its budget justification document that theagency will work to target assistance to small and underserved communities . Concerns RaisedAbout Cuts Steve Brown, executive director of the Environmental Council of the States, told Bloomberg BNA that althoughECOS was expecting a cut to the SRFs, the proposed cuts are a little more than we were hoping to see. Brown added thateverybody goes to the SRF to find money when looking for a place to cut funding. Brown said that ECOS was pleased to seethat some of the funding taken away from the state water revolving funds was redirected to state categorical grants. However, henoted that EPA's decision to eliminate funding for state categorical grants for beaches will likely have some opposition. I knowthere is going to be a reaction to that, Brown said.

The plan will cut water infrastructure fundingBlaufus et al 4(Larry, June 11, A PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF BRIDGE TOLLS AS A FUNDING OPTION, Lainye Heiles, Dave Hurt, GeorgeMartin, Meridee Pabst, Keith Upkes, This project was conducted under the auspices of Leadership Clark County (LLC), a community leadership training programfounded in 1992 to provide an opportunity for citizens to gain community knowledge and leadership skills that wi ll enable them to be more effective in theircommunity involvement, http://www.leadershipclarkcounty.com/assets/tolls.pdf, jkim)

Several other projects and programs compete with transportation projects for funding.Each one will have merits that are important to the community. So how is a decision made that benefits all on alimited budget? Or do we continue to ask the voters for new funding measures in order to get everything that is

needed? It seems obvious, based on the denial of tax measures recently as well as the turnback of existing taxes, that new taxes are not the answer. Projects that create or sustain jobs arecritical in the region. In order to get those jobs, the quality of life has to be at a high standard. That includeseducation, personal protection and safety, transportation, and other infrastructure that people depend on in the day-to-day functions of life. There was consensus among the interviewees that were surveyed for this study that every

program competes with transportation. The demands for public dollars have become so competitive

that when the government asks for a few dollars here to build a new road, it appears totake away some funds to buy new books for the schools. The voters seem to have adopted theattitude that it is one agency working against the other and they must choose which one is more important. Localplanners and land use consultants have stated that every program competes with transportation. And there is

competition for every dollar. The result of this "forced" competition between various publicagencies is a lack of coordination for the welfare of the community. Each agency seems to havethe view that it better get its project funded ahead of the others, otherwise the voters will say "no" on a ballotmeasure. As a result, local jurisdictions are doing "break-out runs" for funding, attempting to get their own

measures on the ballot for funding (e.g., C-TRAN, Battle Ground parks bond, and Metro parks district). There is


2/12

essentially no coordination between jurisdictions' efforts. The other programs that competewith transportation include just about everything elseamong others, social, education,welfare, environmental programs, judicial, and safety. The competitive environment forfunding is extreme. Growth in Clark County has put demand on the infrastructure system as a whole so manyentities are in need of money: transit (C-TRAN), libraries, parks, schools, fire departments, surface water drainage.Public safety (police and fire) will always take priority in funding

Prioritization of water infrastructure keymust shift infrastructure fundingfocusAR 12(American Rivers, journal on funding and protection for rivers, Clean water infrastructurefunding, updated 2012,http://www.americanrivers.org/our-work/clean-water/sewage-and-stormwater/investing-smarter-in.html)There is an immediate need to significantly reinvest in repairing and replacing Americas

traditional water and wastewater infrastructure. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates thatthe nation must invest $390 billion over a 20 year period to update or replace existing wastewatersystems or risk having water quality regress to mid-1970s pollution levels. American Rivers isworking at all levels to ensure that we use our infrastructure funding more wisely by encouraging smart,

21st century approaches that will more effectively protect clean and safe water into the future. Suchsustainable approaches use green infrastructure, water efficiency, and reuse to complement andextend the life of traditional infrastructure and often require less money while providing greaterenvironmental and community benefits, including green jobs, reduced flooding, temperatures and energycosts, and community beautification. Already, green infrastructure is being used successfully by a numberof cities around the country, and interest continues to grow as communities recognize the multiplebenefits of using cost-effective techniques such as rain gardens, green roofs, and permeablepavement to manage stormwater on-site, reducing the need for expensive, hard infrastructureprojects and stretching scarce dollars further. Now we must build on these successes andinstitutionalize these practices, in part by prioritizing them in our funding mechanisms.

Water is a human rightwater scarcity causes a loss in value to life and dehumanizationENS 10(Environment News Service,7/29/10, UN recognizes Access to Clean Water as a Human Right, http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jul2010/2010-07-29-01.html, AM)

NEW YORK, New York, July 29, 2010 (ENS) -Access to clean, safe drinking water is now an official basichuman right everywhere in the world, like the rights to life, health, food and adequate housing. The water rightsresolution wasapprovedlate Wednesday by the United Nations General Assembly, not unanimously, but withoutopposition. Safe and clean drinking water and sanitation is a human right essential to thefull enjoyment of life and all other human rights , the United Nations General Assembly declared Wednesday, votingto expand the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to include the right to clean water and sanitation. The 192-member Assembly called onUnited Nations member states and international organizations to offer funding, technology and other resources to help poorer countries scale uptheir efforts to provide clean, accessible and affordable drinking water and sanitation for everyone. Introduced by Bolivia, the resolution received122 votes in favor and zero votes against, while 41 countries abstained from voting. The text of the resolution expresses deep concern that an

estimated 884 million people lack access to safe drinking water and a total of more than 2.6 billion people, 40 percent of the global population, donot have access to basic sanitation. About 1.5 million children under the age of five die each year because of water-related and sanitation-relateddiseases.
http://www.americanrivers.org/our-work/clean-water/sewage-and-stormwater/investing-smarter-in.htmlhttp://www.americanrivers.org/our-work/clean-water/sewage-and-stormwater/investing-smarter-in.htmlhttp://www.americanrivers.org/our-work/clean-water/sewage-and-stormwater/investing-smarter-in.htmlhttp://www.epa.gov/safewater/gapreport.pdfhttp://www.americanrivers.org/our-work/clean-water/sewage-and-stormwater/clean-water-infrastructure-1.htmlhttp://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/greeninfrastructure/gicasestudies.cfm#Municipalhttp://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/greeninfrastructure/gicasestudies.cfm#Municipalhttp://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jul2010/2010-07-29-01.htmlhttp://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jul2010/2010-07-29-01.htmlhttp://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtmlhttp://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jul2010/2010-07-29-01.htmlhttp://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jul2010/2010-07-29-01.htmlhttp://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jul2010/2010-07-29-01.htmlhttp://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jul2010/2010-07-29-01.htmlhttp://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtmlhttp://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jul2010/2010-07-29-01.htmlhttp://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/greeninfrastructure/gicasestudies.cfm#Municipalhttp://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/greeninfrastructure/gicasestudies.cfm#Municipalhttp://www.americanrivers.org/our-work/clean-water/sewage-and-stormwater/clean-water-infrastructure-1.htmlhttp://www.epa.gov/safewater/gapreport.pdfhttp://www.americanrivers.org/our-work/clean-water/sewage-and-stormwater/investing-smarter-in.htmlhttp://www.americanrivers.org/our-work/clean-water/sewage-and-stormwater/investing-smarter-in.html


3/12

DAEducation Tradeoff

Unique linkeducation will get cut only if new spending like the plan happensLuzer 9/17 (Daniel, writer for Washington Monthly, Planned Disaster and Higher Education,http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/blog/planned_disaster_and_higher_ed.php)

The fiscal cliff that will occur on January 1, 2013 if Congress fails to enact a long-term deficit reduction plan could bevery difficult for college students. In August last year, in order to avert financial catastrophe and allow the country to

increase its debt limit,President Barack Obama signed the Budget Control Act of 2011. The actstipulated that if Congress didnt produce a long term plan all sorts of cuts ($1.2 trillionover the next 10 years) to domestic spendingsequestrationwould happen automatically.According to a report released Friday by the Office of Management and Budget, the mandatorycuts will be arbitrary and severe. As Libby Nelsonwrites at Inside Higher Ed: For many highereducation programs, the outlook isnt good: an 8.2 percent across-the-board program cutfor domestic discretionary programs, which make up most of the higher education budget,and a 7.6 percent cut for mandatory spending programs. While the Pell Grant is protectedfrom the cuts during fiscal year 2013, as is the College Access Challenge Grant, other federal

financial aid programs would be cut by 7.6 percent across the board, including theSupplemental Educational Opportunity Grant and federal work-study. Student loanorigination fees would also increase. The federal programs whose grants sustain universityresearchthe National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health, as well as theNational Endowment for the Humanitieswould see the same across-the-board 7.6 percentcut to mandatory spending and 8.2 percent to discretionary spending. Federal collegeaccess programs, such as TRIO and GEAR UP, would also see a 8.2 percent cut. With theexception of the research programs virtually all of the sequestration cuts in higher education willhave the greatest adverse effect on Americas lower income students.

Incorporating vocational training into high schools stops the slide toward protectionismFurchtgott-Roth 7senior fellow and director of Hudson Institute's Center for Employment Policy(Diana, "Adjusting to Free Trade" http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=5285&pubType=Trd)

In addition to workforce training, America needs to take a fundamental look at its educationsystem. We need to reduce our high-school dropout ratesby incorporating vocationaltraining, if necessaryand encourage young people to get as much education as possible. Thisprepares them for a succession of careers, rather than just one, and enables them to change jobsmore easily. Such changes, many of which have repeatedly been proposed by President Bushand rejected by Congress, would mitigate the negative impacts of free trade on the small poolof affected workers. Addressing these workers problems would be far better for theeconomy, and for most other American workers, than sliding toward protectionism.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/blog/planned_disaster_and_higher_ed.phphttp://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-miles-square/2012/08/the_fiscal_facts_of_life_do_am039191.phphttp://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-miles-square/2012/08/the_fiscal_facts_of_life_do_am039191.phphttp://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-miles-square/2012/08/the_fiscal_facts_of_life_do_am039191.phphttp://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/stareport.pdfhttp://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/09/17/sequester-would-hit-higher-education-programs-hardhttp://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=5285&pubType=Trdhttp://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=5285&pubType=Trdhttp://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/09/17/sequester-would-hit-higher-education-programs-hardhttp://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/stareport.pdfhttp://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-miles-square/2012/08/the_fiscal_facts_of_life_do_am039191.phphttp://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/blog/planned_disaster_and_higher_ed.php


4/12


5/12

DADOD Tradeoff

Funding for a new long-range bomber that is key to deterrence depends on current savingsin the Air Force budgetnew programs kill itNational Defense 3/1 (National Defense Magazine is part of NDIAThe associations membership base consists ofnearly 900 companies and26,000 individuals from the entire spectrum of the defense and national industrial bases, from government and from foreign nations with whom the United States,

through DoD, has a Memorandum of Understanding Air Force Trades Quantity For Quality March 2012 By Dan Parsons,http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2012/March/Pages/AirForceTradesQuantityForQuality.aspx nkj)

The Air Force will cut airmen and ditch some underperforming and unwanted aircraft, focusing instead on purchasing fewer but

more capable new models in order to bridge a years-long investment gap, officials said. At the top of the list areaging fighters, bombers and air-refueling tankers.The service is bent on replacing or beginning to buyupgrades for all three within a decade, even if it means foregoing other programs, according to Air Force Chief of Staff Gen.

Norton Schwartz. The bottom line is, these are important capabilities for the nation and oneswe will make sacrifices elsewhere to sustain,Schwartz said at a Pentagon news conference. The challenge issequencing these programs in a way that meets budget targets. The Air Forces fleets are already smaller and older than when the military made a similar reduction in budget and force after the Cold War. The effort is all the more important after 10 years ofconflict that emphasized equipping ground forces. Using that logic, retired Air Force Lt. Gen. David Deptula said these

modernization programs are long overdue.We have a geriatric Air Force, he told National Defense.

Were flying 50-plus year old bombers, were flying 50-plus year old tankers and ourfighters are falling out of the sky because were putting more hours and years on them than

they were designed for. We saw over the last decade a dramatic increase in funding forthe Army and Marine Corps to the detriment of the Air Force, he said. Now its time to

shift resources to the things that have been neglected. These are important capabilitiesneeded for national security.It becomes an entire defense enterprise issue. Cuts should come from across servicelines, not just within the Air Force.The Obama administrations strategic guidance places a

premium on policing Pacific waters, especially in the face of a rising China. That in turnplaces a premium on technologies that can reach across thousands of miles of ocean. HenceAir Force leaders dedication to not just a new long-range strike bomber, but the KC-46refueling tanker. Add to the list service-life extension for the F-16 fleet, and the procurement of new satellites and space-

launch vehicles. Fleets have traditionally been modernized one at a time over a decade apiece. In the 1970s, funding went toupdating the fighter fleet. In the 1980s, bombers were the priority, followed by airlift and tanker aircraft during the 1990s, hesaid. The timelines for introduction of the F-35 and procurement of both a new tanker and new bomber are more compressed thistime around. The Air Force hopes to begin taking delivery of its new tanker sometime in the fiscal year 2015 to 2016 timeframe.

New bombers are scheduled to come online sometime after 2020. With the F-35 already inlimited production, the three systems will be in concurrent production and competing forfunds within eight years. That worries Richard Aboulafia, an industry analyst with Teal Group. But, he agreed the AirForce is deserving of future investment. The Air Force missed an up -cycle 100 percent, he said. The military hadthis tremendous increase in defense spending, but it all went to body armor and [mine-resistant ambush protected vehicles]. It was all Iraq and Afghanistan, rather than actualtechnology. All the money went to bullets,beans and black oil, as they say. The bomber and tanker have

become viable programs, Aboulafia said. But he predicts the Air Force will struggle to fund both programs at the levels thatwould be needed to ramp up production in the 2020s. Theres just no way to make this all good, he said. Accommodating JSF

plans, just purely the minimum level of tactical aircraft needed to maintain force structure; thats going to be a challenge.Youadd on to that the KC-46 tanker and next-generation bomber and the idea of being able torecapitalize so many different platforms in this budget environment is something of afantasy. With multiple aging fleets needing upgrades, simultaneous production could overtax budgets and hamstringprocurement. Some juggling will be required to ramp up production of big-budget projects over the next decade, but leaders atthe highest levels remain committed to those modernization programs. Keeping all three balls in the air will require F-35

production to be scaled back dramatically, Aboulafia said. The Air Force has done just that, but has yet tospecify how deep the cuts will go or how drastically production will be delayed. Aboulafia


6/12

recommended JSF production be dialed down to at least 48 or so per year from the current 72-per-year plan, he said. The wishlist comes at the expense of several current programs, including personnel. Air Force end strength will be cut by about 10,000 asa result of force restructuring, Schwartz said. The service is seeking to eliminate six squadrons from the total of 60 in service.Five of those squadrons fly the A-10, a close-air support plane that is popular with the Army. The Air Force has 348 A-10s thatare organized into 15 squadrons. Of the 123 fighters cut from the fleet, 102 are A-10s. The remaining 21 are older F-16fighters. The resultant gap will be filled by the F-35, which remains in limited production pending testing and developmentalchanges to minimize concurrency issues before buying in significant quantities, according to a Pentagon document outlining

spending cuts. Programs that are seeking revolutionary new technology such as the Common Vertical Lift Support Platform,Light Mobility Aircraft, and Light Attack and Armed Reconnaissance aircraft, were canceled outright. Intelligence, surveillanceand reconnaissance capabilities remain a top priorityone in which Schwartz foresaw increased investment, but did not gounscathed. But the Air Force is cutting one platform it says is redundant and prohibitively expensive. The Global Hawk Block 30,an unmanned stand-in for the Cold War-era U-2 spy plane, is no more. Beyond the three more it is contracted to purchase fromNorthrop Grumman, the drones will be mothballed while the U-2, built by Lockheed Martin, will continue its role of takingpictures from the air. The delta between the Global Hawk [Block 30] and the U-2 was not sufficient to retain both for the samemission, Schwartz said. Global Hawk Block 40, which has a more-powerful sensor suite than the Block 30, will not be touched

by reductions. Procurement of both the Navy Broad Area Maritime Surveillance aircraft and NATOs version of the same plane

will continue. Northrop Grumman reacted swiftly to the program cancellation, saying it was disappointed with thePentagons decision, and promised to seek alternatives to program termination.Some cashwill be freed up by a reduction in the Air Forces strategic airlift fleet a downsizing made possible by parallel reductions inArmy personnel. The fleet will lose 27 C-5A heavy cargo planes and 65 C-130 transports. The service will also sell off the 38 C-27 medium-transport aircraft it bought to carry cargo and troops in Afghanistan. Their role will be taken over by C-130s, though

65 of those will be retired as well. A fleet of 275 aircraft223 C-17s and 52 C-5swill be sufficient to satisfy dedicatedmilitary airlift needs, Schwartz said. As it gets smaller, the Air Force will rely more heavily on its nuclear triad as a deterrent,Schwartz said. None of the Defense Departments three legs ballistic missiles, submarines and bomberswill be threatened

by budget cuts, though an overall reduction in the number of nuclear warheads is called for.The Air Force is still ontrack to begin a series of new-start technologies by Feb. 2018 with the goal of establishingan arsenal of 700 strategic delivery vehicles deployed, with another 100 in reserve, coupledwith 1,550 warheads, Schwartz said. I think each of the three legs is necessary, saidretired Air Force Gen. Henry Obering III. The recall capability of the bomber, the

incredible reaction time of ICBMs and the survivability of submarines are mutuallysupportive and equally important. When you begin to appear weak or susceptible in onearea, thats when you invite threats.


7/12

The plan trades off with other programs

Amekudzi 1 (Adjo, PH.D. Transportation Systems (Infrastructure) School of Civil & Envir. EngineeringGeorgia Institute of Technology Application of Shortfall Analysis and Markowitz Theory in Investment

Tradeoff Analysis for Competing Infrastructure: Using HERS and NBIAS for Integrated Asset

Management, 5th International Conference on Managing Pavements,

http://www.pavementmanagement.org/ICMPfiles/2001087.pdf)In asset management, we are concerned with at least four different levels of tradeoff analysis. Three

of these are used when we independently manage different types of infrastructure, for which we are

concerned with analyzing tradeoffs to answer the following questions (2): 1) In what facilities must we

invest? 2) When must we invest in these facilities? 3) In what types of improvement actions must we

invest? When we attempt to provide integrated management for non-homogeneous facilities, we are

concerned with another important question: What relative levels of investment should we make in

each of the competing facilities (point and network)? For integrated asset management, this additional

information is necessary to increase (or attempt to maximize) the overall value of our collective assets,

in the context of constrained budgets. To be more effective therefore, an integrated asset

management system must provide guidance on appropriate levels of investments for competing

infrastructure facilities, for the purpose of maintaining, increasing or maximizing the collective value

of these assets over time.

Bomber solves nuclear warWilliams 10(David E. Williams, Jr., Major, U.S. Air Force, career Security Forces Officer currently serving as the Chief of Nuclear Security Inspections,Defense Threat Reduction Agency, former Squadron Commander, Staff Officer, Operations Officer, Flight Commander, and Convoy Commander within the AirForce nuclear community, also a certified SWAT Team Leader, Trainer, Designated Marksman, and Crisis Negotiator, M.A. Securit y Studies, M.A. Counseling &Human Behavior, B.A. Psychology, A Review of U.S. First-Strike Ambiguity and the Triad Nuclear Force, Defense Threat Reduction University Journal, 1(2),October 2010, http://www.dtra.mil/dtru/documents/V1_2/US%20First%20Strike%20Ambiguity%20-%20Williams.pdf)

The case for the continuity of current U.S. nuclear policies and structure involves consideration of their benefits in terms ofsecurity, international prestige, domestic politics, and technology.8 From a security perspective, nuclear weapons ensure securitybecause the potential usage of nuclear weapons during a conflict raises the cost of war to an unacceptable level.9 Scott Sagannotes that: Nuclear declaratory policy is meant to enhance deterrence of potential adversaries by providing a signal of the

intentions, options and proclivities of the U.S. government in different crisis and war-time scenarios. 10 I would argue, however,that an ambiguous U.S. first use policy of nuclear weapons creates valuable uncertainty on the part of potential adversaries. Thisuncertainty, coupled with U.S. nuclear and conventional superiority, makes overt state aggression against the U.S. or its allies avery uncertain and potentially disastrous proposition, thus not likely to happen. After all, no state has started a war with the U.S.

since it acquired nuclear weapons. No part of the U.S. nuclear triad can be eliminated withoutcreating an adverse impact on deterrence. This is the case because each element of the triad fills a unique rolethat makes U.S. nuclear forces lethal, survivable, and visible. Submarines offer the greatest degree ofsurvivability, but the lowest degree of accuracy and become vulnerable upon surfacing.Bombers are the most accurate and only recallable option, but they are vulnerable todefensive counter-air missions and ground based anti-aircraft fire. ICBMs are the mostreliable means of delivery and the only sovereign launched option, yet are all located atknown, stationary sites that are easily targeted by enemy ICBM forces, special operations

teams, or terrorist surrogates.One may not consider the visibility of nuclear forces to be desirable, but thevisibility of bombers and ICBMs allows for clear signaling to potential adversaries aboutU.S. intentions during a crisis. Take the Cuban Missile Crisis for example: President Kennedy used naval and airforces in order to signal his intent toward Premier Khrushchev. This signaling ensured there were no doubts about U.S.willingness to go to war to prevent Soviet missiles from being placed in Cuba. Future conflicts may require signaling of a similarnature to prevent deadly exchanges. For example, if Kim Jong Il were notified that the U.S. was uploading nuclear-armedbombers in response to North Korean deployments of nuclear-armed missiles, he might reconsider his actions. From theperspective of international prestige, other powers are retaining and in some cases enhancing their nuclear capability, yet asYounger points out, the U.S. is not modernizing any aspect of its inventory.11 Instead, the U.S. is relying on mathematicalprojections and estimations regarding the reliability of its systems and deploying them well beyond what most states would
http://www.pavementmanagement.org/ICMPfiles/2001087.pdf)/RKhttp://www.pavementmanagement.org/ICMPfiles/2001087.pdf)/RK


8/12

consider a reasonable service-life. Further reductions in strategic nuclear forces could be seen asevidence of retrenchment on the part of the U.S. by ambitious rising or reemerging powers,thus increasing the risk of war. The U.S. could be characterized as a declining power byrising powers who are seeking either initial or enhanced nuclear technology. Rising powers, afterall, will work to realign the international balance of power in their favor: one way of doing so is through countering U.S. military

capabilities. If the U.S. were to reduce its capability by eliminating portions of the triad, thenit would essentially be making it easier for other powers to challenge the current U.S.position. Further, without the potential threat of a nuclear first strike, U.S. allies might feelless secure about U.S. security commitments, especially in light of current troopcommitments in Iraq and Afghanistan. Such insecurity has the potential to lead these alliesto pursue nuclear capabilities of their own, as well as embolden hostile states to gamble ona lack of U.S. retaliation for WMD usage or conventional aggression. For example, when the U.S.considered reducing troop levels in South Korea, the government in Seoul signaled a potential shift in policy toward a nuclearcapability to protect itself from possible North Korean aggression.12 This threat resulted in very quick U.S. reassurances abouttroop levels and its commitment to defending South Korea.


9/12

Exports

1. Exports are downHewitt, 10(Hugh Hewitt, writer for patriots and liberty, President Barack MagoosThe Economy Is Headed in the Right Direction, Patriots and Liberty,

6/5/10,http://patriotsandliberty.com/?p=9951)But nowhere else in the land is the economic outlook rosy. Not only is right direction a risible assessment, itarrived on the day a terrible quarter in the markets closed, and less than week after the world gathered in Toronto to scold the president for his

incoherence on matters economic. And no wonder. American exports are down. Employment growth is nearlynon-existent, and consumer confidence has crashed. All across the globe governments are moving decisively to cutgovernment spending before it completely crowds out private lending, but here in the U.S. the rookie president with zero training in economicsand a team drawn from everywhere within five miles of Chicago and Cambridge feels like we need even more printed money and ever highertaxes. The political consequences of this head-in-the-sand approach are becoming obvious. The Wash ington Posts Chris Cillizza reports that[n]ew data from Gallup shows that independent voters now favor a generic Republican candidate for Congress over a generic Democraticcandidate by 12 points, a trend that appears to be tied to their feelings about President Barack Obama. In more than 6,000 interviews conductedin June, Cillizza relayed, 46 percent of Independents said they would support a Republican candidate while 34 percent said they would vote fora Democrat.

2. Ti increases exports

Khachatryan and Casavant 11(Hayk Khachatryan, Research Associate;Ken Casavant, Director and Professor; Freight Policy Transportation Institute School of EconomicSciences Washington State University; THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN U.S. TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS ANDINTERNATIONAL TRADE,http://wstc.wa.gov/Meetings/AgendasMinutes/agendas/2011/July19-20/documents/11_0719_BP5_FPTIInfrastTrdPolicyRept.pdf)

Similar conclusions were supported by the results found in Costa and Rosson (2007), utilizing international spatial intertemporalmodels of international grain trade. The gain in Brazils soybean prices and thus, producer revenues were found to be relatively

higher (relative to U.S. losses). Although, the improvements in all sectors of transport systems resultedin increased exports, prices and revenue,the waterways improvement provided the highest increase in prices andrevenue. Therefore, it is important to isolate and compare the effects on exportcompetitiveness resulting from various segments of the transportation infrastructuree.g.,

highway system, railroads, waterways improvements and sea ports.

3. Increasing exports floods international markets; forces a protectionist system

ICTSD, April 18th(International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development. Concerns over Protectionism, Currency Dominate Trade Agenda at AmericasSummit. Published April 18th 2012, http://ictsd.org/i/news/bridgesweekly/131505/Accessed 9/16/12 CSmith)

At the summit, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff repeated her earlier criticisms of rich country monetary policy, which have dominatedheadlines in recent months as Brazilian government officials renewed warnings of a global currency war. (See Bridges Weekly, 7 March

2012).Excessively loose monetary policy in advanced economies have been criticised byemerging economies for flooding their markets with imports, with Brazil taking a strong public stance on thesubject as it struggles to combat the effects of the appreciation of its currency, the real, on its manufacturing sector. Rousseffs remarks in

Cartagena took a similar tone to her White House comments earlier this month. (See Bridges Weekly, 11 April 2012)This is affecting

us by causing our currencies to appreciate, [creating] an obstacle for the trade in goods andservices and transform[ing] our economies into easy prey for deindustrialisation, she saidin a speech on Saturday. Its clear that we have to take measures to defend ourselves, sheadded, rebuffing claims that Brazils measures to respond to these monetary pressures are

protectionist. I said defend, not protect. To defend is different, defend means that we

cannot leave our manufacturing sector to be cannibalised.Brazils criticism of US monetary policys effectson Latin America was supported by some of the other nations in the region, with the summits host, President Juan Manuel Santos of Colombia,
http://patriotsandliberty.com/?p=9951http://patriotsandliberty.com/?p=9951http://patriotsandliberty.com/?p=9951http://wstc.wa.gov/Meetings/AgendasMinutes/agendas/2011/July19-20/documents/11_0719_BP5_FPTIInfrastTrdPolicyRept.pdfhttp://wstc.wa.gov/Meetings/AgendasMinutes/agendas/2011/July19-20/documents/11_0719_BP5_FPTIInfrastTrdPolicyRept.pdfhttp://wstc.wa.gov/Meetings/AgendasMinutes/agendas/2011/July19-20/documents/11_0719_BP5_FPTIInfrastTrdPolicyRept.pdfhttp://wstc.wa.gov/Meetings/AgendasMinutes/agendas/2011/July19-20/documents/11_0719_BP5_FPTIInfrastTrdPolicyRept.pdfhttp://ictsd.org/i/news/bridgesweekly/131505/http://ictsd.org/i/news/bridgesweekly/131505/http://ictsd.org/i/news/bridgesweekly/131505/http://ictsd.org/i/news/bridgesweekly/127884/http://ictsd.org/i/news/bridgesweekly/127884/http://ictsd.org/i/news/bridgesweekly/127884/http://ictsd.org/i/news/bridgesweekly/130800/http://ictsd.org/i/news/bridgesweekly/130800/http://ictsd.org/i/news/bridgesweekly/127884/http://ictsd.org/i/news/bridgesweekly/127884/http://ictsd.org/i/news/bridgesweekly/131505/http://wstc.wa.gov/Meetings/AgendasMinutes/agendas/2011/July19-20/documents/11_0719_BP5_FPTIInfrastTrdPolicyRept.pdfhttp://wstc.wa.gov/Meetings/AgendasMinutes/agendas/2011/July19-20/documents/11_0719_BP5_FPTIInfrastTrdPolicyRept.pdfhttp://patriotsandliberty.com/?p=9951


10/12

publicly echoing Rousseffs concerns. In some ways, [rich countries] are exporting their crisis to us viathe appreciation of our currencies,he said. I share President Dilma Rousseffs anxiety.

4. Protectionism escalates and causes nuclear exchangeGarten 9professor at the Yale School of Management(Jeffrey E., The Dangers of Turning Inward, Truth About Trade& Technology, 3-3-09, http://www.truthabouttrade.org/content/view/13454/54/lang,en/)

The point is, economic nationalism, with its implicit autarchic and save-yourself character, embodies exactly the

wrong spirit and runs in precisely the wrong direction from the global system that will be necessary to create the

future we all want. As happened in the 1930s, economic nationalism is also sure to poison

geopolitics. Governments under economic pressure have far fewer resources to take care of

their citizens and to deal with rising anger and social tensions. Whether or not they are

democracies, their tenure can be threatened by popular resentment. The temptation for governments to

whip up enthusiasm for something that distracts citizens from their economic woes a

war or a jihad against unpopular minorities, for exampleis great. Thats not all. As an

economically enfeebled South Korea withdraws foreign aid from North Korea, could we see an even more irrational

activity from Pyongyang? As the Pakistani economy goes into the tank, will the government bemore likely to compromise with terrorists to alleviate at least one source of pressure? As

Ukraine strains under the weight of an IMF bailout, is a civil war with Cold War overtones

between Europe and Russia be in the cards? And beyond all that, how will economically

embattled and inward-looking governments be able to deal with the critical issues that need

global resolution such as control of nuclear weapons, or a treaty to manage climate change,

or help to the hundreds of millions of people who are now falling back into poverty?
http://www.truthabouttrade.org/content/view/13454/54/lang,en/http://www.truthabouttrade.org/content/view/13454/54/lang,en/


11/12

The Homeland Security budget in 2012 is setno controversy comingTaylor 6-7-2012- writer for Associated Press (Andrew, House passes homeland security spending bill,The Statesman, http://www.statesman.com/news/nation/house-passes-homeland-security-spending-bill-2395977.html)WASHINGTONThe GOP-controlled House passed a $46 billion measure Thursday funding theHomeland Security Department, including more than $5 billion in disaster relief spending that complies

with a budget agreement last summer opposed by tea party conservatives. The 234-182 vote was unusually partisan.Homeland security programs traditionally have enjoyed widespread support, but the Obama administrationissued a veto threat against the bill in a protest over unrelated budget cuts proposed by Republicans in excess of last summer's budget and debtdeal.

The GOP demands funding offsets for the plan

Wall Street Journal 11( Legislative Hearing on H.R. 104, the Realize America's MaritimePromise (RAMP) Act, ProQuest Congressional, July 5th 2011)//MG

So far the White House, locked in a showdown with Republicans on next year's budget, says only that it isreviewing the situation. The administration has not made a determination about whether a supplementalfunding request is necessary, said Meg Reilly, an Office of Management and Budget spokeswoman.Efforts to get funding via legislation are moving through the House, but are far from passage. Sen.David Vitter, a Republican from Louisiana, said be strongly supported more dredging funds butthat any additional money would require reductions elsewhere in the federal budget for hisRepublican colleagues to come aboard. He wouldnt say where those cuts should be, but noted thatmany Congressional leaders now think an emergency supplemental bill for recent floods and tornadoes iscoming. Such a bill should include dredging money, he said.

Specifically, Biowatch is at a critical juncturethe plan sets it behind schedule and delaysoperational trialsNTI, 12Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization with a mission tostrengthen global security part of the national journal (April 5 2012, Procurement of Next-GenerationBioagent Sensors Falling Behind) http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/development-next-generation-bioagent-sensors-falling-behind/

The program to procure more advanced sensors that could sound the alarm in the event of abiological weapons attack has fallen off schedule , a senior Homeland Security Department official told U.S. lawmakers lastweek (see GSN, Oct. 20, 2011). Homeland Security Health Affairs Office chief Alexander Garza said "there's going to be slips in the schedule

and there's nothing that I can do -- that anybody can do -- to prevent those," according to FierceHomelandSecurity.com. Garza's agency istrying to field a third generation of Biowatch detectors with capabilities greater than existingsystems, including the ability to analyze air samples and digitally deliver findings within four to sixhours. Biowatch detectors now deployed in more than 30 large cities require 12 to 36 hours to deliverfindings in part because their filters need to physically removed and transported to a scientific facility for study. The Health AffairsOffice is seeking nearly $166.5 million in fiscal 2013 funding, $125 million of which would be directed toward the

Biowatch program. The DHS branch intends to carry out operational trials and assessments of the

Generation 3 sensors in four U.S. metropolitan areas.

Bioweapons cause total human extinctionParson, 6Ed, University of Michigan, The Big One: A Review of Richard Posners Catastrophe:Risk and Response,http://www-personal.umich.edu/~parson/website/pdf/parson-jel-45-posner-catastrophe-review.pdf.For his fourth risk, in case you are not scared enough, Posner turns to bioterrorism. Biological weapons produced for terroristpurposes could be far more devastating than either chemical or nuclear weapons , or natural pathogens. Abacterium or virus with ideal killing propertiesa high mortality rate, a long infectious incubation period, and

efficient airborne transmissionand for which there was no effective vaccine or treatment, could potentially kill most
http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/development-next-generation-bioagent-sensors-falling-behind/http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/development-next-generation-bioagent-sensors-falling-behind/http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/bioagent-detection-program-testing-next-generation-sensors/http://www-personal.umich.edu/~parson/website/pdf/parson-jel-45-posner-catastrophe-review.pdfhttp://www-personal.umich.edu/~parson/website/pdf/parson-jel-45-posner-catastrophe-review.pdfhttp://www-personal.umich.edu/~parson/website/pdf/parson-jel-45-posner-catastrophe-review.pdfhttp://www-personal.umich.edu/~parson/website/pdf/parson-jel-45-posner-catastrophe-review.pdfhttp://www-personal.umich.edu/~parson/website/pdf/parson-jel-45-posner-catastrophe-review.pdfhttp://www.nti.org/gsn/article/bioagent-detection-program-testing-next-generation-sensors/http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/development-next-generation-bioagent-sensors-falling-behind/http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/development-next-generation-bioagent-sensors-falling-behind/


12/12

or all people on Earth . While naturally occurring organisms are unlikely to grow this lethal if you are a bacterium, it is notadvantageous to kill your entire host populationgenetic manipulation of existing disease organisms (e.g., smallpox or other pox viruses, or the

hemorrhagic viruses Marburg and Ebola) could in principle produce new bugs this bad. While the specific difficulties ofcreating an effective bioterrorist agent are not well known (at least publicly) and may be severe, generalcapabilities for the required types of genetic manipulation arewidely dispersed. About ten countries areknown or suspected to have bioweapons programs, and terrorist organizations have tried to develop them. Suitable lab facilities exist

in dozens of countries.

These Da's

Documents

Transcript of These Da's