*****CIR DA

***Neg Mechanics

1NC CIR DA
CIR will passgrowing momentum but its fragile
Cap Times 7/3
Congress should get serious about immigration reform [http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/editorial/congress-should-getserious-about-immigration-reform/article_5dae2cf5-93b4-5aff-af20-862a40a41d7f.html] //mtc Prominent Republicans, including the partys 2008 presidential nominee, Arizona Sen. John McCain, and a potential 2016 nominee, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, voted

for reform. If the pattern of strong

Democratic support for reform combined with significant Republican backing continues in the House, the legislation will pass and it will be signed by the president. Congressman Mark Pocan, D-Madison, is on board, saying: Our nation has always been built on the concept of inclusion and openness,
and I am pleased that the U.S. Senate today passed bipartisan and comprehensive immigration reform legislation. This bill takes important steps to ensure we can keep families together, have a road map to citizenship for new American immigrants, and that all workers are treated fairly. The time is now to act on a new, common-sense immigration process, and I urge the House to move on this matter as soon as possible. Congressman Ron Kind, D-La Crosse, and Congresswoman Gwen

Moore, D-Milwaukee, should be yes votes. The same goes for Congressman Paul Ryan, R-Janesville, who along with Rubio has been an outspoken backer of reform.

<<insert link>> PC key to CIRObama renewing his push

AFP 6/12
Agence Press France, US immigration bill advances in Senate, clears first hurdle [http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-06-12/news/39925853_1_border-security-landmark-immigration-bill-democraticsenator-chuck-schumer] WASHINGTON: Bolstered by support from President Barack Obama, a landmark immigration bill

passed a pair of crucial test votes on Tuesday in the US Senate, kicking off weeks of debate on the
comprehensive reform. After months of initial wrangling and more than 100 new amendments offered to the underlying legislation, the Senate -- in an act of broad bipartisanship -- voted 84-15 to move to debate passage of what would be the most important immigration reform in nearly 30 years. "This overwhelming vote, a majority of both parties, starts this bill off on just the right foot," said Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer, one of the Gang of Eight senators -- four Democrats and four Republicans -- who crafted the measure, which now comes to 1,076 pages. Republican Jeff Flake, also an author of the bill, told AFP the votes marked "a good start (but) we have a long way to go," citing potential roadblocks over border security issues and acknowledging what may be an uphill climb to pass similar legislation in the House of Representatives. The top Democrat in the Senate, Harry Reid, has said he hopes to pass the bill by early July. The legislation provides a 13year pathway to citizenship for the more than 11 million people living illegally in the United States, tightens border security, and aims to collect back taxes from undocumented workers. It also would revise visa programs for high-tech employees and agriculture workers, require firms to use an e-verify program that prevents illegal hires and compel those receiving provisional legal status to learn English. Obama made an outspoken pitch for the bill on Tuesday, saying those opposed to it are insincere about fixing a badly broken system. The

president has gently pushed the bill from behind the scenes for months, fearing his open support would swell the ranks of conservatives who see the bill as offering amnesty to illegal immigrants and are determined to kill it. But ahead of the crucial test votes, Obama waded into the fray, leveraging the political capital on the issue he won during last year's election campaign, particularly among Hispanic voters. The president sought to disarm conservative Republicans -- even some who support immigration reform -- who argue that the bill should
not be passed without tough new border security measures. "If passed, the Senate bill, as currently written and as hitting the floor, would put in place the toughest border enforcement plan that America has ever seen. So nobody's taking border enforcement lightly," he said at a White House event. Obama also took direct aim at the motives of

lawmakers who are opposed to the bill. "If you're not serious about it, if you think that a broken system is the
best America can do, then I guess it makes sense to try to block it," he said. "But if you're actually serious and sincere about fixing a broken system, this is the vehicle to do it, and now is the time to get it done." Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, a frequent Obama critic, said "the president's tone and engagement has been very

helpful" to the process. But he stressed that fellow Republicans in the Senate and House needed to look closely at
whether they want to scupper the effort and jeopardize the party's political future by alienating millions of voters.

Reform key to competitiveness and growth

Trujillo and Melgoza 213
Mr. Trujillo is chairman of the Trujillo Group, LLC and co-chairman of the Latino Donor Collaborative. Mr. Melgoza is the CEO of Geoscape International Inc. The Economicand DemographicCase for Immigration Reform, 2/21/13, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323951904578290471589119346.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Since the November election, there has been much talk in Washington and on the pundit circuit about America's changing demographics, especially the "Latino vote" and the new realities of political campaigning. There has also been considerable wrangling over immigration and what it means for a country that is a nation of immigrants but is more crowded than it once was. The

immigration debate is significant to America's politics and culture, but it is also crucial to the

country's economics , a subject that receives too little attention. Let's be blunt: The future wealth and
well-being of the American peoplethe country's economic security, national security, business innovation, GDP growth and status in the global marketplacerequire a comprehensive solution to the chronic problems caused by a broken immigration policy. In
particular, the status of 11 million unauthorized Latino immigrants now living here must be resolved. The economics are simple: Latinos spur demand. Seventy percent of the nation's gross domestic product is fueled by consumer spending. That means the

Latino populationlarge, growing and increasingly prosperouswill play a key role in America's economic future. Latinos are now by far the country's biggest minority-market segment. Including
unauthorized residents, the Latino population now exceeds 54 million (not counting nearly four million in Puerto Rico). Blacks, in second place, number 39 million. The Latino population has increased by more than 52% since 2000. In the same period, the non-Latino white population grew less than 2% and blacks by 14%. According to U.S. Census forecasts, the Latino population in America will reach 133 million by 2050. Those 133 million American Latinos will outnumber the populations of Japan and Russia, whose numbers are already in decline. With growing numbers comes more spending: Latino purchasing power now exceeds $1.2 trillion and, according to the University of Georgia's Selig Center, will top $1.5 trillion by 2015. From a global perspective, that means America's Latino market would be the 11th-largest economy in the worldjust below France, Italy and Mexico, and above South Korea, Spain and Indonesia. At $20,400 per capita, Latino America's purchasing power already exceeds the GDP per capita of all four BRIC countries Brazil, Russia, India and China. But Latinos' beneficial economic effect is hardly restricted to the demand side. A vital

element of supply-side health is laborworkers, from the most talented who invent new products or start a
business, to those just beginning to climb the ladder of self-improvement, whether through formal education or on-the-job training. Nearly one in six American workers (16%) is Latino, with nearly 23 million Latinos in the U.S. holding jobs. You might not know it from media coverage of immigration issues, but Latinos have the highest labor-force participation rate (nearly 67%) of any American demographic group. Slightly more than a quarter of children in the U.S. under age 18 are Latino. Based on existing trends, at least 1.1 million Latino youths will turn 18 each year for the next 20 years. Politicians may see 1.1 million new voters a year, but business owners see 1.1 million new workers with a strong work ethic. Given the aging of the country's baby boom generationretiring at the rate of 10,000 a day for the next 18 yearsthe strength of the economy is increasingly linked to the promise of these younger workers. Dire demographics threaten the

economies in many developed nations, and the U.S. is not immune to the challenges posed by an aging population. But the problem will be considerably mitigated by immigrants who revitalize the workforce. The average later-life American, whose life expectancy nearly doubled during the 20th century, is
already asking: Who is going to pay for the Social Security and Medicare promises of the federal government? The answer: America's expanding, youthful immigrant populationanother reason why ensuring educational opportunities at every level for all residents is in the national interest. Getting the U.S. economy moving again requires action on

many fronts: tax and regulatory reform, new approaches to energy, education and health care. But nothing is

more important than immigration

Washington, immigration

reform. Despite the impression left by much of the rhetoric in

jobs, growth and competitivenesseconomic security, which in turn means national security. To achieve these
benefits, immigration policies and practices must be attuned to welcoming hardworking immigrants and to dealing fairly and smartly with those who are already in the U.S. regardless of their legal status. Legal immigration, including a guest-worker program that will bolster American business productivity, should be expanded in an intelligent way that is pro-investment and pro-growth. U.S. borders need to be secured against further illegal immigration. Washington

reform is

not just about politics. It's about

must send a

clear signal to the American people and to every level of governmentthat a coherent and enforceable
immigration policy is in place and here to stay.

Sustained decline causes nuclear war Harris and Burrows 9

Mathew, PhD European History @ Cambridge, counselor in the National Intelligence Council (NIC) and Jennifer is a member of the NICs Long Range Analysis Unit Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the Financial Crisis http://www.ciaonet.org/journals/twq/v32i2/f_0016178_13952.pdf Increased Potential for Global Conflict Of course, the report encompasses more than economics and indeed believes the future is likely to be the result of a number of intersecting and interlocking forces. With so many possible permutations of outcomes, each with ample Revisiting the Future opportunity for unintended consequences, there is a growing sense of insecurity. Even so, history may be more instructive than ever. While we continue to believe that the Great Depression is not likely to be repeated, the

lessons to be drawn from that period include the harmful effects on fledgling democracies and multiethnic societies (think Central Europe in 1920s and 1930s) and on the sustainability of multilateral institutions (think League of Nations in the same period). There is no reason to think that this would not be true in the twenty-first as much as in the twentieth century. For that reason, the ways in which the potential for greater conflict could grow would seem to be even more apt in a constantly volatile economic environment as
they would be if change would be steadier. In surveying those risks, the report stressed the likelihood that terrorism and nonproliferation will remain priorities even as resource issues move up on the international agenda. Terrorisms

appeal will decline if economic growth continues in the Middle East and youth unemployment is reduced. For those terrorist groups that remain active in 2025, however, the diffusion of technologies and scientific knowledge will place some of the worlds most dangerous capabilities within their reach. Terrorist groups in 2025 will likely be a combination of descendants of long established groups_inheriting organizational structures, command and
control processes, and training procedures necessary to conduct sophisticated attacks_and newly emergent collections of the angry and disenfranchised that become self-radicalized, particularly in the absence of economic outlets that would become narrower in an economic downturn. The most dangerous casualty of any economically-induced

drawdown of U.S. military presence would almost certainly be the Middle East. Although Irans acquisition of nuclear weapons is not inevitable, worries about a nuclear-armed Iran could lead states in the region to develop new security arrangements with external powers, acquire additional weapons, and consider pursuing their own nuclear ambitions. It is not clear that the type of stable deterrent relationship that existed between the great powers for most of the Cold War would emerge naturally in the Middle East with a nuclear Iran. Episodes of low intensity conflict and terrorism taking place under a nuclear umbrella could lead to an unintended escalation and broader conflict
if clear red lines between those states involved are not well established. The close proximity of potential nuclear rivals combined with underdeveloped surveillance capabilities and mobile dual-capable Iranian missile systems also will produce inherent difficulties in achieving reliable indications and warning of an impending nuclear attack. The lack of strategic depth in neighboring states like Israel, short warning and missile flight times, and uncertainty of Iranian intentions may

place more focus on preemption rather than defense, potentially leading to escalating

crises.

Will PassGeneral
Will pass by the end of the yearrepublicans face political pressure
Osterman 6/30
Kelsey, Sen. Schumer: Senate immigration bill will pass the House [http://redalertpolitics.com/2013/06/30/sen -schumer-senateimmigration-bill-will-pass-the-house/] //mtc Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) is probably more

optimistic

than most about

the chances of the

Senates immigration reform bill passing in the House, saying on Sunday that it will pass by

the end of the year . Schumer, who appeared on Fox News Sunday with fellow Gang of Eight member Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), was asked about the assertion from Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) that the House would not take up the Senates bill. Host John Roberts asked if the New York Senator thought immigration reform might be dead. No, not at all, Schumer responded. In fact, I believe that by the end of this year, the House will pass the Senate bill. I know thats not what they think now, and theyll say, Oh no, thats not whats gonna happen. But I think it will. The Senator explained that he respected Boehner and understood the risk in the primaries that many Republicans would face if they voted for the immigration bill. But he also noted that Republicans will be a minority party for
an entire generation if they didnt help pass immigration reform. Were not going to let this issue
go away, he said. Schumer also said Boehner wouldnt be able to pass any piecemeal sections of immigration reform, since Democrats wouldnt vote for tougher border security without a pathway to citizenships. McCains response was a little more measured, noting that he wouldnt want to tell Boehner how to do his job. But he also added that

Congress

eventually enacts legislation that follows public opinion. Its not going to be easy he said. But I think Republicans realize the implications of the future of the Republican party in America if we dont get this issue behind us.

CIR will passcompleted bill by September

The Hill 6/19
Russell Berman, Hispanic Dems 'cautiously optimistic' after meeting with Boehner [http://thehill.com/homenews/house/306705 hispanic-dems-cautiously-optimistic-after-meeting-with-boehner] //mtc Rep. Ruben Hinojosa (D-Texas), chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, said they left

Boehners office cautiously optimistic that the House could pass an immigration bill by August or September and that a bill could be sent to the president by the end of the year.

Will passopposition is just media noise

Salter 6/14
Mark, Amid Immigration Reform Cacophony, Passage Looms [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/06/14/amid_immigration_reform_cacophony_passage_looms_118816.html#ixzz2WR 8FIYDP] //mtc Losing sight of the forest for the trees is a paradox of the 24/7 news cycle, which often pays

equal attention to important and insignificant political developments, and important and insignificant players. The kind of granular and excited press scrutiny applied to the debate on immigration reform legislation, for example, where it seems almost anything uttered on the subject by almost anyone can get a quick headline in Politico, makes it harder to judge the bills prospects. Who whispered what to
whom in the cloakroom or which senators offhand comment as he stepped into an elevator signaled progress, or which senators peevishness in a caucus meeting pointed to trouble for the bill arent lik ely to tell us anything other than the obvious. One hundred members of the Senate are presently engaged in debating a sweeping and

complex measure on an issue of considerable political importance to both parties. They have
different views on the subject and various motives for their actions, and they will all have something to say about it before the debate is over. But, as with any institution, some of its members will have a greater say over the

ultimate fate of the legislation than will others. So, who matters and who doesnt? Well, for
starters, you can put most members of both parties in the they dont really matter very much category. Thats a bit of an exaggeration and not entirely fair. They all have a vote, and anyone who votes in the majority will have played a small but limited role in the bills success or failure. So, lets refine the category to those members of Congress

whose minds on the subject are firmly made up, who wont change their position no matter how much the

who wont take a leadership position in efforts to support or defeat it. At it happens, that category includes most members in both parties. Theyll make statements during the debate to explain their position and try to inoculate themselves from whatever political risks
bill is amended during the debate, but theyre taking, if any. Supporters will insist they dont back amnesty and opponents will insist they arent anti -immigrant. (For the purposes of this debate, that mostly translates into saying they arent anti -Hispanic; some of their best friends are Hispanic, and, in a couple of cases, even their parents.) But you could write the platitudes for them and what they say and do wont affect the bills prospects one way or another. Ted Cruz belongs in this category. He wont support

the bill no matter how it is amended. And he wont play much of a role in convincing others to oppose it because those members who value his opinion on the matter have already made their minds up to oppose it as well. Given the amount of press attention hes received since arriving in
the Senate, it seems obvious that Cruz sees this issue as he sees every other major issue -- as an opportunity to preen about how hes standing up for his principles against the sell-out Republican squishes in Washington. Never mind that his principles arent always as inviolate as he likes to make them out to be, and they rarely include the principle of dischargin g the responsibility to govern that he asked the voters of Texas to grant him. The only thing that seems to matter to Mr. Cruz Goes to Washington is what his country can do for him. Rand Paul might matter -- if he is, as he insists is the case, genuinely interested in shaping a comprehensive bill he can support. He could influence other libertarian-leaning Republicans. But hes not serious if he continues to demand an amendment that effectively sunsets the bill pending a future Congress judgment about whether the border security provisions worked as advertised. Future Congresses arent bound by the actions of past Congresses. If five or 10 years from now Congress decides the bill didnt achieve its objectives, it can pass new legislation . But it ought to do it by regular order, facing the same difficulties and political risks this Congress faces as it tries to pass this one.

The Gang of Eight matters . Any member whos working to address the concerns

of colleagues who are persuadable for or against the bill matters. Persuadable members matter. Who else matters? John Boehner, who recently suggested to ABCs George Stephanopoulos that he will allow the House to vote on immigration reform even if a majority of Republican members havent agreed support it. If the House speaker means that, its probably the only real news on the immigration debate this week. Because -- and heres a fact that really matters -- majorities

in both chambers already support comprehensive immigration reform , and it will

probably have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. To the feigned horror of Ted Cruz, the

leadership of both parties wants it to pass (although some Republican leaders arent always eager to publicly admit it). The GOPs most recent vice presidential nominee wants it to pass, as do most Republican leaders who care
about the GOPs future as a national party. Which means, no matter how many Perils of Pauline stories you read in the press, immigration reform is probably going to be enacted. And thats the forest lurking behind the trees

of

Washingtons indiscriminate hyperbole.

Will PassInsiders
Will passinsiders agree
The Hill 6/30
Alexandra Jaffe, Pelosi: 'Optimistic' on passage of immigration reform [http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/308629pelosi-optimistic-on-passage-of-immigration-reform] //mtc

she's " optimistic " for passage of immigration reform in the House before the end of the year. "I'm very optimistic that we will, before too long and
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said certainly this year, have comprehensive immigration reform," she said on NBC's "Meet the Press." The Senate passed an immigration reform package earlier this week on a 68-32 vote, but its future in the House remains uncertain. Conservatives refuse to support the bill because they believe it lacks adequate border security provisions, and because they're opposed to a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants already in the country. But Pelosi said she feels Republicans in

the House will warm up to the proposal when they reflect on the electoral implications of its failure, and that the GOP's poor showing with Hispanics in 2012 contributed to reform passing the Senate. "We wouldn't even be where we are right now had it not been that 70 percent of
Hispanics voted for President Obama in the last election," she said, adding that the stark margin "caused an epiphany in the Senate." "I believe that the members of Congress, many more than are directly affected themselves by

the number of Hispanics in their district, will do what is right for our country," she said. "And it's certainly
right for the Republicans if they ever want to win a presidential race."

Will PassMomentum
Will passgrowing momentum
Cap Times 7/3
Congress should get serious about immigration reform [http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/editorial/congress -should-getserious-about-immigration-reform/article_5dae2cf5-93b4-5aff-af20-862a40a41d7f.html] //mtc Prominent Republicans, including the partys 2008 presidential nominee, Arizona Sen. John McCain, and a potential 2016 nominee, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, voted

for reform. If the pattern of strong

Democratic support for reform combined with significant Republican backing continues in the House, the legislation will pass and it will be signed by the president. Congressman Mark Pocan, D-Madison, is on board, saying: Our nation has always been built on the concept of inclusion and openness,
and I am pleased that the U.S. Senate today passed bipartisan and comprehensive immigration reform legislation. This bill takes important steps to ensure we can keep families together, have a road map to citizenship for new American immigrants, and that all workers are treated fairly. The time is now to act on a new, common-sense immigration process, and I urge the House to move on this matter as soon as possible. Congressman Ron Kind, D-La Crosse, and Congresswoman Gwen

Moore, D-Milwaukee, should be yes votes. The same goes for Congressman Paul Ryan, R-Janesville, who along with Rubio has been an outspoken backer of reform.

Will PassVote Count

Will passvote count
The Hill 6/22
Jennifer Martinez, Dem negotiator: '218 votes' in House for immigration reform [http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefingroom/news/307209-rep-gutierrez-218-votes-exists-in-house-for-passing-immigration-reform] //mtc

Saturday expressed optimism that political momentum will push comprehensive immigration legislation through the House. "Guess what? 218 votes exists in the House of Representatives. A number of Republicans and Democrats together, we can pass comprehensive immigration reform today in the House of Representatives, and that's a huge change," Gutierrez said during a panel on immigration reform at the NetRoots Nation convention in San Jose,
Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) on Calif.

Will PassAT House

Will pass the housenew strategy
Nevarez 7/5
Griselda, Immigration Reform Advocates Prepare For The Tough Road Ahead [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/05/immigration-reform-advocates_n_3550153.html] //mtc

Its going to be tough but doable . Thats how immigration reform advocates describe
the road ahead to pass an immigration reform bill in the Republican-led House of Representatives. Were going to need to persuade a lot more conservatives to get on board and support immigration reformthats going to be the tough part, but its doable, said Kica Matos, spokesperson for the Fair Immigration Reform Movement (FIRM), a coalition of immigrant rights groups spread across 30 states. Matos said its doable because so much has changed since the close attempt to pass an immigration reform bill in 2007. She said that compared to that year, the pro-immigration reform movement is now much more strategic, better organized, bigger, stronger and more diverse.

CIR will pass the housevote count

Robinson 7/1
Eugene, Boehners immigration win-win [http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-boehners-immigration-winwin/2013/07/01/53c372f8-e284-11e2-a11e-c2ea876a8f30_story.html] //mtc Under the most likely scenario, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who has the whole cat-

herding thing down pat, would deliver virtually the entire Democratic caucus in support. Most Republicans would vote no, but there should be enough defections to push the measure over the 218-vote threshold and send it to President Obama for his signature.

Will pass the houseenough fence sitters

Dann and Thorpe 6/28
Carrie and Frank, Does immigration reform stand a chance? [http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/28/19175161 -doesimmigration-reform-stand-a-chance?lite] //mtc Still, supporters of the Senate bill say that pronouncements that the legislation is dead on

arrival in the House should not be taken at face value. Theres a vote-no-pray-yes camp, said Marshall Fitz, the director of immigration policy for the Democratically-aligned Center for American Progress. There are Republicans who want to get this done but who cant see going back to their home district and defending it. Fitz says hes hopeful that Republican leaders in collaboration with Democrats in the House will acknowledge that unspoken support and find a way to pass a bill with a bipartisan coalition. There are multiple ways to move forward, he said. And theres a will to move forward.

Will pass the house4 reasons

NBC News 6/28
First Thoughts: Over to the House [http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/28/19188855-first-thoughts-over-to-the-house?lite] //mtc *** Why Boehner and the House Republicans relent on immigration reform: The first reason

comes down to long-term politics: After Romney lost Latino voters 71%-27% in 2012, Republicans dont want to get blamed for immigration reforms defeat. In 12, youll recall,
Romney and Republicans blamed Obama for the inability of reform to pass during his first term. But that avenue wont exist in 2016 or beyond if the GOP-led House doesnt step up to the plate. The second reason would be the

pressure. Immigration reform advocates have vowed that Latinos will march on Washington and do other things to put pressure on House Republicans, who would prefer that the rest of 2013 and the first part of 2014 focus on Obamacare and the administration controversies theyve been pursuing. A third reason: The GOP establishment is for immigration reform, and the establishment often gets its way (example: Romney winning the 12 presidential nomination). From

the Karl Rove-backed American Crossroads to the business community, the establishment wants immigration reform to pass. The question is how hard does it fight for it? And the fourth reason is that another young GOP star -- House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan -- plays the Rubio role in the House to convince enough to support reform.

Will PassAT HouseAT Boehner Block

Boehner blocking doesnt matterother ways to get the bill to the floor
Taylor 7/5
Jessica, GOP wrestles with immigration reform consequences [http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/05/19269366 -gopwrestles-with-immigration-reform-consequences] //mtc Without a majority of the caucus behind the bill the Senate passed last week with a 68-32 vote, Boehner has said he

wont bring the bill to the floor. Many Republicans still remain optimistic the bill still has a path forward, whether in conference committee or through a new bill from a bipartisan working group in the House.

Will PassAT Republican Opposition

Republicans are on board for CIRopposition voices have minimum political influence
Fabian 7/3
Jordan, Is the GOP Ready to Give Up on Latino Voters? [http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/gop -ready-give-latinovoters/story?id=19564587#.UdRN6uuxN-U] //mtc There have always been conservative skeptics of immigration reform and Hispanic outreach. And as they've become louder, high-profile Republican lawmakers and Fox News pundits have wavered in their enthusiasm about immigration reform; Sarlin cites such conservative luminaries as Fox's Brit Hume and Sean Hannity as leading voices for retrenchment on the GOP's bid to court Latinos. But

they're for-pay opinionators, not

influential politicians or money-men. And those groups' attitudes suggest that reports of
the demise of the right's pro-reform coalition are exaggerated. Major Republican donors remain adamant in their desire to see Congress pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill. They see the demographic reality that the national electorate is becoming less white, and they're firm in the belief that the GOP needs to connect with a more diverse universe of voters. Groups funded by such donors are preparing a concerted effort to persuade influential House Republicans to get on board with immigration reform. And they're also working to ensure Republicans who already support it get adequate political cover. Groups like the American Action
Network, backed by GOP impresario Fred Malek, and Americans for a Conservative Direction are spending serious cash on TV ads defending Marco Rubio for his work on the Senate immigration bill. Republican leaders in Congress

have also not been as adamant about opposing immigration reform as, say, health care reform. And they may even be content to let a bill pass. Every GOP leader in the Senate voted against the bill, it's true -but as several outlets have noted, they didn't use procedural measures like the filibuster to torpedo a bill. House Speaker John Boehner's insistence that the House pass a bill with majority GOP support surely does not bode well for reform. But he hasn't revealed his personal views on a policy solution, saying that would be "the worst thing in the world that can happen" for the chances of reaching a compromise proposal that can pass the House. That's led some key Democrats to conclude that deep down, Boehner wants to see comprehensive immigration reform become law, even though many in his party remain dead set against offering undocumented immigrants a chance to earn U.S. citizenship. "Boehner immigration, said Tuesday. "He

is not

the kind of how would I say it ideological guy. Right?" Rep. Luis Gutirrez (Ill.), an influential Democratic voice on

wants to try to reach consensus. I believe that about him."

Will pass despite republican opposition

Indian Express 7/1
Immigration reform bill will pass: US treasury secretary [http://www.indianexpress.com/news/immigration -reform-bill-will-pass-ustreasury-secretary/1136184/] //mtc US Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew said that he was confident that immigration reform would

be adopted, despite strong opposition from some Republicans. Last week the US Senate passed a controversial immigration bill that would give a path to citizenship for 11 million undocumented immigrants, and the legislation is now under debate in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.

Obama Pushing
Obama pushing immigrationmeeting with key leaders
UPI 6/25
United Press International, Obama, congressional leaders to discuss immigration reform [http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/06/25/Obama-congressional-leaders-to-discuss-immigration-reform/UPI69451372143600/] //mtc WASHINGTON, June 25 (UPI) -- President Obama is expected to talk about the push to overhaul

U.S. immigration laws when he meets with congressional leadership Tuesday, an official said. Obama and Vice President Joe Biden are to meet in the Oval Office with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., as well as House Speaker John Boehner, ROhio, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., the White House said Monday.

Obama pushingnegotiating with House leadership

Washington Post 6/29
David Nakamura, Obama pushes House GOP on immigration reform [http://www.washingtonpost.c om/blogs/postpolitics/wp/2013/06/29/obama-pushes-house-gop-on-immigration-reform/] //mtc PRETORIA, South Africa President Obama on Saturday urged House leaders to produce

immigration reform legislation by August, emphasizing that it is critical to move forward on a sweeping overhaul of the nations border control laws. The ball is in the Houses court, Obama
said during a news conference two days after the Senate voted 68-32 to pass a comprehensive immigration bill that includes new border security measures and a 13-year path to citizenship for the nations 11 million illegal immigrants. I do urge the House to try to get this done before the August recess, he added. Theres more than enough time. This things been debated amply and theyve got a number of weeks to get it done. Nows the time. House Republican leaders have said they will not accept the Senate bill, and Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has not said if hell pursue a comprehensive bill or move forward with smaller bills. Obama said he called Boehner and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to encourage

them to make progress as soon as possible.

Obamas back to pushing immigration

Yorke 6/8
Byron, Obama jumps into immigration debate will that help or hurt? [http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-jumps-intoimmigration-debate-will-that-help-or-hurt/article/2531420] //mtc After months of remaining mostly quiet about the Senate Gang of Eight comprehensive immigration

reform proposal, President Obama will take up the issue this week with a White House event to urge passage of the 1,000-page legislation. The question is whether that will help or hurt his cause. Timed to coincide with the beginning of Senate debate on the bill, Obama will meet with a broad, bipartisan and diverse coalition of business leaders, labor leaders, law enforcement, religious and faith leaders, and other key stakeholders at the White House Tuesday to press the case that now is the time to enact commonsense immigration reform. The White House says Obama will deliver remarks specifically supporting the Gang of Eight bill. The president also used his weekly address Saturday to promote the legislation. Arguing that his administration has strengthened border security, deported criminal
immigrants, and stopped enforcing the immigration laws in the case of so-called dreamers, Obama said, If were going to truly fix a broken system, we need Congress to act in a comprehensive way. And thats why whats happening next week is so important. The bill before the Senate isnt perfect, Obama continued. Its a compromise. Nobody will get everything they want not Democrats, not Republicans, not me. But it is a bill thats largely consistent with the principles Ive repeatedly laid out for commonsense immigration reform. The president also used his fundraising trip to

California to tout the Gang bill. Weve seen some hopeful signs that we can get finally a broken immigration
reform system fixed, and I intend to get that done before the end of the summer, he told an audience of wealthy donors at a private home in Los Angeles Friday. To accomplish his goal, Obama said, requires the help of Republicans who are willing to take what, for them, are some difficult votes and some tough stands. He singled out GOP Senators John McCai n, Jeff Flake, and Marco Rubio for particular praise. At the same time, Obama urged the defeat of Republicans in Congress. I have to say that right now the nature of the Republican Party makes it very difficult for them to engage in common-sense discussions around solving problems, he said. I will get a lot more done with a Democratic House, and I sure need to keep a Democratic Senate. In a notable aside, Obama said he doesnt care if some Republicans support immigration reform solely to improve the GOPs political prospects. If Ive got a bunch of Republicans who just for purely political reasons decide weve got to get right with immigration communities and so were going to pass immigration reform, Im not

concerned about their motives although I think the folks who so far have stood up are deeply sincere about what needs to be done but even if its political calculation, Im game. So

Obama is jumping into the

immigration debate with both feet . What does that mean? Perhaps his involvement will intensify
Democratic support for reform and win over the few skeptics in his own party. But at the same time, some opponents

of reform will likely be happy to see the president become personally engaged in the issue, on the belief that in the past Obama has actually made his causes less popular by his personal involvement. And at the least, having Barack Obama out front on immigration reform will intensify the opposition of those Republicans who already have doubts about the Gang of Eight proposal. From now on, immigration reform will be a debate with the president playing a major role.

Obama spending PC
The Hill 6/11
Justin Sink, Obama: 'Moment is now' on immigration [http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/304735 -president-puts-bullypulpit-behind-senate-immigration-bill] //mtc President Obama on Tuesday threw his weight behind the Senate immigration reform bill and

warned opponents not to use procedural games to stop it. The Senate will vote Tuesday afternoon on
a motion to proceed to the immigration bill, opening up the 1,000-page law for a lengthy process of debates and amendments that could last until July. Appearing at the White House with labor, business, law enforcement and political leaders, Obama said there was "no reason Congress can't get this done by the end of summer." "If you're serious about actually fixing the system, then this is the vehicle to do it," Obama said. "If you're not serious about it if you think a broken system is the best America can do, then I guess it makes sense to block it." "The system is still broken and to truly deal with this issue, Congress needs to act, and that moment is now. Obama defended the drafting of the Senate bill as open and inclusive and said the bill represented a genuine compromise from everyone involved. "It's the only way we can make sure that everyone who is here is playing by the same rules as ordinary families," Obama said. The president said opponents of immigration reform would try to "gin up fear" in the coming weeks, and decried "extreme" moves such as the House's vote last week to defund the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. That program was launched last year by the Department of Homeland Security after the White House announced it would exercise prosecutorial discretion and offer a temporary reprieve from deportation proceedings for people brought to the United States illegally as children. The president said even those who "don't see eye to eye on just about any issue" should recognize that the current system is "broken." "Right now, our immigration system has no credible way of dealing with the 11 million men and women who are in this country illegally," Obama said. Attendees at the White House event included San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, SEIU President Mary Kay Henry, and Tom Donohue, the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Earlier Tuesday, the labor unions said they plan to begin rallying support for the immigration reform bill. The SEIU plans a million-dollar cable television ad buy, while the AFL-CIO will run targeted online advertisements in key states and fly supporters to Washington to lobby lawmakers directly. Conservative groups, including Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS, have also announced their intention to spend money on advertising supporting the bill. Tuesday's appearance was just the president's second public White House speech on immigration since the Gang of Eight work on the bill began in earnest. The White House has largely removed itself from the immigration debate, instead preferring to allow congressional negotiators to handle the drafting of the bill. But the president has looked to build momentum in recent days, as

signs emerged that the Senate would soon open floor debate on the Gang of Eight bill.

Hes spending PC
Rich 6/12
Frank, Frank Rich on the National Circus: Edward Snowden Wont Undo the Patriot Act [http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/06/frank-rich-snowden-wont-undo-the-patriot-act.html] //mtc The Senate voted on Tuesday to begin debate on bipartisan immigration reform. President Obama

has

staked a lot of political capital on this bill. Would its passage shift the narrative of his second term in a
significant way?

AT ThumperTop Level
No thumpersObamas using PC on immigrationeverything else on the agenda is priced in
Sanghoee 13
Sanjay, Obama's Blueprint for Victory [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sanjay-sanghoee/compromise-reform-howoba_b_3055100.html] April 10 //mtc There is only one thing that President Obama can truly rely on, and that is to get attacked no matter what he does. When he stands up for Democratic principles, he is criticized by the Republicans for betraying the nation's values. When he tries to be bipartisan, he is criticized by the Democrats for being weak and a turncoat. It seems he just cannot win. But he

can, and whether his critics realize it or not, Obama is doing it right now. To understand this, however, it is
important to recognize what motivates this particular president. Some presidents are caretakers. In their view, the best leadership is to make sure that nothing goes terribly wrong and that the ship remains stable. As long as they do that, they consider themselves successful. But that is not this president. This president wants to accomplish something tangible, dramatic, and lasting, and that is to institute reform. Reform in healthcare, reform in marriage equality, reform

in immigration, reform in education, reform in campaign finance, and reform in clean energy. In all these areas, Obama sees the potential for dramatic change and lasting long-term effects, and that is why he is willing to go to the mat on these issues. On other things, including Social Security and Medicare, the budget deficit, and even gun control, he sees less room for dramatic improvement - either because of circumstances or political reality - and so is more willing to compromise. Is this good or bad? It is neither, really. It is just the nature of this presidency and perhaps Obama's destiny. Leaders pick and choose their battles based on the nation's circumstances, unexpected contingencies, and their own instincts. President Obama's instincts led him to fight for healthcare, so he did - ferociously, and he will do the same for immigration, education, and clean energy. He is being roundly criticized for proposing a budget that agrees to cuts in
Social Security by tying it to a Chained CPI, and for agreeing to a softer gun control bill than the one his party promised after Newtown, in order to reach compromise with the Republicans. But what I believe is really happening is that Obama is

making some very tough choices. Political capital is a finite resource and this president will use it where he feels it will do the most good. We can disagree with him on his
priorities, but I also see where he is coming from. Preserving Social Security is important but so is getting a budget passed and reaching some type of compromise to keep the government running. Gun control is urgent but so are immigration and education. History will decide whether the benefits of Obama's reforms on some fronts will outweigh the costs of his bipartisan compromises on others, but in the meantime, the Democrats should remember that governing has always been about horse-trading, and that Obama has only a short time left to address the major facets of his agenda. Obama is

prepared to lose a few battles in order to win the war. That is not being weak or a
turncoat. It is being pragmatic and smart. It is also being Presidential.

Obama will get his agenda nowhes priced in major fights into his agenda and gets immigrationplan kills his momentum
Cillizza 13
Chris Cillizza, WaPo, 2/6/13, President Obama is enjoying a second political honeymoon. But how long will it last?, www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/02/06/president-obama-is-enjoying-a-second-political-honeymoon-but-how-longwill-it-last/?print=1 President Obama is enjoying a sort of second political honeymoon in the wake of his re-election victory last November with a series of national polls showing his job approval rating climbing from the middling territory where it lagged for much of the last several years. In the latest Real Clear Politics rolling average of all national polling, Obama approval is at 52 percent while his disapproval is at 43 percent. That may not seem like much but it marks a significant improvement over where he was for much of 2010 and 2011. Heres a look at Obamas job approval trend line in Washington Post-ABC News polling from January 2011 until now: Judging from his actions of late most notably his surprising confrontational (and liberal) inaugural address President Obama is well aware of the fact that he is

enjoying a polling boom at the moment. And, even Republicans are tacitly acknowledging that Obama is living in a second honeymoon period by backing down on major

legislative fights

like the fiscal cliff and the debt ceiling. The

pertinent question then is how long it

will last and what the president can get done between now and when the good times (for him, at least) stop rolling. Gallup has done considerable work on the lengths of political honeymoons and has concluded
that they aint what they used to be. Heres their chart documenting the relative honeymoon lengths as defined by a job approval rating above the 55 percent mark of presidents in their first terms: As Gallups Jeffrey Jones wrote: Only one of the last six presidents George H.W. Bush had a honeymoon that extended beyond his ninth month in office. Bushs ratings actually climbed for much of his first year and a half in office as the economy remained strong, several communist regimes fell in Europe, and the U.S. military was able to capture Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega and remove him from power. The explanations for the shortening of presidential honeymoons vary. One theory is that modern presidents operate in a hyper-partisan world where the opposition party never rallies (or comes close to rallying) behind them. (In Gallup polling, nine of the ten most polarizing years of a presidency as defined by the gap between presidential job approval among Democrats and job approval among Republicans have come during the presidencies of George W. Bush and Obama.) Because of that partisan division, modern presidents approval ratings start at a lower high point; that means the pace at which they dip below the 56 percent honeymoon mark is significantly hastened. The one and only Nate Silver makes just that point when examining second term presidential honeymoons in this post and accompanying chart: Another

factor contributing to the truncation of political honeymoons is that in the world of 24-hour cable networks, Twitter and the fracturing of the traditional media, the attention span of the American public is much shorter than it once was meaning that momentum simply dies away much faster nowadays. Regardless
of the reason, its clear that

Obama has a limited time

six months perhaps?

to take

legislative advantage of his second political honeymoon . He seems committed to taking on three separate and distinct fights during that time: 1) gun control 2) immigration reform 3) debt and spending. Each of those legislative scraps will shorten his honeymoon as he expends political capital to try to get what he wants out of a Congress
particularly in the House that seems likely to be resistant.

AT ThumperBudget/Debt Ceiling
No debt ceiling fight till after immigration voteinsiders confirm
Bloomberg 7/3
Jonathan Nicholson, Debt Limit Be Damned as U.S. Content With Talkless Summer [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0703/debt-limit-be-damned-as-u-s-content-with-talkless-summer.html] //mtc Congress is increasingly unlikely to start talks on getting a budget deal and forestalling a debt

limit impasse before the next five-week break in August. Several factors are at play: brightening deficit forecasts from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, a crowded July calendar dominated by potential action on immigration and the lack of an obvious starting point for bargaining between two sides that remain far apart, Bloomberg BNA reported. With the Treasury expected to exhaust its
borrowing capacity between October to December, officials had expected a fall showdown. By waiting until after the August recess to lay out even opening positions on taxes and spending, lawmakers and the White House may be setting the stage for a sprint in the last few months of 2013. It seems to be fading, said Representative Tom Cole, a Republican from Oklahoma. I have not heard as much about it because there seems to be less and less pressure, because

the debt

ceiling keeps drifting further back . So I think that has reduced the pressure. Cole previously said he
wanted House Republicans to agree on a bill to be voted on before the August recess, saying that may give them a leg up politically by being able to tell voters back home they had put forward a solution. Instead, an overhaul of the

nations immigration law may take up much of the Houses efforts in July . A special party conference has been set by House Republicans for July 10 to discuss immigration.

Wont be debated till November at the earliest

The Hill 6/11
Peter Schroeder, CBO: Debt-limit boost can wait until possibly November [http://thehill.com/blogs/on -themoney/economy/304827-cbo-debt-limit-boost-can-wait-until-possibly-november] //mtc Congress will have until October or even November before the nation is in danger

of defaulting on its debt, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The CBO provided an update to its debt limit
projections Tuesday, determining that the "extraordinary measures" available to the Treasury Department should buy enough time under the nation's borrowing cap that the nation will be well into the fall before that borrowing limit becomes an issue.

Lawmakers have yet to really even begin discussing what it would take to agree to boost the borrowing limit, although Republicans have indicated that again they will be demanding major fiscal reforms in exchange for an increase. "This is going to be an issue not this month, not the following month, and not the following month. Not until this fall," said Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) on
Tuesday.

Obama wont spend PC on budget fights

WSJ 6/30
Damian Paletta, How Next Debt-Ceiling Fight Could Play Out [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323689204578569833242567970.html] //mtc Epic fiasco. The immigration fight turns ugly, poisoning the well for any compromise. The

White House gives up trying to broker a big budget agreement, assuming Capitol Hill will come up with some short-term fix. Meanwhile, President Barack Obama knows he has a limited amount of political capital left and doesn't want to use it on more deficit-reduction talks.

AT ThumperFarm Bill
Farm bill already voted on and failedno more debates
Winter 7/3
Michael, Congress begins Fourth of July recess with host of issues unresolved [http://ncronline.org/news/politics/dangerous lyincapable-governing] //mtc

In mid-June, the farm bill failed to secure passage in the House when Democrats abandoned their support in the face of $20 billion in cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly called food stamps) and conservative Republicans refused to support the bill because the cuts were not deeper.

I/LFocus
Even a short delay will kill momentum and prevent immigration reform
Soto 13
[Dr. Victoria M, enior Analyst for Latino Decisions and Fellow at the Center for Politics and Governance at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas, at Austin. Opinion: Delaying immigration reform will kill it , http://nbclatino.com/2013/04/25/opinion-delaying-immigration-reform-will-kill-it/] April 25 Herein lies the rub. In order for the rational part of our thinking to kick in, we need time. With regards to the immigration discussion, time would allow folks to see that not going through with an immigration reform makes us less safe. However, too much time is a thief of momentum. And immigration reform, as any type of complex legislation,

lives and dies on momentum. What we have is a Catch-22.

Time allows cooler heads to prevail. In the case of immigration reform that means seeing the likes of Rand Paul understand that pressing pause on immigration reform is counterproductive to our national security. But time also allows for momentum to fizzle. The question in moving forward with immigration reform is whether to proceed more slowly or charge ahead. Neither strategy is ideal, but the charging ahead is the lesser of two evils.

If immigration reform is placed on the back

burner, even for a couple of weeks, it will die . There is only so much attention that
law makers can give to any one area before their attention gets pulled elsewhere.
Also, if lawmakers do not pass immigration reform before summer recess, the emotional voices of those that think that immigration makes us less safe could overpower the debate. The last thing immigration reform needs is the health

care town hall meetings from 2009. Time usually heals all. But in the case of immigration reform time turns out to be more of a foe than a friend. To see immigration reform become a reality the Gang of Eight, the White House, and immigration advocates must charge forward with their reasoned arguments highlighting the greater good of immigration reform. Now more than ever, time is
of the essence.

Narrow timeframe for Obama to get CIRplan crowds out the agenda
Birnbaum 6/12
Jeffrey, Sensational season for scandal [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/12/sensational-season-for-scandal/] //mtc Whats left among major initiatives is immigration reform. However, that faces a tough slog in the Senate and a possibly impossible trajectory in the House of Representatives. Its leading Republican sponsor, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, has already signaled that he might bail on the plan he helped craft if changes including guaranteed bolstering of border security arent added as the bill moves through the Senate. In other words, official Washington will devote lots of time to little more than housekeeping matters. Congress could pass a few appropriations bills, reauthorize farm programs and raise the federal borrowing limit to avoid the disaster that would come with default. What that means is that

not much more than the basics are on track to succeed this year. Thats a big problem for Mr. Obama. The more time that passes, the less political capital hell have to

muscle through his priorities. Unless he acts quickly, he could lose his chance
make his presidency truly historic. He needs more accomplishments to distinguish himself.

to

Delay kills immigration reform

Time 6/12
Caroline Kelley, Can Congress Vote On Immigration Reform Before Its Vacation? [http://swampland.time.com/2013/06/12/cancongress-pass-immigration-reform-before-its-vacation/] Reform advocates worry that if a bill isnt passed before August, opponents might marshal intense

opposition to it in the media and at lawmakers town hall meetings, just as they did with Obamas health care plan in the summer of 2009, which threatened to derail that bill. Ornstein thinks immigration reform could survive Congresss recess, but that the delay would make passage more difficult.

I/LPC Key
PC key to CIRObama renewing his push
AFP 6/12
Agence Press France, US immigration bill advances in Senate, clears first hurdle [http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-06-12/news/39925853_1_border-security-landmark-immigration-bill-democraticsenator-chuck-schumer] WASHINGTON: Bolstered by support from President Barack Obama, a landmark immigration bill

passed a pair of crucial test votes on Tuesday in the US Senate, kicking off weeks of debate on the
comprehensive reform. After months of initial wrangling and more than 100 new amendments offered to the underlying legislation, the Senate -- in an act of broad bipartisanship -- voted 84-15 to move to debate passage of what would be the most important immigration reform in nearly 30 years. "This overwhelming vote, a majority of both parties, starts this bill off on just the right foot," said Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer, one of the Gang of Eight senators -- four Democrats and four Republicans -- who crafted the measure, which now comes to 1,076 pages. Republican Jeff Flake, also an author of the bill, told AFP the votes marked "a good start (but) we have a long way to go," citing potential roadblocks over border security issues and acknowledging what may be an uphill climb to pass similar legislation in the House of Representatives. The top Democrat in the Senate, Harry Reid, has said he hopes to pass the bill by early July. The legislation provides a 13year pathway to citizenship for the more than 11 million people living illegally in the United States, tightens border security, and aims to collect back taxes from undocumented workers. It also would revise visa programs for high-tech employees and agriculture workers, require firms to use an e-verify program that prevents illegal hires and compel those receiving provisional legal status to learn English. Obama made an outspoken pitch for the bill on Tuesday, saying those opposed to it are insincere about fixing a badly broken system. The

president has gently pushed the bill

from behind the scenes for months, fearing his open support would swell the ranks of conservatives who see the bill as offering amnesty to illegal immigrants and are determined to kill it. But ahead of the crucial test votes, Obama waded into the fray, leveraging the political capital on the issue he won during last year's election campaign, particularly among Hispanic voters. The president sought to disarm conservative Republicans -- even some who support immigration reform -- who argue that the bill should
not be passed without tough new border security measures. "If passed, the Senate bill, as currently written and as hitting the floor, would put in place the toughest border enforcement plan that America has ever seen. So nobody's taking border enforcement lightly," he said at a White House event. Obama also took direct aim at the motives of

lawmakers who are opposed to the bill. "If you're not serious about it, if you think that a broken system is the
best America can do, then I guess it makes sense to try to block it," he said. "But if you're actually serious and sincere about fixing a broken system, this is the vehicle to do it, and now is the time to get it done." Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, a frequent Obama critic, said "the president's tone and engagement has been very

helpful" to the process. But he stressed that fellow Republicans in the Senate and House needed to look closely at
whether they want to scupper the effort and jeopardize the party's political future by alienating millions of voters.

Obama key to CIR passage

NYT 6/11
Mark Landler and Ashley Parker, Obama Backs Bill to Overhaul Immigration as Debate Is Set [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/12/us/politics/with-senate-set-to-vote-obama-makes-immigrationpitch.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&pagewanted=all] //mtc WASHINGTON As the Senate voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to begin debating an

overhaul of the nations immigrations laws, President Obama offered a wholehearted endorsement of the bipartisan proposal, which presents him with a chance to reach the kind of landmark

accord with Republicans that has eluded him on the budget and gun violence. For Mr. Obama, who has picked his shots in the immigration debate to avoid stirring partisan anger on Capitol Hill, it was a moment of promise and
peril. While

he threw his weight behind the bill, he conceded that it would not satisfy all sides and said

he anticipated a bruising fight over issues like border security and the path to citizenship. The president, however, may have more leverage than in previous battles, not least because many Republicans believe rewriting the immigration laws is critical for the longterm viability of their party given the nations demographic shifts, even if doing so risks alienating parts of their base. Republican willingness to weigh significant changes in immigration

policy was evident in the 84-to-15 vote to begin what is expected to be a monthlong debate on the bill, a
lopsided majority that comprised 52 Democrats, 2 independents and 30 Republicans. The opponents were all Republicans. Advocates hailed the vote as an encouraging sign for the measures eventual passag e. But Senate veterans warned that the procedural victory did not preclude Republicans from ultimately rejecting the legislation, which would provide a path to citizenship for 11 million people who are in the country illegally. This bill isnt perfect; its a compromise, the president said at a carefully choreographed White House appearance with advocates of reform. Going forward, nobody is going to get everything they want. Not Democrats, not Republicans, not me. Though the Senates Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, often an impediment to Democratic initiatives, voted to allow debate, he said he would vote against the bill unless major changes were made. These include, but are not limited to, the areas of border security, government ben efits and taxes, he said. The House speaker, John A. Boehner, said he feared that the Senate bill doesnt go far enough. Speaking on ABC News before the vote, Mr. Boehner said he had real concerns with the Senate bill, especially on border security and internal enforcement. A vote to allow a debate is no guarantee of a bills passage: the Senate cleared that threshold on legislation to tighten the nations gun laws, but its key provision, to tighten background checks on gun buyers, still went down to defeat. At the same time, this procedural vote was larger than one in 2007, when the Senate last debated immigration reform, and Mr. Obama was clearly determined to seize the moment. If youre serious about actually fixing the system, then this is the vehicle to do it, Mr. Obama declared. If youre not serious about it, if you think that a broken system is the best America can do, then I guess it makes sense to try to block it. Speaking in the East Room, Mr. Obama surrounded himself with supporters of the bill, including a former police chief in Los Angeles and New York, William J. Bratton; Thomas J. Donahue, the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Julin Castro, the mayor of San Antonio; Steve Case, an entrepreneur and a founder of AOL; and Richard L. Trumka, the president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. While Mr. Obama speaks about the need to overhaul the immigration system at schools and factories across the country, the

East Room event was his most concerted push for it since he spoke in Las Vegas in January, around the time a group of Republican and Democratic senators presented a draft framework for legislation. That speech, analysts said, drew a positive response from some influential Republican lawmakers, and the
White House appeared to be trying to replicate the experience. But they warned not to overestimate Mr. Obamas role in the debate now. It propels it forward, but this has already got a lot of juice, said Angela Maria Kelley, an expert on immigration at the Center for American Progress. In the Senate, theres a lot of clarity about peoples positions. Other experts said Mr. Obama had learned from hard experience during the health care and budget debates about the right time to lie low and the right time to insert himself in the process. Theres no question that the president has a delicate dance, said Ben Johnson, the executive director of the American Immigration Council. Hes got to strike the right tone and the right balance of using the office effectively and not trampling on t he process thats currently under way. A senior White House official said Mr.

Obamas involvement was important because the bills success would

hinge on winning the support of Hispanic voters, and there is no Republican with the credibility to sell this to that community only the president can .

PC key to CIRkey to get dems to compromise

Huey-Burns 6/12
Caitlin, Obama Re-Enters Immigration Debate [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/06/12/obama_reenters_immigration_debate__118779.html] President Obama has been intentionally absent from formulating immigration reform

legislation that could be the centerpiece of his second term, well aware that his fingerprints on any bill could deter necessary Republican support. But as a bipartisan Senate measure reached a critical stage Tuesday, Obama stepped forward publically in a cheerleading role. He is president, after all, and if he is going to claim an eventual achievement he must at least nominally contribute to its passage. And his push for the legislation -- while no surprise -- comes at a time when both Democrats and Republicans in Congress are carefully courting votes. Senate leaders are aiming for a final vote by the July 4 recess, and the next three weeks
will test the efficacy of several months worth of delicate negotiations, during which lawmakers crafting the bill urged the president to stay on the sidelines. The measure cleared the first in a series of procedural hurdles Tuesday, with the Senate voting 84-15 to debate the bill, which includes a 13-year path to citizenship for the nations 11 million undocumented immigrants, enhanced border security, low-skill and high-tech visa provisions, and mandatory workplace background checks. Now, the tenuous amendment process and the hunt for 60 yes votes begin in earnest. In anticipation, Obama held a press conference at the White House attended by activists, business leaders, law enforcement officials and a couple of socalled Dreamers -- children of illegal immigrants. A lot of people, Democrats and Republicans, have done a lot of good work on this bill, the president said, arguing that his administration had done what it could to secure the border, deport criminals, and help Dreamers. If you're not serious about it, if you think that a broken system is the best America can do, then I guess it makes sense to try to block it, he said. But if you're actually serious and sincere this is the vehicle t o do it, and now is the time to get it done. Obama used his weekly television address on Saturday to drum up

public support for reform. While not perfect, he said, the Senate bill is largely consistent with the principles Ive
repeatedly laid out for common sense immigration reform. But unlike his aggressive push for new gun laws earlier this year, the president generally has been quieter on immigration. He called for comprehensive reform in his inaugural and State

of the Union addresses earlier this year, and did so again in an April speech at the opening of the library for his predecessor George W. Bush, who fought unsuccessfully for similarly sweeping legislation. Obama kicked off his reform push in Nevada in January. The White House later gave drafts of the presidents own proposals to a few media outlets, which irked Sen. Marco Rubio and others concerned about tainting the so-called Gang of Eights legislative framework. Obama has also hosted some of the bills architects, including Republicans Lindsey Graham and John McCain, at the White House to discuss the legislation. The president has had to be very careful and have a light touch so he didnt

associate himself too much with immigration, Lanae Erickson Hatalsky of the center-left Third Way organization said after attending Obamas Tuesday event. But now, she noted, he has little choice but to weigh in: This week is the time for rubber to hit the road, and were going to see an intense amount of coverage. Obamas absence has opened the door for senators with presumed presidential ambitions
(notably Rubio) to curry favor among conservatives. But among some members of Congress, just the thought of negotiating with the White House is anathema. Sen. Ted Cruz has sought to undermine the bill by calling Obama and his request for a citizenship pathway the biggest obstacle to common sense immigration reform. New Jersey Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez, a member of the Gang of Eight, shot back by accusing Cruz of Obamaphobia. The Texas senator joined 14 other Republicans in voting against bringing the bill to the floor Tuesday; the tally signaled that a little less than half of the GOP caucus would oppose the bill. Yes votes on Tuesday will not necessarily translate into support for final passage, and lawmakers pushing the bill will focus especially on the 25 Republicans who support the debate. New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte has already said she will vote for the final version. Obama has been playing a supporting role this

week and he could use his position to push progressive Democrats to compromise on more controversial elements such as border security and worker visas. But his speech underscored the
tightrope he is walking. The Gang of Eight folks are looking for as much leeway as possible, so to the extent the president is talking about the importance of reform and the major pieces, thats great and only helps them, Erickson Hatalsky said. But if the White House is trying to dictate how each one of these smaller arguments about an amendment is going to play out . . . the harder it is for the gang to do their job. Unlike recent White House events at which he has frequently poked Republicans in the eye, Obama highlighted the bipartisan nature of the bill and warned those who might try to

block or inundate it with procedural tactics and amendments. Left unmentioned by the president -- but
not unremembered by his former Senate colleagues -- was that as the junior senator from Illinois, Obama cast the deciding vote for just such a poison pill amendment, thereby sinking the 2007 reform bill.

AT XO SolvesFails
XOs only change border enforcement, not visas
Lillis 2/16
Mike is a writer at The Hill. Dems: Obama can act unilaterally on immigration reform, 2013, http://thehill.com/blogs/regwatch/administration/283583-dems-recognize-that-obama-can-act-unilaterally-on-immigration-reform

Not all immigration-reform supporters think Obama has so much space to move on immigration without Congress. Rep. Henry Cuellar (Texas), vice-chairman of the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee, said the president has some license to make border security moves and spending decisions. "But pretty much he's done what he can do right now," Cuellar said Friday, "and after that it's up to Congress to address the rest of the issues."

Only Congress can do high skilled and green cards

Thibodeau 11
Patrick, High-skill visa reform needs action by Congress, Obama says, Computer World, http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9220740/High_skill_visa_reform_needs_action_by_Congress_Obama_says President Obama's administration has been tweaking U.S. immigration policy and making

small changes where it can to try to encourage the type of immigrant it wants. But Obama on Tuesday said that real changes to high-skill immigration policy will require action from Congress . "On the high-

skill immigration area, that's not something that we can necessarily do on our own," Obama said at a meeting of the President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. "We can expedite some of the visas that are already in place and try to streamline that process to make it move faster," the president said, but "we may need some legislative help on that area." The leading Democratic reform effort so far is by U.S. Rep. Zoe
Lofgren (D-Calif.). Her bill would give a green card to any foreign student who graduates with an advanced degree in science, technology, engineering or math, but her bill is not getting Republican support. In the Senate, U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) has been promising an immigration reform bill, but he has yet to produce one. Tom Kalil, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy deputy director for policy, said Obama has several goals for skills-based immigration. The president has "explicitly called for, number one, increasing the number of green cards for high-skilled workers," Kalil said in a briefing with reporters regarding a new program for entrepreneurs offered by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Kalil said the president also supports a specific visa for immigrants who create start-ups. Obama additionally supports improving the education of U.S. students in technical areas, Kalil said, citing the president's goal of increasing the number of U.S. engineering graduates. USCIS Director Alejandro Mayorkas said providing

green cards to foreign graduates with advanced degrees "is the perfect example where legislation is needed."

Cant do it XOs are stop gaps

VL 12
Voto Latino, http://www.votolatino.org/blogs/what-president-obama-can-and-cannot-do-immigration President Obamas recent meetings and speeches on immigration have created some confusion over what he can do on his own and what requires congressional action. Activists have been calling Obama to take executive

action to slow down his administrations record pace of deportations. The White House has insisted its hands are tied, and that it is up to Congress to act. Here is a brief summary of what is within the
Presidents grasp. For a more detailed take, read this very detailed memo by the Immigration Policy Center. First, what

Obama cannot do. He cannot pass comprehensive immigration reform . Only Congress can rewrite our federal immigration laws. Obamas administration can lean on Congress to take up legislation and pass it, as he did with health care reform. There he leveraged the weight of his office to
move members of his party to vote for reform. He could do the same with immigration. While convincing member of congress, there is plenty President Obama can do to inject humanity and fairness to our dysfunctional immigration system, despite White House protestations to the contrary. First, like every agency that is charged with enforcing the law, federal agencies have wide discretion to prioritize the laws they enforce. For example, after Sept. 11 various federal agencies shifted large numbers of agents away from other crimes to focus on terrorists. Now, no one accused them then of neglecting the war on drugs or equally serious financial crimes; it was understood the greatest threat to our country was terrorism. And it happens every day. Agencies with finite resources have to decide what merits their attention most urgently. It just doesnt

make sense to spend so much money and resources rounding up people who are contributing to our economy with their labor, tax dollars and purchasing power. Fortunately, the Obama Administration seems to slowly be waking up to this reality. After recent push back by the state governments of Illinois and California and several cities against the Administrations so -called Secure Communitiesprogram, the Department of Homeland Securitys Office of Inspector General announced it is investigatingthe programs implementation. Secure Communities is suppose to identify convicted felons in our jails and prisons who are here undocumented and deport them. But it isnt working out that way. A majority of the deportations have involved people with no convictions or people who have minor offenses, including traffic citations. And we cant overlook that money spent on deporting someone with a traffic offense is money not spent on someone with a serious rap sheet. President Obama should also direct DHS to make participation in Secure Communities optional. Many local police departments object to Secure Communities because they fear itll undermine the publics trust, es pecially in minority and immigrant communities who will fear calling police who also act as immigration agents. Other departments dont want to participate because the program is not meeting its objective of targeting dangerous criminals, as is the case in Illinois and California. DHS should allow police to do whats right for their communities, and not force them to participate in programs that make their communities less secure. There are other ways DHS can use prosecutorial discretion. President Obama has repeatedly said we shouldnt deport young people who want to go to college or enlist in the military and qualify for the DREAM Act if it passes. He has also said we should not be separating families. But DREAM students are still being deported and so are parents of citizen children. What is being said in DC is not reaching the field offices. That should change. DHS should clarify for all its field offices the process through which DREAM students and people with strong ties to their communities can apply for deferred action. Deferred action is a type of probation in that it is a temporary protection against deportation, allows people to work and requires them to check in with DHS regularly. Right now, deferments are granted randomly and are a matter of luck and connections. By giving DHS a clear directive and fully exercising his authority to grant deferred actions, President Obama can greatly help alleviate the suffering of young people who are Americans in spirit but lack the nine digit number that proves it. These proposals are stop gap measures. Ultimately, what the

country needs is an immigration system that is equitable, fair and humane. That will take

action by Congress . But until then, the President can and should mitigate the injustices and suffering in our
communities.

President cant admit

Cox and Rodriguez 9 * Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School AND ** Professor of Law, New York
University School of Law ADAM B. COX AND CRISTINA M. RODRIGUEZ, December, The President and Immigration Law, 119 Yale L.J. 458, Lexis Law Even if we think the broad delegation of immigration authority to the President is appropriate, we must ask an additional question: what should be made of the asymmetrical structure of that delegation? As we explained above, the separation

of powers in the context of modern immigration law provides the Executive considerably more flexibility to make ex post screening policy than ex ante screening policy. In other words, it splits control over the field's two core policy instruments - admissions policy and deportation policy - giving Congress control over the former and the President control over the latter. In this Section, we tentatively
suggest that dividing authority in this way may come with significant costs. n248 [*534] To be clear, we should emphasize that, at a high level of generality, this sort of asymmetric delegation characterizes every regulatory regime. In part, this asymmetry arises from the simple fact that the rules Congress establishes are without effect until they are enforced - a process that gives the enforcement arm of government a kind of policymaking power. Asymmetry also arises whenever Congress decides to formally restrict the set of tools the President may use to tackle a particular problem - by, for example, permitting the President to attack global warming using fuel efficiency standards but not a carbon tax. In any arena these limitations can come with both costs and benefits. But in the immigration arena, we believe that the likelihood of distortion is particularly high because of the way in which admissions rules and deportation rules function as policy complements. For example, in

situations in which the Executive would prefer to admit immigrants with lawful status, it is largely powerless to do so . Their lawful admission would be inconsistent with the admissions criteria established by Congress. One instance in which the Executive might prefer access to the
lawful path is when potential immigrants are unable or unwilling to bear the risks associated with unlawful entry. Whereas many low-skilled migrants with few other options bear these risks, high-skilled immigrants often will not. Migration to the United States may be less valuable to the latter, because they have more migration options, or because they have economic prospects at home sufficient to support a family and live a good life. What is more, employers of high-skilled immigrants may be much less likely to take the risk of flouting the immigration laws than employers of lower skilled labor. For highskilled migrants, then, the delegation of ex post screening authority substitutes poorly for ex ante authority. The large "illegal immigration system" that operates in the shadow of the legal system offers a prominent example of the Executive adopting a potentially second-best regulatory strategy. n249 In today's world, in which the Executive has [*535] little authority to expand the lawful admission of low-skilled workers (on either a permanent or temporary basis), we have seen the rise of an executive branch enforcement strategy that enables immigrants' entrance in large numbers without legal status. The Executive might, of course, prefer this system. The government might sometimes be pleased that unauthorized immigrants lack lawful status, and so an illegal immigration system might emerge even if the Executive had authority to engage in ex ante admissions. Unauthorized immigrants' lack of status gives the Executive more policy flexibility in determining their future inside the

United States. To put it crudely, the Executive can more easily remove illegal immigrants than legal immigrants once those immigrants have served the labor purpose for which they were permitted to enter. n250 Similarly, the immigrants' lack of status may improve labor market efficiency and circumvent public resistance to expanding legal migration. n251 Still, some evidence exists that the Executive would prefer to change the admissions rules rather than rely on the shadow system of illegal immigration. Throughout most of his presidency, for example, President George W. Bush strongly supported the

creation of a large-scale temporary worker program - a program that would have changed significantly admissions policy and decreased reliance on the President's discretionary control over deportation policy. But President Bush could not have implemented this system unilaterally - at least not without claiming
inherent executive authority. The asymmetry of delegation prevented him from adjusting admissions policy rather than deportation policy.

AT XO SolvesObama Wont XO
Our link still applies fear of loss of PC prevents XOs on immigration
Cox and Rodriguez 9 * Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School AND ** Professor of Law, New York
University School of Law ADAM B. COX AND CRISTINA M. RODRIGUEZ, December, The President and Immigration Law, 119 Yale L.J. 458, Lexis Law Two routes to more formalized Presidential power over ex ante screening could be pursued: a claim of inherent executive authority on the one hand, and direct congressional delegation on the other. With respect to the first theory, one could

imagine that a proactive Executive with an interest in reducing its enforcement costs, as well as in shifting the illegal population into legal status, might seek recourse in its inherent executive authority over immigration, much as Presidents Roosevelt and Truman seized the initiative in addressing farm worker shortages during and immediately after World War II. Though the question of inherent authority has never been definitely resolved, we are fairly confident that this option would not be viable in the contemporary political environment. The assertion of inherent authority would be too disruptive to the conventions that have evolved over time regarding Congress's leadership in this arena (and in administrative law generally). Indeed, even when he was riding high politically between 2002 and 2004, it did not occur to President Bush to propose publicly a large-scale guest worker program without congressional authorization. n265

Wont do it
Koba 12
Obama-Romney: Where They Stand on Immigration, CNBC, http://www.cnbc.com/id/49694507/ObamaRomney_Where_They_Stand_on_Immigration

Congress has failed time and again to come up with a comprehensive policy on immigration, and it looks like it won't do so anytime soon. However, that hasn't stopped the presidential candidates
taking a position on the hot button issueas we see below. President Obama: Obama has admitted failure on getting a promised immigration overhaul program in place. In an attempt to get some immigration legislation on the books, Obama had urged Congress to pass the Dream Act, which would give young illegal immigrants who were brought to the United States as children a path to citizenship if they attend college or serve in the military. But the Senate blocked the bill in 2010. Obama has vowed to try and get the bill passed if he is re-elected. However, in June, Obama issued an executive order to allow many immigrants brought illegally to the United States as children to be exempted for two years from deportation and granted work permits if they apply to the government. The exemption also applies to children who are students and/or veterans. Some 1.7 million people could be eligible for the program, according to estimates. Tens of thousands have applied since August. While taking these steps, Obama has pursued an aggressive policy of deportation in his first term. Since 2009, his administration has deported about 1.5 million illegal immigrants, more than the administrations of George W. Bush and Bill Clinton combined. Most of those deported have been convicted of drug offenses or crimes such as drunken driving. Others repeatedly crossed the U.S. border from Mexico or were deemed threats to national security. (Read More: Immigrants Changing US Small Business)) Obama has stated that the government should focus on sending back criminals and recent arrivals rather than minors and families who are already settled in the U.S. He has come out in support of comprehensive immigration reform that includes a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. On state laws (Arizona and Alabama) that allow officials to target suspected illegal immigrants, Obama has come out against them. He labeled as "misguided" the 2010 Arizona law that, among other provisions, requires police to check the status of anyone they suspect is in the country illegally. The Obama administration filed a federal lawsuit this year against Arizona, saying the state law superceded federal laws. In June, the Supreme Court threw out several of the law's provisions but left standing the one on status checksbut did reinforce the federal government's primacy in immigration policy. As for legal immigration, Obama has repeatedly said he supports legislation, backed by some business sectors, that would

increase the number of highly skilled foreign workers and entrepreneurs who can enter the U.S. on special visas or apply to immigrate. Resolution of the issue has been blocked in Congress , and Obama has said he can do little himself on the issue.

AT XO SolvesRollback
Only Congress can enact comprehensive reforms AND XOs will be rolled back
Lerer 2/10
Lisa is a writer at Bloomberg. Obama State of Union Means Executive Power for Defiant Congress, 2013, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-11/obama-poised-to-skirt-congress-to-seal-legacy-in-new-term-agenda.html Already, plans are being laid to unleash new executive orders, regulations, signing statements and memorandums designed to push Obamas programs forward and cement his legacy, according to administration aides and allies. The big things that we need to get done, we cant wait on, said White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer. If we can take action, we will take action. The tactic carries political risk, beyond the backlash it will spark from congressional Republicans. Advisers

say the president -- who already faces charges from Republicans that he is cautious about getting too far ahead of public opinion. And executive orders can be overturned by a future president a lot easier than can legislation. Whats more, Obama will still need to work through Congress to deal with some of the nations biggest concerns, including tax and spending issues as well as any comprehensive changes in the immigration system.
concentrating too much power in the White House -- remains

Even if it passes, itll get rolled back without Congressional support

Moe and Howell 99 - *professor of political science at Stanford University and political science graduate student
Terry and William, Presidential Studies Quarterly, Unilateral Action and Presidential Power: A Theory, December, Lexis This does not mean that presidents can be cavalier about taking unilateral action. While it is exceedingly difficult

for Congress to reverse a presidentially made law, the probability of its doing so will obviously depend on how the new law squares with legislative preferences. The greater the number of legislators who prefer the old status quo to the new one, and the more intensely they feel about it--which turns on how great a departure the president has made from their ideal points--the more likely it is that Congress will be able to overcome its collective action problems and reverse. All preferences,
however, are not equally relevant here. While legislators may have preferences on every issue under the sun, they only have strong incentives to act on them when the issues are related to constituency. When presidents act unilaterally,

then, legislative preferences are most likely to come into play to the extent that presidential action has an adverse effect on constituency interests, particularly if those interests are organized and powerful. The stronger the constituency connection--and, given that, the greater the departure of
presidential action from what legislators want--the more motivated legislators will be to mobilize a reversal.

US is key
Lotterman 8
May 29, St. Paul economist and writer, U.S. Agricultural Research in Dangerous Decline, Online

Prices of basic foods like rice and wheat have risen rapidly around the world. This refocuses attention on two related policy questions long thought important but largely ignored recently: Should government fund agricultural research? What should wealthy nations do to increase food production in poor countries? Both
involve a basic economic question. Is improving agricultural production a "public good"? That is, do the benefits of ag research spill over to the public at large? Would private entities carry out an optimal level of such research without action by government? In the United States, we decided long ago that improving farm output benefits the general public. Because

private entities carrying out research cannot capture many of the benefits, they won't spend as much money on this as society needs. That conclusion produced the 1862 Morrill Act, which provided
grants of land and later money to state colleges, whose "leading object" would be to teach subjects "related to agriculture and the mechanic arts." It also produced the 1887 Hatch Act that established agricultural experiment stations and the 1914 SmithLever Act that set up agricultural extension services. These laws turned out to be some of the most important legislation ever enacted in the United States. Agricultural research, extension and education here became a model

for the rest of the world. It contributed enormously to economy-wide higher productivity, as higher output per person, per acre freed farm workers to move into industry without endangering food supplies.

Leads to world war 3

Droke 12
Clif Droke 3-14, editor of the daily Gold & Silver Stock Report, Rising fuel costs and the next Revolution, http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article33595.html

The economic and political importance of high food prices cant be underestimated. To take
one example, high food prices were the catalyst for last years outbreak of revolution in several Middle East countries. The region once known as the Fertile Crescent is heavily dependent on imported grain and rising fuel costs contributed to the skyrocketing food prices which provoked the Arab revolts. Annia Ciezadlo, in her article Let Them Eat Bread in the March 23, 2011 issue of Foreign Affairs wrote: Of the top 20 wheat importers for 2010, almost

half are Middle Eastern countries. The list reads like a playbook of toppled and teetering regimes: Egypt (1), Algeria (4), Iraq (7), Morocco (8), Yemen (13), Saudi Arabia (15), Libya (16), Tunisia (17). Indeed, high food costs have long been a major factor in fomenting popular revolt. The French Revolution of the late 1700s
originated with a food shortage which caused a 90 percent increase in the bread price in 1789. Describing the build-up to the Reign of Terror in France of 1793-94, author Susan Kerr wrote: For a time, local governments attempted to improve distribution channels and moderate soaring prices. Against this backdrop of rumbling stomachs and wailing hungry children, the excesses and arrogance of the nobility and clergy strutted in sharp contrast. This historical event has an obvious paral lel in todays emphasis on the elite 1 percent versus the 99 percent. The French government of the late 18th century attempted to assuage the pain caused by soaring food prices, but ultimately this effort failed. Although the U.S.

government attempted for a time to keep fuel prices low, it has since abandoned all effort at stopping speculators from pushing prices ever higher. An undercurrent of popular revolt is already present within the U.S. as evidenced by the emergence of the Tea Party and by last years Occupy Wall Street movement. This revolutionary sentiment has been temporarily suppressed by the simultaneous improvement in the retail economy and the financial market rebound of the past few months. The
fact that this is a presidential election year, replete with the usual pump priming measures and underscored by the peaking 4year cycle, has been an invaluable help in keeping revolutionary fervor suppressed for the moment. But what those within the government and financial establishment have failed to consider is that once the 4-year cycle peaks later this

year, we enter the final hard down phase of the 120-year cycle to bottom in late 2014. This
cycle is also known, in the words of Samuel J. Kress, as the Revolutionary Cycle. Regarding the 120 -year cycle, Kress wrote: The first 120-year Mega Cycle began in the mid 1770s after a prolonged depressed economy and the Revolutionary War which transformed American from an occupied territory to an independent country as we know the U.S.A. today. The first 120-year cycle ended in the mid 1890s after the first major depression in the U.S. and the Spanish American War. This began the second 120-year cycle which transformed the U.S. from an agricultural to a manufacturing based economy and which is referred to as the Industrial Revolution. The second 120-year is scheduled to bottom in later 2014 to begin the third (everything comes in threes). If history, an evolving cycle, continues to repeat itself, the potential for the

third major depression and a WWIII equivalent exists and the U.S. could experience another transformation
and our life style as we know it today. Kress goes on to observe that the three elements which govern our lifestyles political, economic and social will come into play as the current 120-year cycle bottoms. The third [120-year bottom] scheduled for later 2014 (everything comes in threes) should be a social revolution, writes Kress. Could

this be the demise of capitalism as we know it today? The 120-year Mega Cycle could also be referred to as
the Revolution Cycle, [with] 2014 the Revolutionary low.

***MPXAg

AG 1NC
CIR key to sustainable ag workforce
Linden 13
Tim, IMMIGRATION REFORM Compromise reached on agricultural component; much debate and political posturing forthcoming [http://www.wga.com/magazine/2013/05/03/immigration-reform-compromise-reached-agricultural-component-much-debate-and] May 3 It was a remarkable scene as WG President and CEO Tom Nassif sat in front of news cameras with United Farm Worker President Arturo Rodriguez, as well as other members of the Agriculture Workforce Coalition on April 18, and

touted the compromise the ag leaders had reached on the agricultural guest worker component of comprehensive immigration reform. The press conference was the culmination of countless meetings between ag labor and ag employers with both the blessing and involvement of numerous U.S. Senators from both sides of the aisle, including
Senators Dianne Feinstein and Marco Rubio. The Gang of Eight, a self-described moniker four Republicans and four Democrats from the U.S. Senate have been wearing, have hammered out a bipartisan package of comprehensive immigration reform that they believe will get more than 60 votes in the Senate, making it filibuster proof. In recent weeks that

package had only been missing the agricultural component. Nassif and Rodriguez along with
Chuck Conner, president & CEO, National Council of Farmer Cooperatives; Jerry Kozak, president & CEO, National Milk Producers Federation; Mike Stuart, president & CEO, Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association; Tom Stenzel, president & CEO of United Fresh Produce Association and Nancy Foster, president & CEO, US Apple Association presented the

agreement to the media with all participants, as well as others not in attendance, pledging their support and full-throated effort to finally pass immigration reform. For his part, Nassif called the achievement historic and said it was a critical component of comprehensive immigration reform. He said, if passed, it would assure agriculture a stable and legal workforce. He said ag is united in support of the legislation. Rodriguez said the legislation would provide agriculture with professional farm workers that would help strengthen the nations agricultural industry. He said provisions in the law would offer workers a good wage as well as strong worker protections. He added that the compromise was hopefully the first of many opportunities in which ag labor and
employers could work together to improve the industry. The compromise has many provisions but in general it will allow the vast majority of current farm workers to obtain legal status through a new Blue Card program if they choose to remain working in agriculture. After a minimum of five years, these workers who fulfill their Blue Card work requirements in U.S. agriculture, will become eligible to apply for a Green Card, providing that they have no outstanding taxes, no convictions and pay a fine. In addition, a new agricultural guest worker program will be established, that

guarantees a flow of agricultural workers in future years. The agreement does specify wages for various
agricultural work. There is a visa cap for the first five years of the program while current workers are participating in the Blue Card program. The U.S. Secretary of Agriculture will have a mandate to modify that cap as circumstances dictate in future years.

Destroys the ag industry

AFBF 06
(Texas Agriculture, 2-17, http://www.txfb.org/TexasAgriculture/2006/021706/021706guestworker.htm)

Failure to include comprehensive guest-worker provisions in any new or reformed immigration law could cause up to $9 billion annually in overall losses to the U.S. agriculture industry and
losses of up to $5 billion annually in net farm income, according to a detailed study released by the American Farm Bureau Federation. If Congress ultimately approves a new immigration law that does not account for agriculture's needs for guest workers, like the bill approved by

consequences for American agriculture will be dire , according to the study. The fruit and vegetable sector as it now exists would disappear, the study says. Up to one-third of
the House last year, then the producerswho are especially dependent on hired laborwould no longer be able to compete. Instead of stocking produce grown and harvested in the U.S., America's grocers would increasingly fill their shelves with foreign-grown produce, resulting in billions of dollars currently kept in the U.S. being sent overseas. "The

agriculture industry is unique in that we are highly dependent on temporary foreign workers to fill jobs that most Americans do not want to perform," said AFBF President
Bob Stallman. "Many family farms depend on temporary labor and could not sustain the impact of net farm income losses brought about by current immigration proposals."

Leads to world war 3

Droke 12
Clif Droke 3-14, editor of the daily Gold & Silver Stock Report, Rising fuel costs and the next Revolution, http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article33595.html

The economic and political importance of high food prices cant be underestimated. To take
one example, high food prices were the catalyst for last years outbreak of revolution in several Middle East countries. The region once known as the Fertile Crescent is heavily dependent on imported grain and rising fuel costs contributed to the skyrocketing food prices which provoked the Arab revolts. Annia Ciezadlo, in her article Let Them Eat Bread in the March 23, 2011 issue of Foreign Affairs wrote: Of the top 20 wheat importers for 2010, almost

half are Middle Eastern countries. The list reads like a playbook of toppled and teetering regimes: Egypt (1), Algeria (4), Iraq (7), Morocco (8), Yemen (13), Saudi Arabia (15), Libya (16), Tunisia (17). Indeed, high food costs have long been a major factor in fomenting popular revolt. The French Revolution of the late 1700s
originated with a food shortage which caused a 90 percent increase in the bread price in 1789. Describing the build-up to the Reign of Terror in France of 1793-94, author Susan Kerr wrote: For a time, local governments attempted to improve distribution channels and moderate soaring prices. Against this backdrop of rumbling stomachs and wailing hungry children, the excesses and arrogance of the nobility and clergy strutted in sharp contra st. This historical event has an obvious parallel in todays emphasis on the elite 1 percent versus the 99 percent. The French government of the late 18th century attempted to assuage the pain caused by soaring food prices, but ultimately this effort failed. Although the U.S.

government attempted for a time to keep fuel prices low, it has since abandoned all effort at stopping speculators from pushing prices ever higher. An undercurrent of popular revolt is already present within the U.S. as evidenced by the emergence of the Tea Party and by last years Occupy Wall Street movement. This revolutionary sentiment has been temporarily suppressed by the simultaneous improvement in the retail economy and the financial market rebound of the past few months. The
fact that this is a presidential election year, replete with the usual pump priming measures and underscored by the peaking 4year cycle, has been an invaluable help in keeping revolutionary fervor suppressed for the moment. But what those within the government and financial establishment have failed to consider is that once the 4-year cycle peaks later this

year, we enter the final hard down phase of the 120-year cycle to bottom in late 2014. This
cycle is also known, in the words of Samuel J. Kress, as the Revolutionary Cycle. Regarding the 120-year cycle, Kress wrote: The first 120-year Mega Cycle began in the mid 1770s after a prolonged depressed economy and the Revolutionary War which transformed American from an occupied territory to an independent country as we know the U.S.A. today. The first 120-year cycle ended in the mid 1890s after the first major depression in the U.S. and the Spanish American War. This began the second 120-year cycle which transformed the U.S. from an agricultural to a manufacturing based economy and which is referred to as the Industrial Revolution. The second 120-year is scheduled to bottom in later 2014 to begin the third (everything comes in threes). If history, an evolving cycle, continues to repeat itself, the potential for the

third major depression and a WWIII equivalent exists and the U.S. could experience another transformation
and our life style as we know it today. Kress goes on to observe that the three elements which govern our lifestyles political, economic and social will come into play as the current 120-year cycle bottoms. The third [120-year bottom] scheduled for later 2014 (everything comes in threes) should be a social revolution, writes Kress. Could

this be the demise of capitalism as we know it today? The 120-year Mega Cycle could also be referred to as
the Revolution Cycle, [with] 2014 the Revolutionary low.

AgCIR Key
Key to ag industry
Fitz 12 - Director of Immigration Policy at the Center for American Progress
Marshall, Time to Legalize Our 11 Million Undocumented Immigrants, CAP, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/report/2012/11/14/44885/time-to-legalize-our-11-million-undocumentedimmigrants/

Nowhere is the tension between immigrant labor and the economy more obvious than in agriculture. By most estimates, undocumented immigrants make up more than half of the workers in the agriculture industry. Likewise the U.S. Department of Agriculture has estimated that each farm job creates three upstream jobs in professions such as packaging, transporting, and selling the produce, meaning that what happens in the agricultural sector affects the economy as a whole. Agriculture is particularly susceptible to the whims of the labor market, since crops become ripe at
a fixed time and must be picked quickly before they rot. Migrant laborers often travel a set route, following the growing season as it begins in places such as Florida and works its way north. Disrupting this flow of pickers can be devastating to local economies and the nations food security. After the passage of Georgias anti-immigrant law, H.B. 87, for example, the Georgia Agribusiness Council estimated that the state could lose up to $1 billion in produce from a lack of immigrant labor. A survey of farmers conducted by the Georgia Department of Agriculture found 56 percent of those surveyed were experiencing difficulty finding workersa devastating blow to the state. Even a program by Gov. Nathan Deal (D-GA) to use prison parolees to fill the worker shortage quickly fell apart, with most walking off the job after just a few hours.

Creating a process for legalizing these undocumented workers would help stabilize the agricultural workforce and enhance our nations food security . It would also diminish the
incentive of states to go down the economically self-destructive path that Georgia, Alabama, Arizona, and others have pursued.

***MPXEcon

Econ 1NC
Reform key to competitiveness and growth
Trujillo and Melgoza 213
Mr. Trujillo is chairman of the Trujillo Group, LLC and co-chairman of the Latino Donor Collaborative. Mr. Melgoza is the CEO of Geoscape International Inc. The Economicand DemographicCase for Immigration Reform, 2/21/13, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323951904578290471589119346.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Since the November election, there has been much talk in Washington and on the pundit circuit about America's changing demographics, especially the "Latino vote" and the new realities of political campaigning. There has also been considerable wrangling over immigration and what it means for a country that is a nation of immigrants but is more crowded than it once was. The

immigration debate is significant to America's politics and culture, but it is also crucial to the

country's economics , a subject that receives too little attention. Let's be blunt: The future wealth and
well-being of the American peoplethe country's economic security, national security, business innovation, GDP growth and status in the global marketplacerequire a comprehensive solution to the chronic problems caused by a broken immigration policy. In
particular, the status of 11 million unauthorized Latino immigrants now living here must be resolved. The economics are simple: Latinos spur demand. Seventy percent of the nation's gross domestic product is fueled by consumer spending. That means the

Latino populationlarge, growing and increasingly prosperouswill play a key role in America's economic future. Latinos are now by far the country's biggest minority-market segment. Including
unauthorized residents, the Latino population now exceeds 54 million (not counting nearly four million in Puerto Rico). Blacks, in second place, number 39 million. The Latino population has increased by more than 52% since 2000. In the same period, the non-Latino white population grew less than 2% and blacks by 14%. According to U.S. Census forecasts, the Latino population in America will reach 133 million by 2050. Those 133 million American Latinos will outnumber the populations of Japan and Russia, whose numbers are already in decline. With growing numbers comes more spending: Latino purchasing power now exceeds $1.2 trillion and, according to the University of Georgia's Selig Center, will top $1.5 trillion by 2015. From a global perspective, that means America's Latino market would be the 11th-largest economy in the worldjust below France, Italy and Mexico, and above South Korea, Spain and Indonesia. At $20,400 per capita, Latino America's purchasing power already exceeds the GDP per capita of all four BRIC countriesBrazil, Russia, India and China. But Latinos' beneficial economic effect is hardly restricted to the demand side. A vital

element of supply-side health is laborworkers, from the most talented who invent new products or start a
business, to those just beginning to climb the ladder of self-improvement, whether through formal education or on-the-job training. Nearly one in six American workers (16%) is Latino, with nearly 23 million Latinos in the U.S. holding jobs. You might not know it from media coverage of immigration issues, but Latinos have the highest labor-force participation rate (nearly 67%) of any American demographic group. Slightly more than a quarter of children in the U.S. under age 18 are Latino. Based on existing trends, at least 1.1 million Latino youths will turn 18 each year for the next 20 years. Politicians may see 1.1 million new voters a year, but business owners see 1.1 million new workers with a strong work ethic. Given the aging of the country's baby boom generationretiring at the rate of 10,000 a day for the next 18 yearsthe strength of the economy is increasingly linked to the promise of these younger workers. Dire demographics threaten the

economies in many developed nations, and the U.S. is not immune to the challenges posed by an aging population. But the problem will be considerably mitigated by immigrants who revitalize the workforce. The average later-life American, whose life expectancy nearly doubled during the 20th century, is
already asking: Who is going to pay for the Social Security and Medicare promises of the federal government? The answer: America's expanding, youthful immigrant populationanother reason why ensuring educational opportunities at every level for all residents is in the national interest. Getting the U.S. economy moving again requires action on

many fronts: tax and regulatory reform, new approaches to energy, education and health care. But nothing is

more important than immigration

Washington, immigration

reform. Despite the impression left by much of the rhetoric in

reform is not just about politics. It's about jobs, growth and competitivenesseconomic security, which in turn means national security. To achieve these
benefits, immigration policies and practices must be attuned to welcoming hardworking immigrants and to dealing fairly and smartly with those who are already in the U.S. regardless of their legal status. Legal immigration, including a guest-worker program that will bolster American business productivity, should be expanded in an intelligent way that is pro-investment and pro-growth. U.S. borders need to be secured against further illegal immigration. Washington

must send a

clear signal to the American people and to every level of governmentthat a coherent and enforceable
immigration policy is in place and here to stay.

Sustained decline causes nuclear war Harris and Burrows 9

Mathew, PhD European History @ Cambridge, counselor in the National Intelligence Council (NIC) and Jennifer is a member of the NICs Long Range Analysis Unit Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the Financial Crisis http://www.ciaonet.org/journals/twq/v32i2/f_0016178_13952.pdf Increased Potential for Global Conflict Of course, the report encompasses more than economics and indeed believes the future is likely to be the result of a number of intersecting and interlocking forces. With so many possible permutations of outcomes, each with ample Revisiting the Future opportunity for unintended consequences, there is a growing sense of insecurity. Even so, history may be more instructive than ever. While we continue to believe that the Great Depression is not likely to be repeated, the

lessons to be drawn from that period include the harmful effects on fledgling democracies and multiethnic societies (think Central Europe in 1920s and 1930s) and on the sustainability of multilateral institutions (think League of Nations in the same period). There is no reason to think that this would not be true in the twenty-first as much as in the twentieth century. For that reason, the ways in which the potential for greater conflict could grow would seem to be even more apt in a constantly volatile economic environment as
they would be if change would be steadier. In surveying those risks, the report stressed the likelihood that terrorism and nonproliferation will remain priorities even as resource issues move up on the international agenda. Terrorisms

appeal will decline if economic growth continues in the Middle East and youth unemployment is reduced. For those terrorist groups that remain active in 2025, however, the diffusion of technologies and scientific knowledge will place some of the worlds most dangerous capabilities within their reach. Terrorist groups in 2025 will likely be a combination of descendants of long established groups_inheriting organizational structures, command and
control processes, and training procedures necessary to conduct sophisticated attacks_and newly emergent collections of the angry and disenfranchised that become self-radicalized, particularly in the absence of economic outlets that would become narrower in an economic downturn. The most dangerous casualty of any economically-induced

drawdown of U.S. military presence would almost certainly be the Middle East. Although Irans acquisition of nuclear weapons is not inevitable, worries about a nuclear-armed Iran could lead states in the region to develop new security arrangements with external powers, acquire additional weapons, and consider pursuing their own nuclear ambitions. It is not clear that the type of stable deterrent relationship that existed between the great powers for most of the Cold War would emerge naturally in the Middle East with a nuclear Iran. Episodes of low intensity conflict and terrorism taking place under a nuclear umbrella could lead to an unintended escalation and broader conflict
if clear red lines between those states involved are not well established. The close proximity of potential nuclear rivals combined with underdeveloped surveillance capabilities and mobile dual-capable Iranian missile systems also will produce inherent difficulties in achieving reliable indications and warning of an impending nuclear attack. The lack of strategic depth in neighboring states like Israel, short warning and missile flight times, and uncertainty of Iranian intentions may

place more focus on preemption rather than defense, potentially leading to escalating

crises.

Econ 2NCCIR Key

US economy is strugglingCIR key to growth
Ortiz 6/20
Javier Immigration reform: Good for America and our economy [http://thehill.com/blogs/congress -blog/foreign-policy/306597immigration-reform-good-for-america-and-our-economy] //mtc For decades our county has largely ignored the 11 million illegal or undocumented immigrants

living within the United States. It is time for us to open our eyes and confront the problem staring us in the face. By not addressing the issue, we place an unnecessary burden on American households and hinder our economy from growing to its full potential. Members of Congress must now come together and allow
immigration reform to go through an open and transparent process in order to create a bill that works best for all Americans. Our economy is in a rut. The Department of Labor recently announced that the U.S. economy only added a lackluster 175,000 jobs in May and the unemployment

rate ticked up to 7.6 from 7.5 percent. Obamas failed economy has hurt American families leaving them to bear the cost of his misguided policies. But immigration reform can be accomplished in a fashion that is pro-economy and good for job creation. The CATO Institute concluded in a study on the economic benefits of comprehensive immigration reform that U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) would increase by at least .84 percent each year after the reform is implemented. The study also estimated net personal income
would increase $30 to $36 billion in the first three years following earned legalization as a result of the higher earning power of newly-legalized workers. Furthermore, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former director of the Congressional Budget

Office and now president of the American Action Forum, conducted a study which found the federal deficit would be reduced by a cumulative amount of $2.7 trillion over the first 10 years of the immigration reform. In addition, a group of eminent economists recently surveyed found 85 percent of them agreed that undocumented immigrants have impacted the U.S. economy in a positive (74 percent) or neutral (11 percent) manner. Moreover, a report by the Immigration Policy Center estimated that each immigrant pays in taxes an
average between $20,000 and $80,000 more than they consume in public benefits. But immigration reform is a political not economic issue. All of the studies referenced above point to the fact that passing comprehensive immigration reform increases the nations GDP and net personal income. The U.S. Senate is moving closer to taking action after passing procedural votes to open debate on The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013. But Congress must be committed to seeing this bill through in a bi-partisan manner rather than allowing it to die under political pressure. In the words of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, The Gang of Eight has done their work, and now its time for the gang of 100 to do its work. Americans went to the polls in November to elect members of Congress to govern and create policies that would positively impact their lives. It is with this charge that Congress must tackle the crucial issue of immigration reform and allow for as much debate and amendments as necessary to reach a solution to this problem. Now is not the time to sit back or wither under political pressure when reform is vitally needed. Thirty years have passed since President Ronald Reagan addressed immigration in 1986 and the time for action is now. Congress has the responsibility to come to grips with the issues facing our nation and they can begin by passing comprehensive immigration reform. In order for this to occur, the U.S. Senate must first take the time to debate and improve the Gang of Eight bill which offers a strong baseline to start from. Our economy is continuing to struggle under the policies of the Obama Administration, but

Congress has the ability to make a positive difference by passing immigration reform which would give our economy a badly needed shot in the arm to create jobs and turn things around.

Comprehensive immigration reform is key to the economy

Beale 12-10 - research and policy associate for the Center for American Progress
Amanda, Top 10 Reasons Why The U.S. Needs Comprehensive Immigration Reform, http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/10/1307561/top-10-reasons-why-the-us-needs-comprehensive-immigration-reform-thatincludes-a-path-to-citizenship/

The nation needs a comprehensive immigration plan, and it is clear from a recent poll that most
Americans support reforming the U.S.s immigration system. In a new poll, nearly two -thirds of people surveyed are in favor of a measure that allows undocumented immigrants to earn citizenship over several years, while only 35 percent oppose such a plan. And President Obama

is expected to begin an all-out drive for comprehensive immigration reform, including seeking a path to citizenship in January. Several top Republicans have softened their views on immigration reform following Novembers election, but in the first push for reform, House

Republicans advanced a bill last month that would add visas for highly skilled workers while reducing legal immigration overall. Providing a road map to citizenship for the millions of undocumented immigrants

living in the U.S. would have sweeping benefits for the nation, especially the economy . Here are the top 10 reasons why the U.S. needs comprehensive immigration reform: 1. Legalizing the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States would boost the nations economy. It would add a cumulative $1.5 trillion to the U.S. gross domestic productthe largest measure of economic growth over 10 years. Thats because immigration reform that puts all workers on a level playing field would create a virtuous cycle in which legal status and labor rights exert upward pressure on the wages of both American and immigrant workers. Higher wages and even better jobs would translate into increased consumer purchasing power, which would benefit the U.S.

economy as a whole. 2. Tax revenues would increase. The federal government would accrue $4.5
billion to $5.4 billion in additional net tax revenue over just three years if the 11 million undocumented immigrants were legalized. And states would benefit. Texas, for example, would see a $4.1 billion gain in tax revenue and the creation of 193,000 new jobs if its approximately 1.6 million undocumented immigrants were legalized. 3. Harmful state immigration laws are damaging state economies. States that have passed stringent immigration measures in an effort to curb the number of undocumented immigrants living in the state have hurt some of their key industries, which are held back due to inadequate access to qualified workers. A farmer in Alabama, where the state legislature passed the anti-immigration law HB 56 in 2011, for example, estimated that he lost up to $300,000 in produce in 2011 because the undocumented farmworkers who had skillfully picked tomatoes from his vines in years prior had been forced to flee the state. 4. A path to citizenship would help families access health care. About a quarter of families where at least one parent is an undocumented immigrant are uninsured, but undocumented immigrants do not qualify for coverage under the Affordable Care Act, leaving them dependent on so-called safety net hospitals that will see their funding reduced as health care reforms are implemented. Without being able to apply for legal status and gain health care coverage, the health care options for undocumented immigrants and their families will shrink. 5. U.S. employers need a legalized workforce. Nearly half of agricultural workers, 17 percent of construction workers, and 12 percent of food preparation workers nationwide lacking legal immigration status. But business ownersfrom farmers to hotel chain ownersbenefit from reliable and skilled laborers, and

a legalization program would ensure that they have them. 6. In 2011, immigrant entrepreneurs were responsible for more than one in four new U.S. businesses. Additionally, immigrant businesses
employ one in every 10 people working for private companies. Immigrants and their children founded 40 percent of Fortune 500 companies, which collectively generated $4.2 trillion in revenue in 2010 more than the GDP of every country in the world except the United States, China, and Japan. Reforms that enhance legal immigration channels for high-skilled immigrants and entrepreneurs while protecting American workers and placing all high-skilled workers on a level playing field will promote economic growth, innovation, and workforce stability in the United States. 7. Letting undocumented immigrants gain legal status would keep families together. More than 5,100 children whose parents are undocumented immigrants are in the U.S. foster care system, according to a 2011 report, because their parents have either been detained by immigration officials or deported and unable to reunite with their children. If undocumented immigrants continue to be deported without a path to citizenship enabling them to remain in the U.S. with their families, up to 15,000 children could be in the foster care system by 2016 because their parents were deported, and most child welfare departments do not have the resources to handle this increase. 8. Young undocumented immigrants would add billions to the

economy if they gained legal status. Passing the DREAM Actlegislation that proposes to create a roadmap to
citizenship for immigrants who came to the United States as children would put 2.1 million young people on a pathway to legal status, adding $329 billion to the American economy over the next two decades. 9. And DREAMers would

boost employment and wages. Legal status and the pursuit of higher education would create an aggregate 19
percent increase in earnings for young undocumented immigrants who would benefit from the DREAM Act by 2030. The ripple effects of these increased wages would create $181 billion in induced economic impact, 1.4 million new jobs, and $10 billion in increased federal revenue. 10. Significant reform of the high-skilled immigration system would benefit certain industries that require high-skilled workers. Immigrants make up 23 percent of the labor force in high-

tech manufacturing and information technology industries, and immigrants more highly educated, on average, than the native-born Americans working in these industries. For every immigrant who earns an advanced degree in one of these fields at a U.S. university, 2.62 American jobs are created.

Immigration reform key to the economy

Klein 12 - Professor at the Fletcher School, Tufts University, and a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution
Michael w/ Susan Cohen, Is U.S. Immigration Policy Holding Back Economic Growth?, http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the exchange/u-immigration-policy-holding-back-economic-growth-223347436.html In these final days of the presidential campaign, both President Obama and Governor Romney are becoming more vocal about their support for immigration reform. While there is still distance between their stances, both agree that it is

important to encourage foreign entrepreneurs to come to America and launch their dreams

here. This is smart and sound. By providing a fair and unencumbered immigration path for entrepreneurs and emerging foreign businesses, we lay a foundation both for stimulation of the

local

economy and for U.S. job growth . But the best policy intentions are thwarted when the immigration bureaucracy slams the door in the faces of foreign business talent. A Growing
Problem Here's an example. A foreign technology company with a very exciting proprietary software product received three rounds of venture capital funding and was ready to launch a major presence in the U.S. They planned to transfer the two founders and several of their technology experts to New York for a few years to solidify the new U.S. operation, gain U.S. customers, and hire and train new U.S. employees. The rest of the company's staff would remain abroad. They wanted to spend their new infusion of several million dollars in venture capital in the U.S. market. But they wouldn't just spend the company's money to buy office equipment and furniture and hire U.S. workers, lawyers and accountants. They were prepared to lease apartments, buy cars, buy furniture for their apartments, eat at New York restaurants, and take vacations in the U.S. But before any of this could play out, a U.S. immigration officer denied the visa applications of these talented and eager entrepreneurs. The official rejected the applications because he did not believe that the applicants' technical knowledge was specialized enough to qualify for a visa, even though they invented and created the technology from scratch. It's Time

for Reform Visa scenarios like this one are disturbingly common and out of step with encouraging investment in the U.S. The Department of Homeland Security recently published statistics on the approval rates for visa applications for companies seeking to transfer expert personnel to the U.S. Over the last four years the approval rate for these applications has dropped more than 20 percent ! The cumulative effect of this increasingly hostile attitude toward foreign entrepreneurs and businesses is significant . According to a recent study
published by The Kauffman Foundation, immigrant-led businesses have generated $63 billion in sales and have generated a whopping 560,000 jobs since 2006. But the study goes on to say that immigrant-run high tech companies are no longer growing. Since 2006, the proportion of new companies founded by foreign-born entrepreneurs has begun to decline, after two decades of consistent growth. Silicon Valley experienced an especially steep decrease. Some of the most exciting

new high tech companies are now launching their operations abroad. We are missing

out on all of the economic gains that we would have enjoyed had we opened our doors to
these companies. Our immigration bureaucracy is not in step with the administration's approach of encouraging investment and opportunity in the U.S. Until this is remedied, it's not just foreign entrepreneurs who lose out when their visa applications are denied; our U.S. economy loses as well.

***MPXIndia Relations

India Relations 1NC

Immigration reform expands skilled laborspurs relations and economic growth in China and India.
LA Times 12
[Other countries eagerly await U.S. immigration reform, http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/11/us-immigration-reformeagerly-awaited-by-source-countries.html] 11/9 "Comprehensive immigration reform will see expansion of skilled labor visas," predicted B. Lindsay Lowell,

director of policy studies for the Institute for the Study of International Migration at Georgetown University. A former research chief for the congressionally appointed Commission on Immigration Reform, Lowell said he expects to see at least a fivefold increase in the number of highly skilled labor visas that would provide "a significant shot in the arm for India and China." There is widespread consensus among economists and academics that skilled migration fosters new trade and business relationships between countries and enhances links to the global economy, Lowell said. "Countries like India and China weigh the opportunities of business abroad from their expats with the possibility of brain drain, and I think they still see the immigration opportunity as a bigger plus than not," he said.

US-Indian relations avert South Asian nuclear war.

Schaffer 2 [Spring 2002, TeresitaDirector of the South Asia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Security,
Washington Quarterly, Lexis]

Washington's increased interest in India since the late 1990s reflects India's economic expansion and position as Asia's newest rising power. New Delhi, for its part, is adjusting to the end of the Cold War. As a result, both giant democracies see that they can benefit by closer cooperation . For Washington, the advantages include a wider network of friends in Asia at a time when the region is changing rapidly, as well as a stronger position from which to help calm possible future

nuclear tensions in the region . Enhanced trade and investment benefit both countries and
are a prerequisite for improved U.S. relations with India . For India, the country's ambition
to assume a stronger leadership role in the world and to maintain an economy that lifts its people out of poverty depends critically on good relations with the United States.

India RelationsVisas Key

Plan is a symbolic gesture --- key to cooperation
Stringer 4 (Dr. Kevin D., Visiting Professor Thunderbird School of Global Management and Ph.D. in History and
International Security University of Zurich, The Visa Dimension of Diplomacy, Discussion Papers in Diplomacy, http://www.clingendael.nl/publications/2004/20040300_cli_paper_dip_issue91.pdf) The consular element of national diplomatic power plays an essential, but often underrated and
overlooked role

in international relations. This consular dimension of diplomacy has often taken the backseat to the political and military aspects of foreign policy in the past. This situation has changed dramatically with the end of the Cold War and the rapid globalization of the world economy. This shift to a unipolar world, but global marketplace, emphasizes the increasing importance of socalled 'low politics' - trade, commerce, tourism, migration - all traditional consular areas of interest. While one superpower, the United States, may currently dominate the military and political aspects of the international environment, the economic and commercial interplay among nations is more diffuse and requires a nuanced and multilateral diplomatic approach. This environment is caused largely by the increasingly complex interdependencies among the world's
economies, which no longer recognize political, commercial, geologic, or technological borders as barriers. The line between domestic and foreign events has been blurred by the impact of external forces ranging from diseases like Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) to technological developments like Chat. Indeed, technology has tended to transcend borders, crossing them and turning them into obstacles to progress.1 In this type of international world, a nuanced and multilateral approach requires the flexible application of a variety of diplomatic instruments, either In solo or in unison with other countries, to influence positively or negatively, the actions of other state actors and non-state actors, to achieve national interest goals. This type of environment places emphasis on all operative aspects of diplomacy, one of which is its consular component. With the use of force between stairs more and more restricted as a policy option in the International system, alternative diplomatic options must be sought. Nowhere

is the partial fulfillment of this need for a variety of diplomatic instruments better illustrated than in the often overlooked, and seemingly mundane area of consular visa operations. The lowly visa serves an important purpose in international relations and is a well-used, but little studied, instrument of foreign policy in today's system of sovereign states.' In fact, its use may be
more diplomatically opportune when other, blunter instruments are nor available or possible. This paper will attempt to illustrate the practical uses of 'visa diplomacy" as an integral device in the conduct of international relations. Visa

diplomacy is defined as the use of visa issuance or denial at an individual, group or interstate level, to influence another state's policies. The first section will
provide a brief overview of consular visa diplomacy. The second section will focus on examples of visa issuance as a symbolic diplomatic measure to express a shift in foreign policy to greater cooperation or recognition. The third section will consider examples of diplomatic retorsion1 with visa usage as an expression of protest, a step in conflict escalation, a measure for diplomatic coercion, or as part of a wider sanctions package targeted towards specific, decision-making groups. Visa regimes as a component of the national security system and border control will not be addressed in this paper'. The conclusion will assess where the use of visa diplomacy seems most effective in international relations. 1. Consular Visa Diplomacy in General The Importance of consular services as an integral part of a country's diplomacy in general is insufficiently understood and appreciated. It is insufficiently understood not only by the general public but also by persons who make the study of foreign policy their specialty - even by many practitioners of diplomacy/ Consular operational services generally divide themselves into two areas: the provision of assistance to citizens abroad and the issuance of visas to qualified foreigners seeking entry Into the represented state. The first area plays an important role in how a country's consular service is perceived in domestic politics. This citizen service will not be addressed in this paper. The second area, visas, influences

how a country is perceived abroad and serves as a tool in a country's overall foreign policy. Broadly speaking, the consular aspects of foreign policy issues have become much more prominent and complex in the 20th and 21st centuries. The movements of people - voluntary and forced, individual and mass - are a growing international phenomenon caused by global trends in technology and demography, income disparities, and political instabilities.6 The division of the world between developed and
developing countries, coupled with advanced telecommunications and internet technology which allows both camps to view each other instantaneously, encourages both legal and illegal migration from one to the other. This trend is abetted by an ease of travel that puts any destination within reach of a long haul flight. In taking the United States example, many people wish to come to the United States, not Just to travel, but for business, study, family visits, and of course immigration.' This interest

makes the use of visa denial or issuance an influential tool - but not necessarily a powerful one in comparison to force or trade sanctions - for foreign policy applications. The visa component of consular diplomacy can be visualized as the foreign policy bridge between the foreign individual and his government. The application of a specific visa policy can affect international relations between states at a personal (individual applicant), group (tourists, businessmen, students, government officials) or intergovernment level. Briefly viewing visa diplomacy at these three levels gives an Indication of its influence on international
relations. From the first level perspective, consular work should be esteemed in the diplomatic service because it concerns the individual. Consular officers are the first, and sometimes only people who represent their country to foreigners abroad.5 Consular officers may well be the first government representatives aliens abroad will meet. The impression consular officers make on these people may be lasting. The skill, the patience, the civility, the decency they bring to their tasks in dealing with foreigners can do much to enhance the image of a government, institution, society, or people.3 At this level, consular diplomats are exposed to local people, culture, and language directly through visa application interactions."0 A foreign culture and society are intensively learned by interviewing visa applicants. One could argue that the consular visa interview is the most basic level of bilateral diplomatic interaction between two countries. This viewpoint is buttressed by Herbert Butterfield's emphasis on the importance of individual personalities in shaping events, because "every public action which was ever taken can

be regarded as a private act. the personal decision of somebody'." Nowhere Is this more true than at the level of the visa interview, where the foreign policy of a government is directly communicated to and affects the individual foreigner. As one foreign service officer noted. 'Consular officers affect lives retail, in concrete terms, one body at a time'. The Yet this form of retail diplomacy can

issuance or withholding of visas is retail diplomacy at its best. have serious bilateral implications both political and economic in terms of visa issuance or denial at the private citizen, governing elite, or state level. This position is echoed by US Congressman
Peter Rodino, who stated, the exercise of those powers, duties, and functions conferred upon consular officers relating to the granting or refusal of visas has

far reaching effects on the lives of persons seeking admission to the United States: it affects our foreign policy and foreigners' perception of this nation: and most importantly, it affects our national security and national interest." Thousands of visa cases are sensitive in political and foreign policy terms. The issuance or refusal of a visa to a controversial person invariably embroils a nation in foreign policy issues.14 Long lines of visa applicants snaking through the streets, beginning at ridiculously early hours, can lead to public relations problems in host countries.15 Restrictions on visas for specific groups like students or athletes can also
have implications ranging from demonstrations to host government intervention. In one anecdotal example, when the visa of a noted South African boxer was revoked during the apartheid era. the Foreign Minister of that country telephoned the US Secretary of State to point out that

unless reversed, that action could have a deleterious effect on the ongoing Namibian negotiations.16 Clearly then, a nation's visa policy towards another state, and hence its citizens, has both symbolic diplomatic inferences and practical economic implications.

India RelationsAT Relations Resilient

CIR is the vital internal link to resiliency- collapse possible without deeper ties
Davis 10
(Ted, School of Public Policy @ George Mason University, Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, 2/18-20, The Global Dynamic: of High-Skill Migration: The Case of U.S./India Relations, https://www.appam.org/conferences/international/maastricht2010/sessions/downloads/389.1.pdf) There is no reason to think that the present system of governing migration is optimal. Migration is a dynamic process, while the migration policy-making machinery is slow and cumbersome. The possibility that policy-makers will fail to capitalize on opportunities for mutual gain among sending and receiving countries is especially large for high-skill migration. At first glance, the case of India U.S. relations would appear to

contradict this point. As noted, both India and the U.S. have experienced significant benefits from migration and circulation. Yet many Indians still live in poverty and many Americans see India, its immigrants and offshore services, as a threat to their jobs and wages. Thus there is a growing could impede, if not derail , further progress. Absent a program of cooperation, and perhaps exacerbated by the economic downturn, there is a risk that each country would be inclined to act unilaterally in pursuit of its own interests. However, these typically protectionist or nationalistic
between these countries that actions may impede the flow of immigrants, but it could impede the flow of ideas, reduce knowledge spillovers, and ultimately inhibit innovation and growth. Cooperation on migration offers an opportunity for countries to

tension

address the tensions that arise from immigration while opening avenues for pursuing common objectives and mutual prosperity. Though it may be desirable to consider a common system of migration across
countries that transcend bilateral arrangements, such a system may not be able to address the unique dynamics that exist between countries. Nor should these relationships be viewed uniformly. Differences exist between sectors, such as technology services and medical services that call for their own strategies. This paper represents only a beginning point for understanding

Spillover highly possible- deep relations are a new development- CIR needed to cement ties
Lal & Rajagopalan 5
Rollie, Assistant Professor at Vlerick Management School in Leuven, Belgium and political scientist for RAND, Rajesh, Associate Professor in International Politics, Center for International Politics, US-India Strategic Dialogue, http://www.rand.org/pubs/conf_proceedings/2005/RAND_CF201.pdf)

Relations between the world's two largest democracies, India and the U nited S tates, have encountered many obstacles over the years. Until recently, the two countries had limited interactions and few cooperative endeavours. However, the relationship has improved dramatically over the past several years, and today
is better than at any previous point in history'. Through dialogue on a number of issues, at various levels of government, academia, and the press, the current relationship has achieved great depth and maturity. This is

the kind of interaction that both India and the U nited S tates will need to keep working at rather than take for granted. Candid exchange of ideas is the key to ensuring that natural differences of interests and perspectives do not lead back to the estrangement that characterized die
relationship between the two countries for the last half a century.

India RelationsK/T Asia Stability

Relations key to Asian stability and the US economy.
Tellis, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment, 11/16/2005 (Ashley, Testimony before the House Committee on
International Relations, http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=17693&prog=zgp&proj=znpp,zsa,zusr) If I am permitted to digress a bit, let me say parenthetically, that advancing the growth of Indian power, as the Administration currently intends, is not directed, as many critics have alleged, at containing China. I do not believe that a policy of containing China is either feasible or necessary at this point in time. (India too, currently, has no interest in becoming part of any coalition aimed at containing China.) Rather, the Administrations strategy of assisting India to

become a major world power in the twenty-first century is directed, first and foremost, towards constructing a stable geopolitical order in Asia that is conducive to peace and prosperity. There is
little doubt today that the Asian continent is poised to become the new center of gravity in international politics. Although lower growth in the labor force, reduced export performance, diminishing returns to capital, changes in demographic structure, and the maturation of the economy all suggest that national growth rates in several key Asian states in particular Japan, South Korea, and possibly Chinaare likely to decline in comparison to the latter half of the Cold War period, the spurt in Indian growth rates, coupled with the relatively high though still marginally declining growth rates in China, will propel Asias share of the global economy to some 43% by 2025, thus making the continent the largest single locus of economic power worldwide. An Asia that hosts economic power of such magnitude, along with its

strong and growing connectivity to the American economy, will become an arena vital to the United States in much the same way that Europe was the grand prize during the Cold War. In such circumstances, the Administrations policy of developing a new global partnership with India represents a considered effort at shaping the emerging Asian environment to suit American interests in the twenty-first century. Even as the United States focuses on developing good relations with all
the major Asian states, it is eminently reasonable for Washington not only to invest additional resources in strengthening the continents democratic powers but also to deepen the bilateral relationship enjoyed with each of these countrieson the assumption that the proliferation of strong democratic states in Asia represents the best

insurance against intra-continental instability as well as threats that may emerge against the United States and its regional presence. Strengthening New Delhi and transforming U.SIndian ties, therefore, has everything to do with American confidence in Indian democracy and the conviction that its growing strength, tempered by its liberal values, brings only benefits for Asian stability and American security. As Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns succinctly
stated in his testimony before this Committee, By cooperating with India now, we accelerate the arrival of the benefits that Indias rise brings to the region and the world.

India RelationsAsia Conflict Escalates

Conflicts in East Asia go nuclear
Jonathan S. Landay, National Security and Intelligence Correspondent, -2K [Top Administration Officials Warn Stakes for U.S. Are High in Asian Conflicts, Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service, March 10, p. Lexis] Few if any experts think China and Taiwan, North Korea and South Korea, or India and Pakistan

are spoiling to fight. But even a minor miscalculation by any of them could destabilize Asia, jolt the global economy and even start a nuclear war. India, Pakistan and China all have nuclear weapons, and North Korea may have a few, too. Asia lacks the kinds of organizations, negotiations and diplomatic relationships that helped keep an uneasy peace for five decades in Cold War Europe. Nowhere else on Earth are the stakes as high and relationships so fragile, said Bates Gill, director of northeast Asian policy studies at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank. We see the convergence of great power interest overlaid with lingering confrontations with no institutionalized security mechanism in place. There are elements for potential disaster. In an effort
to cool the regions tempers, President Clinton, Defense Secretary William S. Cohen and National Security Adviser Samuel R. Berger all will hopscotch Asias capitals this month. For America, the stakes could hardly be higher. There are

100,000 U.S. troops in Asia committed to defending Taiwan, Japan and South Korea, and the United States would instantly become embroiled if Beijing moved against Taiwan or North Korea attacked South Korea. While Washington has no defense commitments to either India or Pakistan, a conflict between the two could end the global taboo against using nuclear weapons and demolish the already shaky international nonproliferation regime. In addition, globalization has made a stable Asia, with its massive markets, cheap labor, exports and resources, indispensable to the U.S. economy. Numerous U.S. firms and millions of American jobs depend on trade with Asia that totaled
$600 billion last year, according to the Commerce Department.

***MPXLatin America Relations

Citizenship LA Relations Internal 1NC

Key to US-Latin American relations
Lopez-Levy 12 PhD Candidate at the Josef Korbel School of International Studies of the University of Denver
Arturo, The Latin American Gorilla, Foreign Policy in Focus, http://www.fpif.org/articles/the_latin_american_gorilla

Few political acts would have a greater effect on U.S.-Latin American relations than
the naturalization of millions of Hispanics over the next decade. President Obama announced that immigration reform would be a legislative priority in his second term during the Summit of the Americas in Cartagena. It is not only a domestic but a foreign policy promise. The countries that have the largest number of undocumented immigrants in the United States are the same ones that have free-trade agreements: Mexico, Central America, and Colombia. These are also the countries with the greatest need for a coordinated effort against organized crime and drug and arms trafficking. Establishing a path to citizenship for millions of undocumented immigrants would make border control more manageable, and it would also lead to greater demand for the legal immigration of families and circular movement between the United States and immigrants countries of origin. Comprehensive U.S. immigration reform would have a very significant positive impact on tourism, remittances, investment, and the voting preferences of expatriates from those countries.

Citizenship LA Relations Internal 2NC

CIR key to LA relations
Meacham 13CSIS America Program Director
(Carl U.S. Immigration Reform: Good for the Americas?, June 13, 2013, http://csis.org/publication/us-immigration-reform-goodamericas-0, accessed 7/2/13) MB

Comprehensive immigration reform would be positively received among Latin American citizens and governments, especially in those countries from which the majority of the U.S. immigrant population originates. First and foremost, a bill that provides legal status to the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States would help to reverse the regions perception that the U.S. government treats Hispanics as second-class citizens, acknowledging w hat many feel is their existing right to U.S. residency and eventual citizenship. Not unrelated is the effect comprehensive reform would have on the regions governments. Because passing the bill would demonstrate the U.S. governments willingness to work on issues important to its counterparts throughout the hemisphere even when those issues stir up conflict at homeimmigration reform could help redefine perceptions of the United States in the region; passing the bill would send the message that the U.S. government recognizes the regions and its peoples importance in our own prosperity moving forward.

Addressing citizenship is key to Latin American relations overcomes perceptions of disrespect

Baeza and Langevin 9
Gonzalo Baeza and Mark Langevin, Ph.D, The Convergence We Need? March 31, 2009, http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/item/2009/0103/comm/baezalangevin_convergence.html The dual challenges of overcoming the mounting global economic crisis and moving toward a renewable energy based regional economy may not include as many points of interest convergence as President Obama would hope for. Yet, there

are several intermestic (i.e., both international and domestic in nature) policy challenges, most notably immigration and the criminal drug trade, which face the Americas in one way or another.16 Nonetheless, while the
United States and LAC may share mutual interests and policy preferences in these areas, there are significant domestic electoral and political obstacles to resolving them unilaterally or through regional cooperation. Both the CFR taskforce and the Brookings policy framework place emphasis on developing a comprehensive U.S.

immigration reform in consultation with LAC sending countries. Moreover, the CFR taskforce, WOLA, the Brookings commission, and the Inter-American Dialogue all agree that recent U.S. immigration policy undermines regional cooperation. The Dialogue asserts that the construction of a wall on the border with Mexico has become a highly charged symbol of disrespect,17 and the CFR taskforce concludes that: The failures of U.S. immigration policy have become a foreign policy problem. In the United States, immigration is largely considered a domestic policy issue. But given the profound impact that U.S. immigration policy has on many Latin American nations, it is naturally considered a vital issue to their relations with the United States.18 The CFR taskforce proposes a comprehensive immigration reform that recognizes U.S. security, economic, and
foreign policy interests while offering a circular migration system based on legal migration, workforce development, and skill training, and a return to the sending country to foster economic development. The Brookings commission also offers a comprehensive, yet distinct approach to immigration reform by calling for regional coordination of a hemispheric labor market calibrated to meet U.S. shortages. The commission proposes the establishment of a regional institution, with a focus on Mexico and El Salvador, to design temporary worker programs, intensify border security cooperation, promote circular migration, and implement projects targeted to migrant sending regions. In addition, the commission calls for the founding of a parallel, Standing Commission on Immigration and Labor Markets that would serve as an independent federal agency to set annual temporary, provisional, and permanent visa limits based on regional labor market analyses and economic development goals. Both the CFR taskforce and the Brookings commission advocate greater investment in workplace verification laws and border security as well as a path to legal status for the millions of immigrants currently without legal

The Obama campaign also promoted comprehensive immigration reform that would strengthen border security and the immigration bureaucracy while offering a responsible path to earned citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Lastly, the Inter-American
standing. Dialogue offers President Obama two immediate recommendations that would partially rectify the erosion of U.S. leadership

in the hemisphere and shorten the political distance between his administration and LAC. The Dialogue suggests that the new administration discontinue construction of the wall bordering Mexico and suspend federal efforts to target illegal immigrants for workplace raids and arrests. If taken, these recommendations would bolster President

Obamas regional leadership and dull the sharper edges of U.S. immigration
policy.
Paradoxically, such measures might galvanize further opposition to comprehensive immigration reform if the

All of the policy proposals favor a comprehensive immigration reform that would treat the untenable situation of millions of undocumented migrants while seeking to create a more effective immigration system to process more legal immigrants as well as developing tools to prevent illegal migration. Moreover, most of these recommendations would be well received by the immigrant sending countries and throughout LAC. However, immigration is also one of the most complex of the intermestic affairs that challenge the
current economic crisis continues to threaten the employment and economic security of the U.S. electorate. new U.S. administration, one further complicated by the deepening economic crisis and rising unemployment.

Must be comprehensive to solve LA relations

Barshefsky et al. 8
Charlene Barshefsky and James T. Hill, Chairs and Shannon K. ONeil, Project Director. U.S. -Latin America Relations: A New Direction for a New Reality. Council On Foreign Relations. Independent Task Force Report No. 60. 2008. Onli ne. Immigration reform is one of the most pressing domestic policy issues facing the United States. It is also a

critical issue for U.S.-Latin America relations. The defeat of immigration reform in the U.S. Senate in
2007 suggests that no broad national policy change will be forthcoming in the near term. implemented by states and cities

Piecemeal measures

are no substitute for a coherent federal policy on immigration.

The next president and Congress

must face this issue in order to meet U.S. security, economic, and foreign policy interests better. The Task Force urges the next administration and Congress to negotiate and approve comprehensive immigration reform in 2009. Viable immigration policy must: improve border security
and management; address the unauthorized work force already here; ensure employer security, verification, and responsibility; and expand a flexible worker program to meet changing U.S. economic demands. Initiatives to improve border security must address the flow of goods and people across all U.S. borders and ports of entry. Notwithstanding this broader requirement, the Task Force recommends closer cooperation with Mexican law enforcement authorities, particularly for the interdiction of illegal crime and human smuggling networks that operate along our shared border. Passage of the Merida Initiative would be an initial step toward helping to strengthen Mexican law enforcement capacity and deepening formal ties and cooperation between the two countries security forces. Immigration reform

must include regularizing the status of the estimated twelve million unauthorized workers currently in the United States. Deportation or attrition through enforcement are not realistic options to meet U.S. goals of improving security and lessening the consequences for the U.S. work force. Instead, Congress should permit a form of earned adjustment that authorizes these twelve million individuals and their activities within the United States.56

U.S. immigration policy harms relations with Latin America even with countries without large populations in the U.S.
Barshefsky et al. 8
Charlene Barshefsky and James T. Hill, Chairs and Shannon K. ONeil, Project Director. U.S. -Latin America Relations: A New Direction for a New Reality. Council On Foreign Relations. Independent Task Force Report No. 60. 2008. Online. Finally, the failures of U.S. immigration policy have become a foreign policy problem. In the United States, immigration is largely considered a domestic policy issue. But given

the profound impact that U.S. immigration policy has on many Latin American nations, it is naturally considered a vital issue in their relations with the United States. The tenor of recent immigration debates and the failure to pass meaningful immigration reform have hurt U.S. standing in the region, as many Latin American nations (including those without large populations in the United States) perceive current laws as discriminatory and unfair toward their citizens. The Task Force finds that comprehensive immigration reform is necessary to create a system that better meets U.S. security, economic, and foreign policy interests, and must be a priority for the next administration. A system that offers incentives to migrate legally, to work hard and gain skills while in the

United States, and to return to the countries of origin eventually with the acquired capital and skills would not only benefit the United States, it would also foster economic and political development in Latin America.

Citizenship AT: Alt Causes

No alt causes Latin America is looking for a reason to revamp relations with the U.S. the U.S. must make the first move.
Hakim 6
Peter Hakim, President of the Inter-American Dialogue. Is Washington Losing Latin America?. Foreign Affairs 85 no1 39 -53 Ja/F 2006. Wiley Online.

Although U.S. relations with Latin America are at a low point and the prospects for improvement in the short term are not good, not all the news is bad. The United States and Latin America share many values and are still cooperating on many issues. Some bilateral
relationships are remarkably strong. Washington has maintained an unusually productive relationship with Colombia over the past half-dozen years. U.S. aid programs, initially propelled by domestic concerns about increased drug trafficking, have helped make Colombia more secure and have strengthened the authority of its government. Similarly, Chile continues its exceptional economic and social progress, and its democracy has become more robust. Since 2004, when Chile's free-trade pact with the United States went into force, U.S.-Chilean trade has soared, further reinforcing the two countries' genuinely respectful and valued relationship (all despite Chile's opposition to the war in Iraq). At the United States' request, over the past year Brazil has led some 7,500 peacekeepers (mainly from Latin America) in Haiti, helping reestablish security and order there as the country prepared for elections in December. Despite their disagreements and

dissatisfaction with U.S. policy in the region, most governments in Latin America want to strengthen their relations with Washington. But the Bush administration has demonstrated neither the determination nor the capability to pursue policies in the Americas that would mobilize the support of the other nations of the hemisphere. Latin American countries, divided among
themselves, are by no means clamoring for a renewal of hemispheric cooperation. Chavez's antics at the Summit of the Americas in November 2005 obscured the real tragedies of the gathering--that is, how little the leaders accomplished, how badly the hemispheric agenda has unraveled, and how deeply divided the countries of the Americas are . Despite

enthusiasm in the region for economic partnership, Latin Americans' fundamental ambivalence toward the United States' foreign policies has forcefully reemerged.

Immigration cannot be viewed in isolation from other parts of US-Latin American relations it is integral to all other parts of the relationships.
Weeks 9 - associate professor of political science at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Gregory Weeks, Recent Works on U.S.Latin American Relations. Latin American Research Review. Volume 44, Number 1, 2009. Project Muse. Immigration is a central focus of all three surveys by McPherson, O'Brien, and Brewer, as well as the volume edited by LaRosa and Mora. Nevertheless, the detailed analysis by LaRosa and Lance R. Ingwersen in the latter collection merits special mention. Given the importance that remittances by U.S. immigrants have for Mexico,

Central America, and much of the Caribbean, and the complex public policy reaction in the United States, particularly after 2001, when more restrictive laws were passed at the federal, state, and local levels , general works on U.S.Latin American relations should pay even greater attention to the causes and effects of immigration. Not only is immigration a political challenge for the United States but also Latin American governments increasingly view it as critical in both economic and humanitarian terms. The Latin American [End Page 251] side of immigration is understudied, yet
central to understanding why people emigrate, how they view citizenship, how they continue to interact with their home countries after moving, and how governments enact migration-related policies. In addition, immigration should

not be viewed in isolation from other issues. Presidential candidates from Mexico, the Caribbean, and Central America in particular court voters in the United States. Once elected, they travel frequently to demonstrate their commitment to expatriate communities; they open new consulates, create Web site portals, and, importantly, lobby the U.S. Congress.
McPherson notes how the deportation of criminals from the United States has created new problems in the Dominican Republic. The same issue is even more pressing in El Salvador, given the circular movement of gang members . For many

countries, then, immigration is at or near the top of the list of policy priorities.

Citizenship AT: Resilient

Relations are threatened more Latin American countries are breaking away.
Zedillo et al. 8
Ernesto Zedillo, Commission co-chair; Former President of Mexico, Thomas R. Pickering, Commission co-chair; Former U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Members of the Partnership for the Americas Commission, Mauricio Crdenas, Director of the Commission; Senior Fellow and Director, Latin America Initiative, Brookings, and Leonardo Martinez-Diaz, Deputy Director of the Commission; Political Economy Fellow, Global Economy and Development, Brookings. Report of the Partnership for the Americas Commission. The Brookings Institution. November 2008. Rethinking U.S.Latin American Relations A Hemispheric Partnership for a Turbulent World. http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2008/1124_latin_america_partnership/1124_latin_america_partnership.pdf

Their enhanced confidence and autonomy will make many LAC countries much less responsive to U.S. policies that are perceived as patronizing, intrusive, or prescriptive, and they will be more responsive to policies that engage them as partners on issues of mutual concern. Also, the LAC countries diversification of economic and political relations means that Washington will have to compete with governments both outside and within the region for regional influence. In particular, Braslia and Caracas are both vying for leadership in South America; and though
they may have different visions for regional integration and different ways to approach other governments, they agree that Washington should play a more limited role in their part of the world. The fourth change is that, today, the LAC countries are better positioned to act as reliable partners. Despite remaining governance challenges, the vast majority of these countries are stable democracies for which competitive elections and peaceful transitions of power are the norm, not the exception. Throughout these countries, civil society groups now participate extensively in the policymaking process, and there is much less tolerance of violence as a means of political expression. Economic progress has also made the LAC countries more reliable partners. Leaders, including some on the left, are committed to fiscal responsibility. Most central banks are now independent bodies focused on inflation control. Exchange rates largely reflect market forces. As a result, many LAC countries can now look beyond their borders and commit to sustained partnerships and responsibilities on regional and global issues. In sum, the countries of the LAC region have made significant strides in economic and

social development and will continue to prosper even if U.S. leaders remain disengaged. Washington must decide whether it wants to actively reengage and benefit from the regions dynamism and resources or be sidelined as other economic and political actors fill the void left by its absence.

LA Relations Laundry List 1NC

Spills over to broader relations solves democracy, warming, and prolif
Shifter 12 - President of the Sol M. Linowitz Forum Intern-American Dialogue
Michael, "Remaking the Relationship: The United States and Latin America" Inter-American Dialogue Policy Report -- April -www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf There are compelling reasons for the United States and Latin America to pursue more robust

ties . Every country in the Americas would benefit from strengthened and expanded economic relations, with improved access to each others markets, investment capital, and energy resources . Even with its current economic problems, the United States $16-trillion economy is a vital market and source of capital (including remittances) and technology for Latin America, and it could contribute more to the regions economic performance . For its part, Latin Americas rising economies will inevitably become more and more crucial to the United States economic future .The United States and many nations of Latin America and the Caribbean would also gain a great deal by more cooperation on such global matters as climate change, nuclear non-proliferation, and democracy and human rights . With a rapidly expanding US Hispanic population of more than 50 million, the cultural and
demographic integration of the United States and Latin America is proceeding at an accelerating pace, setting a firmer basis for hemispheric partnership. Despite the multiple opportunities and potential benefits, relations

between the United States and Latin America remain disappointing . If new opportunities are not seized, relations will likely continue to drift apart . The longer the current situation persists, the harder it will be to reverse course and rebuild vigorous cooperation . Hemispheric
affairs require urgent attentionboth from the United States and from Latin America and the Caribbean

Extinction
Diamond 95
Larry, Senior Fellow Hoover Institution, Promoting Democracy in the 1990s, December, http://wwics.si.edu/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/di/1.htm OTHER THREATS This hardly exhausts the lists of threats to our security and well-being in the coming years and decades. In the former Yugoslavia nationalist aggression tears at the stability of Europe and could easily spread. The flow of illegal drugs intensifies through increasingly powerful international crime syndicates that have made common cause with authoritarian regimes and have utterly corrupted the institutions of tenuous, democratic ones . Nuclear, chemical, and

biological weapons continue to proliferate. The very source of life on Earth, the global ecosystem, appears increasingly endangered. Most of these new and unconventional threats to security are associated with or aggravated by the weakness or absence of democracy, with its provisions for legality, accountability, popular sovereignty, and openness. LESSONS OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY The experience of this century offers important lessons. Countries that govern themselves in a truly democratic fashion do not go to war with one another. They do not aggress against their neighbors to aggrandize themselves or glorify their leaders. Democratic governments do not ethnically "cleanse" their own populations, and they are much less likely to face ethnic insurgency. Democracies do not sponsor terrorism against one another. They do not build w eapons of m ass d estruction to use on or to threaten one another. Democratic countries form more reliable, open, and enduring trading partnerships. In the long run they offer better and more stable climates for investment. They are more environmentally responsible because they must answer to their own citizens, who organize to
protest the destruction of their environments. They are better bets to honor international treaties since they value legal obligations and because their openness makes it much more difficult to breach agreements in secret. Precisely because, within their own borders, they respect competition, civil liberties, property rights, and the rule of law, democracies are the

only reliable foundation on which a new world order of international security and prosperity can be built.

Warming is an existential risk

Mazo 10 PhD in Paleoclimatology from UCLA

Jeffrey Mazo, Managing Editor, Survival and Research Fellow for Environmental Security and Science Policy at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, 3-2010, Climate Conflict: How global warming threatens security and what to do about it, pg. 122 The best estimates for global warming to the end of the century range from 2.5-4.~C above pre-industrial levels, depending on the scenario. Even in the best-case scenario, the low end of the likely range is 1.goC, and in the worst 'business as usual' projections, which actual emissions have been matching, the range of likely warming runs from 3.1--7.1C. Even keeping emissions at constant 2000 levels (which have already been exceeded), global temperature would still be expected to reach 1.2C (O'9""1.5C)above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century."

Without early and severe

reductions in emissions, the effects of climate change in the second half of the twentyfirst century are likely to be catastrophic for the stability and security of countries in the developing world
- not to mention the associated human tragedy. Climate of emerging and advanced

change could even undermine the strength and stability economies, beyond the knock-on effects on security of widespread state failure and collapse in developing countries.' And although they have been condemned as melodramatic and alarmist, many informed observers believe that unmitigated climate change beyond the end of the century could pose an existential threat to civilisation." What is certain is that there is no precedent in human experience for such rapid change or such climatic conditions, and even in the best case adaptation to these extremes would mean profound social, cultural and political changes.

Prolif causes nuclear war

Taylor 6
Theodore B., Chairman of NOVA. July 6 2006, Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, http://wwwee.stanford.edu/~hellman/Breakthrough/book/chapters/taylor.html Nuclear proliferation - be it among nations or terrorists - greatly increases the chance of nuclear violence on a scale that would be intolerable. Proliferation increases

the chance that nuclear weapons will fall into the hands of irrational people, either suicidal or with no concern for the fate of the world. Irrational or outright psychotic leaders of military factions or terrorist groups might decide to use a few nuclear weapons under their control to stimulate a global nuclear war, as an act of
vengeance against humanity as a whole. Countless scenarios of this type can be constructed. Limited nuclear wars between countries with small numbers of nuclear weapons could escalate into major nuclear wars between superpowers. For example, a nation in an advanced stage of "latent proliferation," finding itself losing a nonnuclear war, might complete

the transition to deliverable nuclear weapons and, in desperation, use them. If that should happen in a region, such as the Middle East, where major superpower interests are at stake, the small nuclear war could easily escalate into a global nuclear war.

LA Relations Democracy
Spills over to broader relations solves democracy
Shifter 12 - President of the Sol M. Linowitz Forum Intern-American Dialogue
Michael, "Remaking the Relationship: The United States and Latin America" Inter-American Dialogue Policy Report -- April -www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf There are compelling reasons for the United States and Latin America to pursue more robust

ties . Every country in the Americas would benefit from strengthened and expanded economic relations, with improved access to each others markets, investment capital, and energy resources . Even with its current economic problems, the United States $16-trillion economy is a vital market and source of capital (including remittances) and technology for Latin America, and it could contribute more to the regions economic performance . For its part, Latin Americas rising economies will inevitably become more and more crucial to the United States economic future .The United States and many nations of Latin America and the Caribbean would also gain a great deal by more cooperation on such global matters as climate change, nuclear non-proliferation, and democracy and human rights . With a rapidly expanding US Hispanic population of more than 50 million, the cultural and
demographic integration of the United States and Latin America is proceeding at an accelerating pace, setting a firmer basis for hemispheric partnership. Despite the multiple opportunities and potential benefits, relations

between the United States and Latin America remain disappointing . If new opportunities are not seized, relations will likely continue to drift apart . The longer the current situation persists, the harder it will be to reverse course and rebuild vigorous cooperation . Hemispheric
affairs require urgent attentionboth from the United States and from Latin America and the Caribbean

Latin American democracy solves global backliding

Fauriol and Weintraub 95 *director of the CSIS Americas program and **Prof of Public Affairs at the University of
Texas Georges and Sidney, The Washington Quarterly, "U.S. Policy, Brazil, and the Southern Cone", Lexis The democracy theme also carries much force in the hemisphere today. The State Department regularly parades the fact that all countries in the hemisphere, save one, now have democratically elected governments. True enough, as long as the definition of democracy is flexible, but these countries turned to democracy mostly of their own volition. It is hard to determine if the United States is using the democracy theme as a club in the hemisphere (hold elections or be excluded) or promoting it as a goal. If as a club, its efficacy is limited to this hemisphere, as the 1994 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting in Indonesia demonstrated in its call for free trade in that region, replete with nondemocratic nations, by 2020. Following that meeting, Latin Americans are somewhat cynical as to

whether the United States really cares deeply about promoting democracy if this conflicts with expanding exports. Yet this triad of objectives -- economic liberalization and free trade, democratization, and sustainable development/ alleviation of poverty -- is generally accepted in the hemisphere. The commitment to the latter two varies by country, but all three are taken as valid. All three are also themes expounded widely by the United States, but with more vigor in this hemisphere than anywhere else in the developing world. Thus, failure to advance on all three in Latin America will compromise progress elsewhere in the world .

Extinction
Diamond 95
Larry, Senior Fellow Hoover Institution, Promoting Democracy in the 1990s, December, http://wwics.si.edu/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/di/1.htm OTHER THREATS This hardly exhausts the lists of threats to our security and well-being in the coming years and decades. In the former Yugoslavia nationalist aggression tears at the stability of Europe and could easily spread. The flow of illegal drugs intensifies through increasingly powerful international crime syndicates that have made common cause with authoritarian regimes and have utterly corrupted the institutions of tenuous, democratic ones. Nuclear, chemical, and

biological weapons continue to proliferate. The very source of life on Earth, the global ecosystem, appears increasingly endangered. Most of these new and unconventional threats to security are associated with or aggravated by the weakness or absence of democracy, with its provisions for legality, accountability, popular sovereignty, and openness. LESSONS OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY The

experience of this century offers important lessons. Countries

that govern themselves in a truly democratic fashion do not go to war with one another. They do not aggress against their neighbors to aggrandize themselves or glorify their leaders. Democratic governments do not ethnically "cleanse" their own populations, and they are much less likely to face ethnic insurgency. Democracies do not sponsor terrorism against one another. They do not build w eapons of m ass d estruction to use on or to threaten one another. Democratic countries form more reliable, open, and enduring trading partnerships. In the long run they offer better and more stable climates for investment. They are more environmentally responsible because they must answer to their own citizens, who
organize to protest the destruction of their environments. They are better bets to honor international treaties since they value legal obligations and because their openness makes it much more difficult to breach agreements in secret. Precisely because, within their own borders, they respect competition, civil liberties, property rights, and the rule of law, democracies are

the only reliable foundation on which a new world order of international security and prosperity can be built.

LA Relations Democracy 2NCRelations Key

Current relations risk democratic backsliding Latin America is a crucial symbol for democratic success
Hakim 6 - President of the Inter-American Dialogue
Peter Hakim, Is Washington Losing Latin America?. Foreign Affairs 85 no1 39 -53 Ja/F 2006. Wiley Online.

Even more troubling to U.S. officials has been the evolving political situation. Washington likes to tout Latin America as a showcase for democracy. Democratic politics are still the norm in the region; only Cuba remains under authoritarian rule. But in the past decade, nearly a dozen elected presidents have been forced from office, many by street protests or mob violence. Despite holding elections and plebiscites, Venezuela today barely qualifies as a democracy. The same is true of Haiti, which more and more is coming to resemble a failed state. In Bolivia and Ecuador, fractious politics are reinforced by deep social, ethnic, and regional divisions. In Nicaragua, an alliance of
corrupt legislators from the left and the right has so paralyzed the government that next year's presidential election may restore to power Washington's nemesis Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega. And these are not the only countries Latin American citizens still consider democracy to be the best form of government, most hold a low opinion of their government and leaders. In many places, the performance of public institutions, tainted by

in the region where democracy is under stress and could deteriorate quickly. Although a majority of corruption, has been lackluster. Judicial systems in the region are mostly slow moving and unfair. Legislatures operate erratically. Political parties are weaker and less representative than ever. Only a few Latin American countries, most prominently Chile, have bucked the region's discouraging trends and made progress in consolidating democratic politics.

Latin American liberalism is backsliding US is key

Allen 9
Michael, Editor of Democracy Digest, Latin America: democracy on a high, but backsliding seen in authoritarian drift, Democracy Digest, Factiva Latin America faces a revelatory moment, in the wake of the Honduran constitutional crisis, writes Jorge G. Castaeda. The episode confirmed a remarkableand certainly transformative fact: that the United States is no longer willing, or perhaps even able, to select who governs from Tegucigalpa, or anywhere else in the region for that matter. He is concerned that a U.S. retreat from the Monroe Doctrine entails a passivity that could undermine the

hard-won consensus on the need to anchor Latin Americas democracy in a strong, intrusive, and detailed legal framework, while resisting the threat of populist authoritarianism. Support for democracy is at its highest level since the late 1990s, according to the latest
Latinobarmetro poll taken in 18 countries and published by The Economist. The survey reveals growing trust in democratic institutions, an increase in governments legitimacy, and greater social liberalism. But concerns remain about the

robustness of Latin Americas democratic institutions. Backsliding is always a threat, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said this week, citing developments in the Americas where we are worried about leaders who have seized property, trampled rights, and abused justice to enhance personal rule. Three U.N. human rights experts this week accused Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez of creating a
climate of fear following the arrest last week of a woman judge who ordered the conditional release of imprisoned banker Eligio Cedeno. There was a time that judges who failed to follow Chvezs instructions risked being removed from the bench, said Robert Amsterdam, one of Cedeos lawyers. Judicial independence had been on life support, but sadly, it is now officially dead. Alberto Arteaga Sanchez, a criminal law professor at Venezuelas Central University,

condemned the unacceptable pressure being put on the judicial branch by the executive branch. Its a case that demonstrates the weakness of Venezuelas democratic system, he said. It is imperative that the U.S. remain actively engaged with the institutions that buttress the emerging but fragile democratic consensus, Castaeda argues, including the American Convention on Human Rights and the Inter-American Democratic Charter. These structures have great potential, but they have yet to address some
key questions.

LA Relations Democracy 2NC LA Democracy S/O

Latin American ties are critical to expanding democracy
Lowenthal 9 - professor of international relations at the University of Southern California
Abraham F. Lowenthal, a nonresident senior fellow of the Brookings Institution, president emeritus of the Pacific Council on International Policy, and the founding director of the Inter-American Dialogue. The Obama Administration and Latin America: Will the Promising Start Be Sustained?. NUEVA SOCIEDAD NRO. 222. July-August 2009. http://www.nuso.org/upload/articulos/3617_2.pdf Fourth, shared values in the Western Hemisphere, especially commitment to fundamental

human rights, including free political expression, effective democratic governance, and consistent application of the rule of law. At a time when the very difficult experiences in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere have discouraged many in the United States about the prospects of expanding the international influence of U.S. ideals, the new administration recognizes that the shared commitment throughout the Americas to the norms of democratic governance and the rule of law is worth reinforcing. The Western Hemisphere remains a largely congenial neighborhood for the United States in an
unattractive broader international environment.

LA Relations Economy
Path to citizenship is key to the economy
Wolgin 13 - Immigration Policy Analyst at the Center for American Progress.
Philip, Top 5 Reasons Why Citizenship Matters, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2013/01/10/49392/top 5-reasons-why-citizenship-matters/ As the Obama administration and Congress gear up to fix our nations deeply flawed immigration system, the fight over

immigration reform will revolve not simply around the question of what to do with the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the country, but how to resolve their status. Over the past few
months, a number of prominent senators such as Marco Rubio (R-FL), Jon Kyl (R-AZ), and Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX) have floated the idea of offering permanent legal status for unauthorized immigrants living in the country with no direct path to citizenship as a compromise solution instead of full comprehensive immigration reform. By creating a permanent underclass with little chance of full integration into the nation, these proposals have rightly received strong backlash from advocacy groups such as United We Dream, elected officials such as San Antonio Mayor Julin Castro, and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Here we review the top five reasons why citizenshipnot just legal statusis of

critical importance to our society and to our economy. 1. Big gains to the economy. A December 2012 study by Manuel Pastor and Justin Scoggins of the University of Southern California found that a path to citizenship leads to higher wages for naturalized immigrants both immediately and over the long term.
Naturalized immigrants earn between 5.6 percent and 7.2 percent more within two years of becoming a citizen, and peak at between 10.1 percent and 13.5 percent higher wages 12 years to 17 years from the time of naturalization. Higher wages

means more consumer spending, and more spending means more growth for the overall economy. Pastor and Scoggins also found that even if only half of those eligible to become citizens do so, it would add $21 billion to $45 billion to the U.S. economy over 10 years. 2. Economic gains for the native born. Numerous
studies have found that immigrants raise the wages of the native born for example, by complementing the skills of the native born and by buying goods and services, all of which expands the size of the economy. And with even higher earnings after naturalization, more money would be moving through the economy. The $21 billion to $45 billion in extra wages would be spent on things such as houses, cars, iPads, computers, and the like, and as people buy more products, businesses see more revenue and are more willing to hire new workers. Put simply, more money in the system creates economic

growth and supports new job creation for all Americans. 3. Certainty for both immigrants and employers. A number of scholars working on the economics of citizenship have pointed out that naturalization sends a signal to employers that their workers are fully committed to life in the United States, while also giving immigrants the certainty that they will never have to worry about suddenly uprooting their lives and moving elsewhere. This
certainty gives employers the peace of mind that they will not have to retrain a new worker often at high costsif the immigrant employee loses their visa or chooses to move elsewhere, and gives individuals the stability to invest in more schooling and more job training, both of which ultimately lead to higher wages and better careers. 4. A stronger, more integrated United States. Since the founding of our country, we have granted citizenship to newcomers and have actively worked to ensure that they are fully integrated into everyday life. Nations such as Germany that historically denied citizenship to many immigrants have struggled to integrate those individuals into society, leading to blocked social and economic mobility. On the other hand, in countries such as Canada that expressly view immigration as a part of their national and economic success, studies find a greater sense of belonging and attachment to the nation among newcomers. Our goal should be the full integration of new Americans, not the creation of a permanent underclass. 5. Forward, not backward, on equality. The United States was founded on the idea that we are a nation of immigrants and that we gain strength from diversity. Over the past half-centurysince Congress removed de jure racial discrimination from American life with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 we have moved toward broader equality and a recognition of the power and strength that diversity brings to the nation. Instead of moving backward toward an idea of America as a country club that accepts some people as full members and rejects others, we must move forward toward greater equality. Creating a group that can legally reside in the United States but can never naturalize, can never vote, and can never become full and equal members goes against the very ideals that founded our nation. As

Congress takes up immigration reform this session, it would be wise to keep in mind the social and economic benefits that come with granting a pathway to full citizenship. The United States has
always been a nation that thrives from fully integrating immigrants into the national polity, a nation of immigrants uniting around a common purpose. Anything less than granting a pathway to full citizenship is both un-American and runs counter to our nations best interests.

LA Relations Mexico 1NC

Plan is critical to improving relations with Mexico.
Barshefsky et al. 8
Charlene Barshefsky and James T. Hill, Chairs and Shannon K. ONeil, Project Director. U.S. -Latin America Relations: A New Direction for a New Reality. Council On Foreign Relations. Independent Task Force Report No. 60. 2008. Onli ne. Finally, U.S. immigration policy affects Mexico more than any other country. Ten percent of

Mexicans now live in the United States, and more than six million Mexican workers lack documentation. Given the size of its migrant population, its proximity, and the importance of this issue for security as well as U.S.-Mexico relations , the Task Force urges the implementation of new guest worker programs, regularization of the status of illegal immigrants residing in the United States, and encouragement of legal circular migration, especially for agricultural workers.

Relations are key to prevent Mexico from becoming a failed state

Dresser 9
Denise Dresser, LA Times, a contributing writer to Opinion, is a columnist for the newspaper Reforma, Reality check for U.S. Mexico relations, January 15, 2009, http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/15/opinion/oe-dresser15 On Monday, President-elect Barack Obama and Mexican President Felipe Calderon engaged in a time-honored tradition: At the outset of a new U.S. administration, the American president meets the Mexican head of state before all others. Obama and Calderon got the chance to look into each other's eyes and speak about the

importance of U.S.-Mexico relations -- the diplomatic equivalent of new neighbors meeting over a cup of tea. Now it's time to move beyond etiquette and face hard facts. Mexico is becoming a lawless country. More people died here in drug- related violence last year than were killed in Iraq. The government has been infiltrated by the mafias and drug cartels that it has vowed to combat. Although many believe that Obama's greatest foreign policy challenges lie in Afghanistan or Iran or the Middle East, they may in fact be found south of the border. Mexico may not be a failed state yet, but it desperately needs to wage a more effective war against organized crime, and it must have the right kind of American help and incentives to succeed. Over the last decade, the surge in drug trafficking and Calderon's failed efforts to
contain it have been symptomatic of what doesn't work in Mexico's dysfunctional democracy. In 2007, violence related to the drug trade resulted in more than 2,000 murders in Mexico, and in 2008, the toll was more than 5,000. Only a few

months ago, top-level officials in the Public Security Ministry were arrested and charged with protecting members of Mexico's main drug cartels. Calderon's promises to "clean up the house" have not gone far enough. As George Orwell wrote, "People denounce the war while preserving the type of society that makes it inevitable." The Mexican president, who is seeking a stronger "strategic" relationship with the United States, surely told Obama on Monday that the heightened level of violence was a result
of government efficiency in combating drug cartels. In that view, the rise in street "executions" is evidence of a firm hand, not an ineffectual one.

Mexican state failure triggers escalating warsdraws in the US

Debusmann 9 senior World Affairs columnist
Bernd, Among top U.S. fears: A failed Mexican state New York Times, January 9 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/09/world/americas/09iht-letter.1.19217792.html

Mexico have in common? They figure in the nightmares of U.S. military planners trying to peer into the future and identify the next big threats. The two countries are mentioned in the same breath in a just-published study by the United States Joint Forces Command, whose jobs include providing an annual look into the future to prevent the U.S. military from being caught off guard by unexpected developments. "In terms of worst-case scenarios for the Joint Force and indeed the world, two large and important states bear consideration for a rapid and sudden collapse: Pakistan and Mexico," says the study - called Joint Operating Environment 2008 - in a chapter on "weak and failing states." Such states, it says, usually pose chronic, long-term problems that can be
What do Pakistan and

managed over time. But the little-studied phenomenon of "rapid

collapse," according to the study, "usually comes as a surprise, has a rapid onset, and poses acute problems." Think Yugoslavia and its disintegration in 1990 into a chaotic tangle of warring nationalities and bloodshed on a horrific

scale.

Nuclear-armed Pakistan, where Al Qaeda has established safe havens in the rugged regions bordering

Afghanistan, is a regular feature in dire warnings. Thomas Fingar, who retired as the chief U.S. intelligence analyst in December, termed Pakistan "one of the single most challenging places on the planet." This is fairly routine language for Pakistan, but not for Mexico, which shares a 2,000-mile, or 3,200-kilometer, border with the United States. Mexico's

mention beside Pakistan in a study by an organization as weighty as the Joint Forces Command, which controls almost all conventional forces based in the continental United States, speaks volumes about growing concern over what is happening south of the U.S. border. It added: "Any descent by Mexico into chaos would demand an American response based on the serious implications for homeland security alone."

LA Relations Terror
Latin America plays key role in the war on terror
Hill 3 Commander, United States Southern Command
General James T. Hill, Heritage Lecture #790, Colombia: Key to Security in the Western Hemisphere, 6 -2-2003, www.heritage.org/Research/LatinAmerica/HL790.cfm Fighting Terrorism The war on terrorism is my number one priority in the region. While the primary front in this global war is in the Middle East, Southern Command plays a vital role fighting the malignancy here in our hemisphere. We are increasingly engaging those who seek to exploit real and perceived weaknesses of our newest democracies. Shoring up our allies also serves to shore up our own homeland security. Given our proximity and

general ease of access, Latin America is a potentially vulnerable flank of the homeland, providing many seams through which terrorists can infiltrate. To our south, just a short plane ride or
Carnival Cruise away, radical Islamic groups that support Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamiyya al-Gamat are active. These cells, extending from Trinidad and Tobago to the tri-border area of Paraguay, Argentina, and Brazil, consist of logistics and support personnel. However, terrorists who have planned or participated in attacks in the Middle

East, such as Khalid Sheik Mohammed, have transited the region. These terrorist cells continue to reach back to the Middle East and solidify the global support structure of international terrorism. Beyond these extensions of Middle Eastern extremism are three larger and better-armed groups, all originating in Colombia. Many familiar with Colombia's conflict
and most press accounts still romantically describe these illegal groups as "revolutionaries," "guerrillas," "rebels," or "militias," lending them some kind of tacit legitimacy with those words. I find these terms misleading and out-of-date. Simply put, these groups consist of criminals, more precisely defined as narco-terrorists, who profit at the expense of Colombia and its people. These terrorists with their ideologically appealing names--the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC; the National Liberation Army, or ELN; and the United Defense Forces, or AUC--directly challenge the legitimate authority of the Colombian administration yet offer no viable form of government themselves. Some of them have had 40 years to win the hearts and minds of their countrymen, yet they garner no more than 3 percent public approval. All they have to offer is more innocent blood being spilt by their greed for white powder profits.

LA Relations Turns K
CIR provides a path to citizenship and can stop the use of patholozing language used to otherize immigrants
Goodman 12/7
Adam PhD candidate, University of Pennsylvania; Fulbright-Garca Robles fellow Comprehensive Immigration Reform and the 'I-word' http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-goodman/illegal-immigrant-useterm_b_2257817.html The most immediate impact of any comprehensive immigration reform would be providing a way for the estimated 11 million unauthorized immigrants in the United States to gain legal standing. Legislative action also could force

the mainstream media to finally stop using pathologizing language to describe immigrants. In recent months Jose Antonio Vargas and his Define American organization, The Applied Research Center/Colorlines.com's "Drop the I-Word" campaign and Univision News have joined other activists and advocates in calling for the New York Times and the Associated Press to stop using "illegal" when referring to immigrants. Although many local and national media outlets have dropped the term, the Times and AP continue to defend its usage. The Times and AP argue that "illegal" is an accurate and neutral term, but it is neither. In his 1946 essay "Politics and the English Language," George
Orwell dispelled the misconception that "language is a natural growth and not an instrument which we shape for our own purposes." Mitt Romney's presidential campaign's strategic deployment of "illegal" illustrates this point. In an extraordinarily shortsighted move, Romney took a hard line on immigration during the primary. He

advocated for "self-deportation," the idea that eliminating economic opportunities for immigrants would force
them to leave the country on their own, and he named anti-immigrant restrictionist Kris Kobach as a campaign advisor (which he later hedged on and tried to deny). Throughout the primary and the general election, Romney

repeatedly used phrases such as "illegal immigrants," "illegals" and "illegal aliens." In doing so Romney further alienated many Latino voters and reinforced the false notion that immigrants are "the problem" rather than the flawed laws and policies meant to control migration. Why did Romney use these terms? Yes, in part to establish his immigration enforcement bona fides in order to win the Republican nomination. But it also must be understood as part of a larger Republican strategy to normalize immigrants as "illegal" -- as "other." It is the same reason why most Republicans now calling for action on immigration reform do not support a pathway to citizenship. With Latinos and Asians breaking so heavily in favor of Democrats, stigmatizing immigrants as "illegal" and blocking a path to citizenship is a last ditch effort by the Republicans to halt, or at least slow down, the inevitable demographic trends that present serious challenges to the future of their party. As Bill O'Reilly stated on Fox News on election night, the United States is "a changing
country." He continued, "The demographics are changing. It's not a traditional America anymore. ... And, whereby twenty years ago an establishment candidate like Mitt Romney would roundly defeat President Obama. The white establishment is now the minority." What will it take for the Times and AP to stop using a disparaging, value-laden term like "illegal"? The answer may depend on what happens with comprehensive immigration reform. Jorge Durand, an anthropologist at the Universidad de Guadalajara and co-director of the Mexican Migration Project, pointed out in an interview that recent immigrants have never had the opportunity to change their status. "For more than 20 years there hasn't been any program of regularization [in the United States]. So, how can you regularize yourself if no immigration reform exists that allows you to regularize yourself?" As a result, categories such as "legal" and "illegal" immigrants -- categories

created by the federal immigration bureaucracy and reinforced by much of the mainstream media -- have increasingly come to be seen as natural. Passing comprehensive immigration reform could remind us that they are constructions, and that they are in flux.

CIR solves immigrant marginalization and exploitation

Fitz 12 - Director of Immigration Policy at the Center for American Progress
Marshall, Time to Legalize Our 11 Million Undocumented Immigrants, CAP, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/report/2012/11/14/44885/time-to-legalize-our-11-million-undocumentedimmigrants/ More than two-thirds of the immigrants working without papers in the United States have contributed to our economy and culture for more than a decade. But our outdated and misguided immigration policies, along with our

polarized immigration politics, block them from realizing theirand our nationsfull potential and forces

them to live in fear of being ripped from their families. Lets take a brief look at some of the benefits: Bringing these hardworking immigrants off the economic sidelines would gen erate a $1.5 trillion boost to the nations cumulative GDP over 10 years and add close to $5 billion in additional tax revenue in just the next three years. Registering these immigrants with background checks would ensure that we know who is here and will enable our authorities to focus enforcement resources on criminal elements and security threats instead of hard-working family members. Bringing these immigrants out

of the shadows would strike a blow to unscrupulous employers who mistreat their employees (immigrant and native-born alike) and help ensure worker safety for all. Enabling immigrants to earn legal status and to openly participate in civic life will strengthen our communities and reduce marginalization and exploitation . In other words, virtually everyone except exploitive employers and criminals is better off by enabling these immigrants to work above board and pay their full taxes. So if its a policy no-brainer, why hasnt reform
happened?

LA Relations War 1NC

CIR key to Latin American stability
Gittelson 9
Citation: 23 Notre Dame J.L. Ethics & Pub. Pol'y 115 2009 THE CENTRISTS AGAINST THE IDEOLOGUES: WHAT ARE THE FALSEHOODS THAT DIVIDE AMERICANS ON THE ISSUE OF COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM Robert Gittelson has been a garment manufacturer in the Los Angeles area for over twenty-five years. His wife, Patricia Gittelson, is an immigration attorney with offices in Van Nuys and Oxnard, California. Robert also works closely with Patricia on the administrative side of her immigration practice. Throughout his career, Mr. Gittelson has developed practical, first-hand experience in dealing with the immigration issues that are challenging our country today In the alternative, should we fail to pass CIR, and instead opt to deport or force attrition on these millions of economic refugees through an enforcement-only approach to our current undocumented immigrant difficulties, what would be the net result? Forgetting for now the devastating effect on our own economy, and the worldwide

reproach and loss of moral authority that we would frankly deserve should we act so callously and thoughtlessly, there is another important political imperative to our passing CIR that affects our national security, and the security and political stability of our neighbors in our hemisphere. That is the very real threat of communism and/or socialism. First of all, the primary reason why millions of undocumented economic refugees migrated to the United States is because the economies of their home countries were unable to support them. They escaped extreme poverty and oppression, and
risked literally everything they had, including their lives and their freedom, to come to this country to try to work hard and support themselves and their families. Deporting our illegal immigrant population back to primarily

Latin America would boost the communist and socialist movements in that part of our hemisphere, and if the anti-immigrationists only understood that fact, they might rethink their "line in the sand" position on what they insist on calling 'amnesty. Communism thrives where hope is lost. The economies of Latin American nations are struggling to barely reach a level of meager subsistence for the population that has remained at home; Mexico, for example, has already lost 14% of their able-bodied workers to U.S. migration.3" Without the billions of dollars in remissions from these nations' expatriates working in the United States that go back to help support their remaining family members, the economies of many of these countries, most of whom are in fact our allies, would certainly collapse, or at least deteriorate to dangerously unstable levels. The addition of millions of unemployed and frustrated deported people who would go to the end of the theoretical unemployment lines of these already devastated economies would surely cause massive unrest and anti-American sentiment. The issue of Comprehensive Immigration Reform is not simply a domestic issue. In our modern global economy, everything that we do, as the leaders of that global economy, affects the entire world, and most especially our region of the world. If we were to naively initiate actions that would lead to the destabilization of the Mexican and many Central and South American governments, while at the same time causing serious harm to our own economy (but I digress ... ), it would most assuredly lead to disastrous economic and political consequences. By the way, I'm not simply theorizing here. In point of fact, over the past
few years, eight countries in Latin America have elected leftist leaders. Just last year, Guatemala swore in their first leftist president in more than fifty years, Alvaro Colom.3" He joins a growing list. Additional countries besides Guatemala, Venezuela,32 and Nicaragua33 that have sworn in extreme left wing leaders in Latin America recently include Brazil,34 Argentina,3 5 Bolivia,36 Ecuador,37 and Uruguay.3s This phenomenon is not simply a coincidence; it is a trend. The political infrastructure of Mexico is under extreme pressure from the left.39 Do we really want a leftist movement on our southern border? If our political enemies such as the communists Chavez in Venezuela and

Ortega in Nicaragua are calling the shots in Latin America, what kind of cooperation can we expect in our battle to secure our southern border?

Extinction
Manwaring 5
Max G., Retired U.S. Army colonel and an Adjunct Professor of International Politics at Dickinson College, venezuelas hugo c hvez, bolivarian socialism, and asymmetric warfare, October 2005, pg. PUB628.pdf

President Chvez also understands that the process leading to state

failure is the most dangerous long-term security challenge facing the global community today. The argument in general is that failing and failed state status is the breeding ground for instability, criminality, insurgency, regional conflict, and terrorism. These conditions breed massive humanitarian disasters and major refugee flows. They can host evil
networks of all kinds, whether they involve criminal business enterprise, narco-trafficking, or some form of ideological crusade such as Bolivarianismo. More specifically, these conditions spawn all kinds of things people in general do not like such as murder, kidnapping, corruption, intimidation, and destruction of infrastructure. These means of coercion and persuasion can

spawn further human rights violations, torture, poverty, starvation, disease, the recruitment and use of child soldiers, trafficking in women and body parts, trafficking and proliferation of conventional weapons systems and WMD, genocide, ethnic cleansing, warlordism, and criminal anarchy. At the same time, these actions are usually unconfined and spill over into regional syndromes of poverty, destabilization, and conflict.62 Perus Sendero Luminoso calls violent and destructive activities that
facilitate the processes of state failure armed propaganda. Drug cartels operating throughout the Andean Ridge of South America and elsewhere call these activities business incentives. Chvez considers these actions to be steps that must be taken to bring about the political conditions necessary to establish Latin American socialism for the 21st century.63 Thus, in addition to helping to provide wider latitude to further their tactical and operational objectives, state and nonst ate actors strategic efforts are aimed at progressively lessening a targeted regimes credibility and capability in terms of its ability and willingness to govern and develop its national territory and society. Chvezs intent is to focus his primary

attack politically and psychologically on selected Latin American governments ability and right to govern. In that context, he understands that popular perceptions of corruption, disenfranchisement, poverty, and lack of
upward mobility limit the right and the ability of a given regime to conduct the business of the state. Until a given populace generally perceives that its government is dealing with these and other basic issues of political, economic, and social injustice fairly and effectively, instability and the threat of subverting or destroying such a government are real.64 But failing and failed states simply do not go away. Virtually anyone can take advantage of such an unstable situation. The tendency is that the best motivated and best armed organization on the scene will control that instability. As a consequence, failing and failed states become dysfunctional states, rogue states, criminal states, narco-states, or new peoples democracies. In connection with the creation of new peoples democracies, one can rest assured that Chvez and his Bolivarian populist allies will be available to provide money, arms, and leadership at any given opportunity. And, of course, the longer

dysfunctional, rogue, criminal, and narco-states and peoples democracies persist, the more they and their associated problems endanger global security, peace, and prosperity.65

LA Relations War 2NC Escalates

Latin American wars go global even absent escalation, they collapse hegemony and encourage counterbalancing
Rochin, Professor of Political Science, 94
James, Professor of Political Science at Okanagan University College, Discovering the Americas: the evolution of Canadian foreign policy towards Latin America, pp. 130-131 While there were economic motivations for Canadian policy in Central America, security considerations were perhaps more important. Canada possessed an interest in promoting stability in the face of a potential decline of U.S. hegemony in the Americas. Perceptions of declining U.S. influence in the region which had some credibility in 19791984 due to the wildly inequitable divisions of wealth in some U.S. client states in Latin America, in addition to political repression, under-development, mounting external debt, anti-American sentiment produced by decades of subjugation to U.S. strategic and economic interests, and so on were linked to the prospect of explosive events occurring

in the hemisphere. Hence, the Central American imbroglio was viewed as a fuse which could ignite a cataclysmic process throughout the region. Analysts at the time worried that in a worstcase scenario, instability created by a regional war, beginning in Central America and spreading elsewhere in Latin America, might preoccupy Washington to the extent that the United States would be unable to perform adequately its important hegemonic role in the international arena a concern expressed by the director of research for Canadas Standing Committee Report on Central America. It was feared that such a predicament could generate increased global instability and perhaps even a hegemonic war. This is one of the motivations which led Canada to become involved in
efforts at regional conflict resolution, such as Contadora, as will be discussed in the next chapter.

LA Relations Warming 1NC

Latin American relations solve warming
Lowenthal 9 - professor of international relations at the University of Southern California
Abraham F. Lowenthal, a nonresident senior fellow of the Brookings Institution, president emeritus of the Pacific Council on International Policy, and the founding director of the Inter-American Dialogue. The Obama Administration and Latin America: Will the Promising Start Be Sustained?. NUEVA SOCIEDAD NRO. 222. July-August 2009. http://www.nuso.org/upload/articulos/3617_2.pdf Apart from the scheduling coincidence that the Fifth Summit of the Americas was already on the calendar, the main

reason for the Obama administrations early engagement with Latin America is the new teams perception that although the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean pose no urgent issues for the United States, many of them are likely to be increasingly important to its future. This is so not because of
long-standing axioms about Western Hemisphere security, extra-hemispheric threats and Pan-American solidarity, but rather for four much more contemporary reasons. First, the increased perceived significance of Latin America

for confronting such transnational issues as energy security, global warming, pollution and other environmental concerns, crime, narcotics and public health. The new administration recognizes that these issues cannot be solved or even managed effectively without close and sustained cooperation from many countries of the Americas.

Key to clean energy transition

Zedillo et al. 8
Ernesto Zedillo, Commission co-chair; Former President of Mexico, Thomas R. Pickering, Commission co-chair; Former U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Members of the Partnership for the Americas Commission, Mauricio Crdenas, Director of the Commission; Senior Fellow and Director, Latin America Initiative, Brookings, and Leonardo Martinez-Diaz, Deputy Director of the Commission; Political Economy Fellow, Global Economy and Development, Brookings. Report of the Partnership for the Americas Commission. The Brookings Institution. November 2008. Rethinking U.S.Latin American Relations A Hemispheric Partnership for a Turbulent World. http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2008/1124_latin_america_partnership/1124_latin_america_partnership.pdf

Addressing the challenge of energy security will require making energy consumption more efficient and developing new energy sources, whereas addressing the challenge of climate change will require finding ways to control carbon emissions, helping the world shift away from carbon-intensive energy generation, and adapting to some aspects of changing ecosystems. Potential solutions to these problems exist in the Americas, but mobilizing them will require a sustained hemispheric partnership. Latin America has enormous potential to help meet the worlds growing thirst for energy, both in terms of hydrocarbons and alternative fuels. Latin
America has about 10 percent of the worlds proven oil reserves. Venezuela accounts for most of these, though Brazils oil reserves could increase from 12 to 70 billon barrels if recent discoveries can be developed. Bolivia is an important producer of natural gas, Mexico has great potential in solar energy generation, and several countries in

the region could potentially produce much more hydroelectric power. Brazil is a world leadeer in sugarcane-based ethanol production, and the United States is a leader in corn-based ethanol (figure 3). Solar and wind power, particularly in Central America and the Caribbean, remain underdeveloped. To expand the hemispheres energy capacity, massive infrastructure investments will be req uired.
Major investments in oil production (especially deep offshore), refining, and distribution will be needed to achieve the regions potential. Developing the Tupi project in Brazil alone will cost $70240 billion. Liquefied natural gas will become an important source of energy, but not before major investments are made in infrastructure to support liquefaction, regasification, transport, and security. U.S. and Canadian electricity networks, which are already highly integrated, can be further integrated with Mexicos. Mexico also plans to connect its grid to those of Guatemala and Belize, eventually creating an integrated power market in Central America. Power integration in South America will demand even larger investments in generation, transmission, and distribution. Finally, reliance on nuclear power may grow because it is carbon free and does not require fossil fuel imports. However, efforts to expand energy capacity and integrate hemispheric

energy markets face a variety of obstacles. Energy nationalism has led to disruptive disputes over pricing and ownership. Tensions and mistrust in South America have hindered regional cooperation and investment, particularly on natural gas. The security of the energy
infrastructure, especially pipelines, remains a concern in Mexico and parts of South America. Gas, oil, and electricity subsidies distort patterns of production and consumption, and they are triggering protectionist behavior elsewhere. Technology on renewables remains underdeveloped, and research in this area can be better centralized

and disseminated. Overcoming

these obstacles will require high levels of cooperation among

hemispheric partners.

***MPXStartup Visas

StartupEcon 1NC
Entrepreneurial immigrants key to the US economy failure to pass immigration reform causes economic suicide
Roberts and Roberts 13
Cokie and Steven, Immigration reform is key to averting economic suicide, 2/9/13, http://dailyjournalonline.com/news/opinion/editorial/immigration-reform-is-key-to-averting-economic-suicide/article_1aea7304-725511e2-beb9-001a4bcf887a.html But legal immigrants are more important to the country's economic future and deserve equal attention.

The current strictures that inhibit investors, inventors and entrepreneurs from settling in the United States might be the single most wrongheaded and self-defeating policy
followed by the entire federal government. And that's saying something.

Every serious study shows that

immigrants are job makers, not job takers. The nativists who resisted newcomers throughout our history have
always been wrong, and they're wrong today. Immigrants are far more likely than homegrown workers to start businesses and secure patents. The Kauffman Foundation concludes that 52 percent of Silicon Valley startups were

"immigrant-founded," and that list includes Google and Yahoo, Intel and Instagram. Instead of welcoming these economic dynamos, we're driving them away. "Right now," the president said recently in Nevada,
"there are brilliant students from all over the world sitting in classrooms at our top universities. They're earning degrees in the fields of the future, like engineering and computer science. But once they finish school, once they earn that diploma, there's a good chance they'll have to leave our country. Think about that." We have, and it's sickening. Countries like

Australia, Germany and Canada are taking advantage of our idiocy by enticing these brilliant students with offers of rapid residency and citizenship. Other grads are simply going home, to China, India and the Philippines, where a rising middle class is making life a lot more comfortable than it was a generation ago. "When America turns away a potential investor, entrepreneur or job creator, that person does not simply cease to exist," warns the R Street Institute, a probusiness think tank. "She returns to her own country and starts a business that competes directly with American companies. And she hires citizens of her own country instead of Americans." It gets worse. American companies are being forced to follow that departing talent and shift operations to other countries. Microsoft points out that while it now spends 83 percent of its research budget in the U.S., "companies across our industry cannot continue to focus R&D jobs in this country if we cannot fill them here." Unless the law changes, "there is a growing possibility that unfilled jobs will migrate over
time" to countries that are far friendlier to immigrant workers. Fortunately, smart lawmakers in both parties are confronting the issue. Currently only 65,000 work permits, called H-1B visas, are available annually for foreign-born grads, and they are snapped up quickly in most years. A bipartisan measure, the Immigration Innovation Act, or "I-Squared," would raise that cap considerably, to 300,000 in years of rapid economic growth. Moreover, visa holders would find it easier to change jobs and their spouses would be allowed to work, a critical factor in retaining young, two-professional families. Obtaining a green card and permanent residency presents an even tougher obstacle course than getting a work visa. That's especially true for immigrants from populous countries such as China and India, because employment-related permits are subject to strict national quotas. I-Squared would end those quotas, expand the total number of green cards and create new exceptions for "outstanding professors and researchers." The bill shrewdly recognizes the political pressures to produce more homegrown science and engineering whizzes, so it would impose a fee on applicants for H-1B visas and use the revenue to support local educational efforts in those fields. The I-Squared legislation makes total sense. So does another initiative, also bipartisan, that would create a new visa category for immigrants willing to invest in startup companies. But, then, these ideas have made sense for years and nothing has happened. The craziness has to end now. As a separate bill or as part of a larger

immigration package, Congress must act, and soon. Even Mitt Romney and President Obama agreed on this issue during the campaign. We desperately need those "brilliant students" the president talks about to stay and work, to think and create, here in America. Driving them away amounts to economic suicide.

StartupEcon 2NCVisas Key

Decline now startup visas solve
HSN 12
Homeland Security Newswire, Immigrant entrepreneurship in U.S. has stalled for the first time in decades, http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/dr20121003-immigrant-entrepreneurship-in-u-s-has-stalled-for-the-first-time-in-decades

startups a critical source of fuel for the U.S. economy has stagnated and is on the verge of decline; the proportion of immigrant-founded
New study finds that high-tech, immigrant-founded companies nationwide has slipped from 25.3 percent to 24.3 percent since 2005; the drop is even more pronounced in Silicon Valley, where the percentage of immigrant-founded startups declined from 52.4 percent to 43.9 percent A new Kauffman Foundation study finds that high-tech, immigrant-founded startups what the foundation describes as a critical source of fuel for the U.S. economy has stagnated and is on the verge of decline. The study, Americas New Immigrant Entrepreneurs: Then and Now, shows that the proportion of immigrant-founded companies nationwide has

slipped from 25.3 percent to 24.3 percent since 2005. The drop is even more pronounced in Silicon Valley, where the
percentage of immigrant-founded startups declined from 52.4 percent to 43.9 percent. A Kaufman Foundation release notes that the report, which evaluated the rate of immigrant entrepreneurship from 2006 to 2012, updates findings from a 2007 study that examined immigrant-founded companies between 1995 and 2005. For several years, anecdotal evidence has suggested that an unwelcoming immigration system and environment in the U.S. has created a

reverse brain drain. This report confirms it with data, said Dane Stangler, director of Research and Policy at the Kauffman Foundation. To maintain a dynamic economy, the U.S. needs to embrace immigrant entrepreneurs. The study was written by Vivek Wadhwa, director of research at the Center for Entrepreneurship and
Research Commercialization at the Pratt School of Engineering, Duke University; AnnaLee Saxenian, dean and professor at the Berkeley School of Information; and F. Daniel Siciliano, professor of the Practice of Law and faculty director, Rock C enter for Corporate Governance. The release notes that the implications of the research findings are the subject of a justpublished book by Wadhwa. The book, The Immigrant Exodus: Why America Is Losing the Global Race to

Capture Entrepreneurial Talent, draws on the research to show that the United States is in the midst of a historically unprecedented halt in high-growth, immigrant-founded startups. The U.S. risks losing a key growth engine just when the economy needs job creators more than ever, said Wadhwa. The U.S. can reverse these trends with changes in policies and opportunities, if it acts swiftly. It is imperative that we create a startup visa for these entrepreneurs and expand the number of green cards for skilled foreigners to work in these startups. Many immigrants would gladly remain in the United States to start and grow companies that will lead to jobs.

Startup visas key to jump start the economy and create jobs
Wadhwa 13
Vivek, Immigration reforms giant leap for Valley kind [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/wp/2013/06/28/immigration-reforms-giant-leap-for-valley-kind/] June 28 //mtc As I have explained, a Startup Visa is immigration reforms free lunch. Kauffman Foundation

estimated that within ten years this could lead to the creation of between 500,000 and 1.6 million jobsa potential boost to the economy of between $70 billion and $224 billion a year. By some estimates, this translates into a rise in GDP of between 0.5 and 1.6 percent.

StartupClean Tech Leadership 1NC

Startups key to clean tech R and D
TEC 12
The Energy Collective, Startup Act 2.0 Even Better Than 1.0, http://theenergycollective.com/cliftonyin/85769/startup -act-20-evenbetter-10 Yesterday, Senators Chris Coons (D-DE), Jerry Moran (R-KS), Marco Rubio (R-FL), and Mark Warner (D-VA) unveiled the Startup Act 2.0, bipartisan legislation that builds on the Startup Act introduced by Senators Moran and Warner last December. The new variant which the Senators describe at length in a Politico piece includes key provisions of the old bill that were highlighted in a previous blog post, such as creating STEM and entrepreneur immigrant visas to

attract and retain human talent. A new provision, however, makes the Startup Act 2.0 even more potentially
beneficial to the national clean energy innovation agenda. Just as political circumstances compelled the original acts sponsors to promote it as a vehicle for job creation, the new act has been characterized in some quarters as an immigrat ion bill. To be sure, it does include several high -skill immigration reforms that would be a boon to the economy in general and the clean economy in particular. After all, immigrants with advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM) and/or an entrepreneurial spirit are essential to driving innovation at clean companies. Section 7 of the bill, however, deserves greater notice. It would extend a research and development (R&D) tax credit amounting to up to $250,000 or 20 percent of W-2 wages, whichever is less for startup companies with less than $5 million in annual receipts and less than five years old. The new provision would go a long way in helping capital-starved clean

tech startups bridge the two valleys of death between R&D and building a prototype and project demonstration and commercialization, respectively. It also complements the provision appearing in both the old and new iterations that would attempt to aid the commercialization of university-based research.

Perception of weakness on climate kills US legitimacy impact is global war

-turns hegemony and economy

Klarevas 9 Professor of Global Affairs

Louis, Professor at the Center for Global Affairs New York University, Securing American Primacy While Tackling Climate Change: Toward a National Strategy of Greengemony, Huffington Post, 12-15, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/louisklarevas/securing-american-primacy_b_393223.html By not addressing climate change more aggressively and creatively, the United States is

squandering an opportunity to secure its global primacy for the next few generations to come. To do this, though, the U.S. must rely on innovation to help the world escape the coming environmental meltdown. Developing the key technologies that will save the planet from global warming will allow the U.S. to outmaneuver potential great power rivals seeking to replace it as the international system's hegemon . But the greening of American strategy must occur soon. The
U.S., however, seems to be stuck in time, unable to move beyond oil-centric geo-politics in any meaningful way. Often, the gridlock is portrayed as a partisan difference, with Republicans resisting action and Democrats pleading for action. This, though, is an unfair characterization as there are numerous proactive Republicans and quite a few reticent Democrats. The real divide is instead one between realists and liberals. Students of realpolitik, which still heavily guides American foreign policy, largely discount environmental issues as they are not seen as advancing national interests in a way that generates relative power advantages vis--vis the other major powers in the system: Russia, China, Japan, India, and the European Union. Liberals, on the other hand, have recognized that global warming might very well become the greatest challenge ever faced by mankind. As such, their thinking often eschews narrowly defined national interests for the greater global good. This, though, ruffles elected officials whose sworn obligation is, above all, to protect and promote American national interests. What both sides need to understand is that by becoming a lean, mean, green fighting machine, the U.S. can actually bring together liberals and realists to advance a collective interest which benefits every nation, while at the same time, securing America's global primacy well into the future. To do so, the U.S. must re-invent itself as not just your traditional hegemon, but as history's first ever green hegemon. Hegemons are countries that dominate the international system - bailing out other countries in times of global crisis, establishing and maintaining the most important international institutions, and covering the costs that result from free-riding and cheating global obligations. Since 1945, that role has been the purview of the United States. Immediately after World War II, Europe and Asia laid in ruin, the global economy required resuscitation, the countries of the free world needed security guarantees, and the entire system longed for a multilateral forum where global concerns could be addressed. The U.S., emerging the least scathed by the systemic crisis of fascism's rise, stepped up to the challenge and established the postwar (and current) liberal order. But don't let the world "liberal" fool you. While many nations benefited from America's new-found hegemony, the U.S. was driven largely by "realist" selfish national interests. The liberal order first and foremost benefited the U.S. With the U.S. becoming bogged down in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, running a record national debt, and failing to shore up the dollar, the future of American hegemony now seems to be facing a serious contest: potential rivals - acting like sharks smelling blood in the water - wish to challenge the U.S. on a

variety of fronts. This has led numerous commentators to forecast the U.S.'s imminent fall from grace. Not all hope is lost however. With the impending systemic crisis of global warming on the horizon, the U.S. again finds itself in a position to address a transnational problem in a way that will benefit both the international community collectively and the U.S. selfishly. The current problem is two-fold. First, the competition for oil is fueling animosities between the

major powers. The geopolitics of oil has already emboldened Russia in its 'near abroad' and China in faroff places like Africa and Latin America. As oil is a limited natural resource, a nasty zero-sum contest could be looming on the horizon for the U.S. and its major power rivals - a contest which threatens American primacy and global stability. Second, converting fossil fuels like oil to run national economies is producing irreversible harm in the
form of carbon dioxide emissions. So long as the global economy remains oil-dependent, greenhouse gases will continue to rise. Experts are predicting as much as a 60% increase in carbon dioxide emissions in the next twenty-five years. That likely means

more devastating water shortages, droughts, forest fires, floods, and storms. In other words, if global competition for access to energy resources does not undermine international security, global warming will. And in either case, oil will be a culprit for the instability. Oil
arguably has been the most precious energy resource of the last half-century. But "black gold" is so 20th century. The key resource for this century will be green gold - clean, environmentally-friendly energy like wind, solar, and hydrogen power. Climate change leaves no alternative. And the sooner we realize this, the better off we will be. What Washington must do in order to avoid the traps of petropolitics is to convert the U.S. into the world's first-ever green hegemon. For starters, the federal government must drastically increase investment in energy and environmental research and development (E&E R&D). This will require a serious sacrifice, committing upwards of $40 billion annually to E&E R&D - a far cry from the few billion dollars currently being spent. By promoting a new national project, the U.S. could develop new technologies that will assure it does not drown in a pool of oil. Some solutions are already well known, such as raising fuel standards for automobiles; improving public transportation networks; and expanding nuclear and wind power sources. Others, however, have not progressed much beyond the drawing board: batteries that can store massive amounts of solar (and possibly even wind) power; efficient and cost-effective photovoltaic cells, crop-fuels, and hydrogen-based fuels; and even fusion. Such innovations will not only provide alternatives to oil, they will also give the U.S. an edge in the global competition for hegemony. If the U.S. is able to produce technologies that allow modern, globalized societies to

escape the oil trap, those nations will eventually have no choice but to adopt such technologies. And this will give the U.S. a tremendous economic boom, while simultaneously providing it with means of leverage that can be employed to keep potential foes in check.

StartupCompetiveness 1NC
Competitiveness is declining now new immigrant entrepreneurs are key
Torrenegra 12 Colombian immigrant, entrepreneur
Alex, Startup Visa: American by Choice, Bootstrapper by Passion, http://www.wired.com/business/2012/04/opinion -torrenegrastartup-visa/ Until the 1920s, the U.S. used to welcome risk-takers. The further back in history we go, the riskier it was to immigrate, and risk-takers are, by nature, entrepreneurial. During the previous century, though, populist, xenophobic politicians had gained enough support to shape our immigration policy the wrong way. Now, immigrating to the U.S. is almost impossible unless you are rich or have relatives here and so foreign-born entrepreneurs are starting

the next great companies elsewhere (and the U.S. is losing jobs as a result). The Startup Visa movement, championed by the likes of lean startup guru Eric Ries and VCs Dave McClure and Fred Wilson, would enable non-American entrepreneurs with funding from a qualified U.S. investor to get a twoyear visa to start a company. The entrepreneurial community is loving the spirit behind the idea myself included.
Unfortunately, it would not have worked for me: I was a bootstrapper. I founded my first business when I was 14. When I was 19, I came to the U.S. as a tourist, and I loved it here so much that I decided to stay. I wanted to remain in the U.S. legally, so I was forced to switch back and forth between tourist and student visas a difficult and time-consuming hassle. When this was no longer an option, I did explore some illegal avenues. (If you are interested, go to a Latin bakery and ask for a green card. If you end up in the correct one, you may be surprised with the menu.) I did manage to bootstrap my first tech startup in the meantime. Within a year, we were profitable; within three years, we already had seven employees in the U.S. Then 9/11 happened and the switching-visas game was over. I had to go back to Colombia, where most visa requests were being denied. I was afraid I would never be able to come back to the U.S. Fortunately, though, I had met Tania a few months earlier. And, as you know, I got lucky. Most foreign-born entrepreneurs Ive met are very eager to

stay here; the startup environment in the U.S. allows for the execution of ideas that would be very difficult anywhere else. Setting up a business is easy, investment regulation is friendly, job laws dont punish startups, and risk and failure are socially accepted. No other country in the world has such a rich mix of elements. As such, Im a happy taxpayer and I want the best for this country. Yet the U.S. is losing its

competitiveness every day. The internet, the same tool that allowed founders in this country to cultivate
companies like Google, is also allowing the rest of the world to learn to learn a lot, and learn it fast. Such knowledge

is allowing anyone with passion to launch startups from anywhere in the world. And by making it difficult for these entrepreneurs to immigrate, the U.S. is losing out on the new jobs and tax revenues generated by homegrown startups to other nations. The future of the U.S. is at stake, and shouldnt be dependent on luck. We need to make it easier for entrepreneurs to become part of our nation. The benefits far outweigh the risks. Entrepreneurs wont steal jobs or live on welfare. Instead, they will come here to grow a business, create jobs and pay taxes. (California is about to get $2.5 billion in tax revenue with the IPO of Facebook alone.) Startup Visa is trying to rekindle the spirit of entrepreneurship that America was founded upon, but it has some glaring imperfections. For one, it doesnt have clear provisions for bootstrapping-but-profitable entrepreneurs like me yet were vital to the entrepreneurship ecosystem, especially in the tech space. Additionally, it requires the
entrepreneur to be successful with his funded startup in order to remain in the U.S. Most startups fail even those founded by veteran entrepreneurs so I propose that a better solution is to allow failing entrepreneurs to stay for a few more years so that they can try once again, after having learned from their mistakes. Similar to how foreign students that recently graduated are granted some time to find a job and perhaps stay in the U.S., a failing entrepreneur could be granted a few years to start a second business. Startup Visa may not be perfect, but its a needed first step toward the

kind of immigration reform that will help pull the U.S. up by its bootstraps (pun intended) to again become the nation of hardworking entrepreneurs and explorers that its founders envisioned over 200
years ago.

Competitiveness solves great power war

Khalilzad 11 PhD, Former Professor of Political Science @ Columbia, Former ambassador to Iraq and Afghanistan
Zalmay Khalilzad was the United States ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq, and the United Nations during the presidency of George W. Bush and the director of policy planning at the Defense Department from 1990 to 1992. "The Economy and National Security" Feb 8 www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/259024

economic and fiscal trends pose the most severe long-term threat to the United States position as global leader. While the United States suffers from fiscal imbalances and low economic growth, the economies of rival powers are developing rapidly. The continuation of these two trends could lead to a shift from American primacy toward a multi-polar global system, leading in turn to increased geopolitical rivalry and even war among the great powers. The current recession is the result of a deep
Today,

financial crisis, not a mere fluctuation in the business cycle. Recovery is likely to be protracted. The crisis was preceded by the buildup over two decades of enormous amounts of debt throughout the U.S. economy ultimately totaling almost 350 percent of GDP and the development of credit-fueled asset bubbles, particularly in the housing sector. When the bubbles burst, huge amounts of wealth were destroyed, and unemployment rose to over 10 percent. The decline of tax revenues and massive countercyclical spending put the U.S. government on an unsustainable fiscal path. Publicly held national debt rose from 38 to over 60 percent of GDP in three years.

Without faster economic growth

and actions to reduce deficits, publicly held national debt is projected to reach dangerous

interest rates were to rise significantly, annual interest payments which already are larger than the defense budget would crowd out other spending or require substantial tax increases that would undercut economic growth. Even worse, if unanticipated events trigger what economists call a sudden stop in credit markets for
proportions. If U.S. debt, the United States would be unable to roll over its outstanding obligations, precipitating a sovereign-debt crisis that would almost certainly compel a radical retrenchment of the United States

It was the economic devastation of Britain and France during World War II, as well as the rise of other powers, that led both countries to relinquish their empires. In the late 1960s, British leaders
internationally. Such scenarios would reshape the international order. concluded that they lacked the economic capacity to maintain a presence east of Suez. Soviet economic weakness, which cryst allized under Gorbachev, contributed to their decisions to withdraw

the United States would be compelled to retrench, reducing its military spending and shedding international commitments. We face this domestic challenge while other major powers are experiencing rapid economic growth.
from Afghanistan, abandon Communist regimes in Eastern Europe, and allow the Soviet Union to fragment. If the U.S. debt problem goes critical, Even though countries such as China, India, and Brazil have profound political, social, demographic, and economic problems, their economies are growing faster than ours, and this could alter the

. If U.S. policymakers fail to act and other powers continue to grow, The closing of the gap between the United States and its rivals could intensify geopolitical competition among major powers, increase incentives for local powers to play major powers against one another, and undercut our will to preclude or respond to international crises because of the higher risk of escalation. The stakes are high. In modern history, the longest period of peace among the great powers has been the era of U.S. leadership. By contrast, multi-polar systems have been unstable, with their competitive dynamics resulting in frequent crises and major wars among the great powers. Failures of multi-polar international systems produced both world wars. American retrenchment could have devastating consequences. Without an American security blanket, regional powers could rearm in an attempt to balance against emerging threats. Under this scenario, there would be a heightened possibility of arms races, miscalculation, or other crises spiraling into all-out conflict. Alternatively, in seeking to accommodate the stronger powers, weaker powers may shift their geopolitical posture away from the United States. Either way, hostile states would be emboldened to make aggressive moves in their regions.
global distribution of power. These trends could in the long term produce a multi-polar world it is not a question of whether but when a new international order will emerge.

StartupCompetiveness 2NCStartup Key

Startup key to competitiveness
MBS 12
Mays Business School, Immigrant Entrepreneurs May Speed Up Our Economic Recovery, http://immigrationimpact.com/2011/03/22/immigration-entrepreneurs-may-speed-up-our-economic-recovery/ The StartUp Visa Actwhich was first introduced in 2010 after being debated in 2009is designed

to address

issues of brain drain and immigration limbo, where talented immigrants are forced to wait in line for years
before they can obtain visas to work permanently in the U.S., and often leave before doing so.

If the U.S. is to

remain competitive globally (Great Britain recently passed legislation to speed up the visa process for big
investors and entrepreneurs), it must attract and retain the best talent from around the world. According to Vivek Wadhwa, an entrepreneur turned academic and Director of Research for the Center for Entrepreneurship at Duke University: the fact is that skilled immigrants create jobs; and recipients of the startup visa will not be allowed to stay in the U.S. permanently unless they do. Right now, these job creators have no choice but to take their ideas and savings home with them and become our competitors. This legislation allows them to create the jobs here. Entrepreneurship

is vital

to overall job creation. A report by the Kauffman Foundation found that job growth in the U.S. is driven almost

entirely by startup companies. Specifically, the report found that on average, existing firms lose about 1 million net jobs per year, while new firms add 3 million net jobs per year. In other words, without new companies and the

entrepreneurs who start them, our economy would likely be in worse shape than it already is. Immigrant entrepreneurs are an important part of this equation. If Congress is serious about our nations economic recovery, they must earnestly consider and debate legislation like the StartUp Visa Act, with
the goal of creating more investment opportunities and spurring innovation and entrepreneurship through U.S. immigration policy. While Congress has lately been reluctant to discuss any immigration issue other than border security, renewed focus by President Obama, the members of the Senate introducing this legislation, and the House Majority Leader may signal a willingness to take this issue on.

StartupCompetiveness 2NCMPXGPW
US competitiveness solves hegemony and great power war
Baru 9 Sanjaya Baru is a Professor at the Lee Kuan Yew School in Singapore Geopolitical Implications of the Current Global
Financial Crisis, Strategic Analysis, Volume 33, Issue 2 March 2009 , pages 163 - 168 Hence, economic policies and performance do have strategic consequences.2 In the modern era, the idea that strong economic performance is the foundation of power was argued most persuasively by historian Paul Kennedy. 'Victory (in war)', Kennedy claimed, 'has repeatedly gone to the side with more flourishing productive base'.3 Drawing attention to the interrelationships between economic wealth, technological innovation, and the ability of states to efficiently

mobilize economic and technological resources for power projection and national defence, Kennedy argued that nations that were able to better combine military and economic strength scored over others. 'The fact remains', Kennedy argued, 'that all of the major shifts in the world's military-power balance have followed alterations in the productive balances; and further, that the rising and falling of the various empires and states in the
international system has been confirmed by the outcomes of the

major Great Power wars , where victory has

always gone to the side with the greatest material resources'.4 In Kennedy's view, the geopolitical consequences of an economic crisis, or even decline, would be transmitted through a nation's inability to find adequate financial resources to simultaneously sustain economic growth and military power, the classic 'guns versus butter' dilemma.

Competitive retrenchment leads to great power war

Friedberg & Schoenfeld 8
Aaron Friedberg is a professor of politics and international relations at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School. Gabriel Schoenfeld, senior editor of Commentary, is a visiting scholar at the Witherspoon Institute in Princeton, N.J., The Dangers of a Diminished America, Wall Street Journal, Ocbtober 21, 2008, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122455074012352571.html With the global financial system in serious trouble, is America's geostrategic dominance likely to diminish? If so, what would that mean? One immediate implication of the crisis that began on Wall Street and spread

across the world is that the primary instruments of U.S. foreign policy will be crimped. The
next president will face an entirely new and adverse fiscal position. Estimates of this year's federal budget deficit already show that it has jumped $237 billion from last year, to $407 billion. With families and businesses hurting, there will be calls for various and expensive domestic relief programs. In the face of this onrushing river of red ink, both Barack Obama and John McCain have been reluctant to lay out what portions of their programmatic wish list they might defer or delete. Only Joe Biden has suggested a possible reduction -- foreign aid. This would be one of the few popular cuts, but in budgetary terms it is a mere grain of sand. Still, Sen. Biden's comment hints at where we may be headed: toward a major reduction in America's world role, and perhaps even a new era of financially-induced isolationism. Pressures to cut defense

spending, and to dodge the cost of waging two wars, already intense before this crisis, are likely to mount. Despite the success of the surge, the war in Iraq remains deeply unpopular. Precipitous withdrawal -- attractive to a
sizable swath of the electorate before the financial implosion -- might well become even more popular with annual war bills running in the hundreds of billions. Protectionist sentiments are sure to grow stronger as jobs disappear in the coming slowdown. Even before our current woes, calls to save jobs by restricting imports had begun to gather support among many Democrats and some Republicans. In a prolonged recession, gale-force winds of protectionism will blow. Then there are the dolorous consequences of a potential collapse of the world's financial architecture. For decades now, Americans have enjoyed the advantages of being at the center of that system. The worldwide use of the dollar, and the stability of our economy, among other things, made it easier for us to run huge budget deficits, as we counted on foreigners to pick up the tab by buying dollar-denominated assets as a safe haven. Will this be possible in the future? Meanwhile, traditional foreign-policy challenges are multiplying. The threat from al Qaeda and Islamic terrorist affiliates has not been extinguished. Iran and North Korea are continuing on their bellicose paths, while Pakistan and Afghanistan are progressing smartly down the road to chaos. Russia's new militancy and China's seemingly relentless rise also give cause for concern. If America now tries

to pull back from the world stage, it will leave a dangerous power vacuum. The stabilizing effects of our presence in Asia, our continuing commitment to Europe, and our position as defender of last resort for Middle East energy sources and supply lines could all be placed at risk. In such a scenario there are shades of the 1930s, when global trade and finance ground nearly to a halt, the peaceful democracies failed to cooperate, and aggressive powers led by the remorseless fanatics who rose up on the crest of economic disaster exploited their divisions. Today we run the risk that rogue states may choose to become ever more reckless with their nuclear toys, just at
our moment of maximum vulnerability. The aftershocks of the financial crisis will almost certainly rock our principal strategic competitors even harder than they will rock us. The dramatic free fall of the Russian stock market has demonstrated the fragility of a state whose economic performance hinges on high oil prices, now driven down by the global slowdown. China is perhaps even more fragile, its economic growth depending heavily on foreign investment and access to foreign markets. Both will now be constricted, inflicting economic pain and perhaps even sparking unrest in a country where political

legitimacy rests on progress in the long march to prosperity. None of this is good news if the authoritarian leaders of these countries seek to divert attention from internal travails with external adventures. As for our democratic friends, the present crisis comes when many European nations are struggling to deal with decades of anemic growth, sclerotic governance and an impending demographic crisis. Despite its past dynamism, Japan faces similar challenges. India is still in the early stages of its emergence as a world economic and geopolitical power. What does this all mean? There is no substitute for America on the world stage. The choice we have before us is between the potentially disastrous effects of disengagement and the stiff price tag of continued American leadership. Are we up for the task? The American economy has historically demonstrated remarkable resilience. Our market-oriented ideology, entrepreneurial culture, flexible institutions and favorable demographic profile should serve us well in whatever trials lie ahead. The American people, too, have shown reserves of resolve when properly led. But experience after the Cold War era -- poorly articulated and executed policies, divisive domestic debates and rising anti-Americanism in at least some parts of the world -- appear to have left these reserves diminished. A recent

survey by the Chicago Council on World Affairs found that 36% of respondents agreed that the U.S. should "stay out of world affairs," the highest number recorded since this question was first asked in 1947. The economic crisis could be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

*****CIR DA Answers

***Aff Mechanics

Wont PassHouse
Zero chance of house passage
Horsey 7/3
David, Betting on more white voters, Republicans shun immigration bill [http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/topoftheticket /lana-tt-republicans-shun-immigration-20130702,0,3394790.story] The Senate-approved comprehensive immigration reform bill could be the greatest legislative

achievement of President Obamas second term -- but only if Speaker of the House John Boehner allows it to be voted on. The chances of that? Pretty darn slim. Boehner says he will only bring the bill to a vote if a majority of his caucus approves and, right now, the legislation appears to be only slightly more attractive to the House GOP than two lesbians getting married at an abortion clinic.

Wont pass the Houserepublican opposition

The Hill 7/2
Mark Mellman, The politics of immigration [http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/mark -mellman/309035-the-politics-ofimmigration] //mtc In the House, where presidential ambition is muted, politics are differently structured, and Latinos

appear less present in constituencies, there is little hope for comprehensive immigration reform. Thats less because attitudes are fundamentally different, and more because the politics are. As Ive noted before,
Democratic constituencies young voters, minorities etc. are heavily packed into cities, and therefore into a smaller number of congressional districts. As a result, Republican districts on average are about 11 percent Hispanic, while Democratic districts are about twice as Latino. Presidential and Senate candidates have to run statewide;

House candidates do not. Nevada illustrates the issue. The state is about 27 percent Latino, while the two
Democratic districts are 43 percent and 27 percent Hispanic. By contrast, the solidly GOP district is 16 percent and the swing congressional district is 20 percent Latino. In short, the political imperative to support immigration

reform is far more muted for Republican House members than for senators and presidential
candidates. Politics doesnt push Republican House members to support immigration reform and they dont. Politics does conspire to incentivize senators and presidential candidates to take serious cognizance of the Latino vote and lo and behold, they now support immigration reform. That doesnt mean that GOP House members lack scruples or ideology its just that political incentives matter in political bodies. As a result, dont hold your breath for

immigration reform to come barreling out of the House.

Absolutely not
Chapman 7/1
Steve, Why immigration reform probably won't pass [http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi -republicans-andimmigration-reform-20130701,0,2224811.column] Immigration reform is likely to be the same. That's partly because the resentment of unauthorized immigrants

felt by so many GOP voters will not abate. Those immigrants will still be just as visible as ever, if not more. It's also because many conservative officeholders will continue to resist letting them become citizens, while constantly faulting border enforcement efforts. Liberals, by the way, may also push to loosen the terms for the path to citizenship. No one is going to move on very soon. No one is going to forget how anyone voted. If you're a Republican House member from a solidly Republican district, voting for immigration reform is an invitation for constituents to show up at meetings in your district, vehemently complaining. It's also an invitation for an opponent to run against you in 2014 or even
2016, blaming you for a process that will still be unfolding and still be controversial. There are good policy reasons to vote for reform -- but in the end, the political risks to House Republicans are likely to sink it.

Wont pass the housevote count

Dann and Thorpe 6/28
Carrie and Frank, Does immigration reform stand a chance? [http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/28/19175161 -doesimmigration-reform-stand-a-chance?lite] //mtc

Republican leaders in the U.S. House made clear there is one thing they intend to do with the comprehensive immigration reform passed with great pageantry by the Senate Thursday: Ignore it. "The House is not going to take up and vote on whatever the Senate passes," Republican House Speaker John Boehner reiterated just hours before the Senate approved its bill by a 68-32 margin. That insistence has left
backers of the delicately negotiated comprehensive solution eyeing a political needle to thread in order to advance the legislation. Senate negotiators sought to run up the margin of the vote, hoping that overwhelmingly majority support would put political pressure on House leaders to move on the measure. So far there is no sign that strategy has worked, leaving efforts to fix an immigration system all sides admit is broken in legislative limbo. Although some Republicans fret that the powerful Latino voting bloc will forever distrust the party if it allows reform efforts to languish and die, many members

of the GOP-controlled House have little individual incentive to support a bill disliked by their constituents. And the breakdown in the lower chamber 234 Republicans to 201 Democrats simply isnt favorable to the plight of immigration reform advocates.

Wont PassPath to Citizenship

Wont passpath to citizenship
Foley 6/28
Elise, House GOP: Senate Immigration Vote Doesn't Put Pressure On Us [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/28/house-gopsenate-immigration_n_3517025.html] //mtc

"I am absolutely confident that a majority of Republicans are not going to give citizenship to 11 million illegal aliens," Rep Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.) said Friday on the "Laura Ingraham" show. Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.) told the National Review's Jonathan Strong that the House should "fold it up into a paper airplane and throw it out the window," referring to the Senate bill. He quipped, "Oh, is that not the right answer?" Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.), who serves in the GOP leadership, said Thursday at an event hosted by the National Review that it was "a pipe dream" to think the House would take up the gang of eight's bill. Boehner has vowed not to break the Hastert Rule, an informal vow to take up legislation only when a majority of his conference supports it, meaning the Senate bill has very little chance of being considered. That would mean an immigration bill could be signed into law only if the chambers combine the
piecemeal approach from the House and the Senate's comprehensive one.

Wont PassAT House Bill

No chance of passage even on compromise bill
Dann and Thorpe 6/28
Carrie and Frank, Does immigration reform stand a chance? [http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/28/19175161 -doesimmigration-reform-stand-a-chance?lite] //mtc Boehner has insisted both privately and publicly that he wont bring legislation to the floor that

does not have the support of a majority of House Republicans. On Thursday, he went even further, extending that pledge to any piece of legislation that results from a merger of House-and-Senate-passed bills. We're going to do our own bill through regular order, and it'll be legislation
that reflects the will of our majority and the will of the American people, Boehner told reporters Thursday, just hours befo re the Senate approved its legislation. And for any legislation, including a conference report, to pass the House is goi ng to have to be a bill that has the support of a majority of our members. With limited support among House

Republicans for the Senate bills foundational path to citizenship, that leaves few options for comprehensive legislation to pass both houses of Congress and make it to President Barack Obamas desk.

Wont PassAT Piecemeal

Even piecemeal reform wont pas Dann and Thorpe 6/28
Carrie and Frank, Does immigration reform stand a chance? [http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/28/19175161 -doesimmigration-reform-stand-a-chance?lite] //mtc But foes of the reform effort staunchly maintain that the impasse is unbreakable . Were going to be in a situation again where, just, nothing happens, predicted Rosemary Jenks, a lobbyist for limited immigration group NumbersUSA, which opposes the Senate bill. Jenks disputes the idea that Boehner will allow passage of a disliked bill in order to appease national Republicans who fear a backlash from Latino voters. All the Senate Republican leadership is going to oppose this bill, she said, pointing to opposition from his Senate counterpart Mitch McConnell and other top GOP senators. So that really gives Boehner all the out that he needs. Even if Boehner brings GOP-palatable,

piecemeal legislation to the floor, the effort could still wither on the vine if it faces opposition from Republicans suspicious of amnesty and Democrats set against any bill that doesnt contain a pathway to citizenship. The leaders of the minority caucuses in the House made up entirely of Democrats told reporters Thursday that they would not accept the piecemeal approach Republicans are committed to doing, saying the strategy is simply to delay, delay, delay, and to kill the bill.

Wont PassRepublicansAT Midterm Pressure

Republicans willing to throw the Latino vote
Horsey 7/3
David, Betting on more white voters, Republicans shun immigration bill [http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/topoftheticket /lana-tt-republicans-shun-immigration-20130702,0,3394790.story] //mtc However, Ann Coulter and a few others on the right made the counter argument that

legalization was the political equivalent of suicide for the GOP. Republicans might gain a measure of goodwill by backing an immigration plan, but it would not be nearly enough to pull in more than a scattering of Latino voters. Instead, all those millions of new citizens would simply provide additional votes for Democrats. That analysis seems to be winning the day in Republican circles. House opponents of immigration reform will say their concern is border security, but, though the
amended version of the Senate bill essentially militarizes the border (and provides a windfall for defense contractors), it has not changed many minds among House Republicans. They may be more worried about all those potential Democratic voters already inside the border than the imagined fearful horde still in Mexico. The Republicans new political

strategy is to double down on their old strategy: get more white votes. The plutocrat Mitt Romney turned off many white, working-class voters who then failed to go to the polls in 2012. Republican strategists now are thinking victory is in reach if they can get those folks to turn out next time around.

Republican midterm strategy is to rally against CIR

Chicago Tribune 6/30
Immigration reform faces fight in GOP House [http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct -edit-immigration20130630,0,567006.story] //mtc But many House Republicans are worried about the short-term the 2014 election. They're

dusting off the script from 2006, which calls for them to spend the next several months railing against the Senate's perfectly reasonable bill. That year, they wasted a lot of time drafting their own enforcement-heavy measures, then returned to their districts to hold hearings with titles like "Whether Attempted Implementation of the Senate Immigration Bill Will Result in an Administrative and National Security Nightmare" and "Should We Embrace the Senate's Grant of Amnesty to Millions of Illegal Aliens and Repeat the Mistakes of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986?" Now, as then, they argue that the American people don't trust their government to enforce a new law because it didn't enforce the old one. That may fire
up the voters in some districts, but it doesn't get us any closer to a system that works. This time, Senate sponsors won support from reluctant Republicans by adding $46 billion for a border security buildup they acknowledge is "overkill." The measure also calls for an electronic system to monitor exits at air and sea ports, since some 40 percent of immigrants who are here without permission came legally but overstayed their visas. Instead of giving lip service to workplace verification, as the 1986 law did, the Senate bill requires employers to use a system called E-verify to confirm the status of new hires. The Senate bill shows we've learned a lot from the mistakes of 1986. House Republicans seem determined to

repeat the ones they made in 2006.

No midterm pressureWhite House scandals and constituents provide cover

Fahy and Fahy 6/29
Brian and Garrett, Immigration Reform: Time for a Congressional Fencing Match [http://townhall.com/columnists/brianandgarrettfahy/2013/06/29/immigration-reform--time-for-a-congressional-fencing-matchn1630393] //mtc However, House Republicans should be in no rush to pass any immigration reform bill. There is

no public clamor for immigration reform from key 2014 constituencies, and Congress
failure to act this summer will not exacerbate a problem that has been a generation in the making. Moreover, Harry Reid is hoping members of Congress will get pressured by their constituents at town hall meetings during the August recess to pass the Senate bill, but that wont happen. Given more time to inspect the Senate bill, Americans will likely sour on it, just as has happened with Obamacare. Indeed,

any

GOP midterm worries are misplaced . Democrats havent done well in a midterm election since

2006, fewer Hispanics vote in midterm elections, and the raft of scandals

besieging the White House should provide Republicans sufficient ammo to fight back against Democratic attacks.

Wont PassAT Senate Bill

Senate bill wont even make it to the House floor
CBS Miami 7/2
Immigration Reform Splitting GOP [http://miami.cbslocal.com/2013/07/02/immigration -reform-splitting-gop/] //mtc The GOP-led House plans to take up immigration, but will not hold a vote on the bipartisan Senate

bill that passed by an overwhelming bipartisan majority. The House will not bring the bill up because of an unwritten rule that Speaker John Boenher adheres to that says no bill will get to the floor without majority support from the majority party. Speaker Boehners most conservative tea party members have already said the immigration reform bill is dead and Boehner himself declared the bill dead on arrival. With the more conservative base opposing any form of immigration, its creating a mini-civil war in the Republican Party.

House wont pass the senate versionGOP opposition

Chicago Tribune 6/30
Immigration reform faces fight in GOP House [http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-immigration20130630,0,567006.story] //mtc Struggling to come up with their own bill, GOP immigration hawks watched as the Senate measure took

noisily declared it would be dead on arrival in their chamber. If that means the system stays broken, too bad. The Senate's approach, they insist, repeats the mistakes of the last immigration overhaul, in 1986. The "mistake" they mention most is the provision that granted amnesty to 2.7 million immigrants who were living in the country without permission.
shape and

Senate bill is dead on arrival

Fahy and Fahy 6/29
Brian and Garrett, Immigration Reform: Time for a Congressional Fencing Match [http://townhall.com/columnists/brianandgarrettfahy/2013/06/29/immigration-reform--time-for-a-congressional-fencing-matchn1630393] //mtc

Senate bill is a non-starter for House conservatives. The most odious provisions are those that provide immediate and irreversible legalization, a path to citizenship, and eventual federal welfare benefits without any guarantees of border enforcement that cant be waived by the Secretary of Homeland Security. Most importantly: the Senate bill does not require an impassible fence be built across the most trafficked portions of the southern border. This leaves the Senate bill dead on arrival in the House, and rightly so. The 1986 immigration reform failed to install a
On the merits, the fence and millions more came illegally. Failure to implement a fence now invites the same result.

PC Not Key
PC not key to CIRactivists and lobbyists are doing all the heavy lifting
Fabian 7/2
Jordan, The Plan to Sell House Republicans on Immigration Reform [http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Uni vision/Politics/immigrationreformers-plan-win-house-republicans/story?id=19546408&singlePage=true#.UdSdZFOxN-U] //mtc Here's how some activists and lobbyists plan to crack the House: 1. Find the influencers

Pro-immigration reform groups are just beginning to identify which House Republicans are seen as "gettable," according to several GOP operatives who work with those outside political
organizations. That could be tough, considering that few House Republicans have much incentive to support legislation that contains a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Only 24 out of 234 House Republicans represent districts that have a Hispanic voter share that's greater than 25 percent. But pro-reform advocates believe they can woo

individual House GOPers in other ways. Advocates will encourage House members who can set the tone for others on immigration to speak out. Reform-backers believe Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) is
key to that effort. The party's vice presidential nominee in 2012 has voiced support for overhauling the nation's immigration laws and commands respect among all House Republican factions. "I think that somebody like Paul Ryan is in a really unique place to bring together Republicans and Democrats around a solution," said Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum. "He gets it from a policy perspective and he gets it from a personal perspective, and he has credibility like nobody else in the House." That playbook also includes highlighting the economic

benefits of a path to citizenship and new worker visa programs. Those aspects could appeal to skeptical House Republicans. Pro-reform groups are also looking to get the support of stakeholders in certain
Republican districts. Everyone from business leaders to political donors could help give GOP politicians cover if they choose to support reform. Joshua Culling, the immigration point man at Grover Norquist's conservative group Americans for Tax Reform, said there's room for the pro-reform coalition to grow in the House. But that will take a hard sell and political cover to protect Republican "Yes" votes from a potential backlash from some conservative groups and voters. "We've heard from members that 'we want to support this, but we want to feel more comfortable,'" he said in an interview. 2. Give them

support Behind-the-scenes lobbying will play a big role in swaying House Republicans on immigration, but public campaigns matter, too. Already, pro-immigration reform groups have outspent their opponents by nearly a three-to-one margin in radio and TV ads between April and
June, according to numbers compiled by National Journal. Ad money from the pro-side has helped senators like Lindsey Graham, who faces re-election next year and has been hit by anti-immigration activists' ads in his home state of South Carolina. But reform backers believe there's even more money out there from Republican

donors that can be used to run ads to provide political cover for GOP lawmakers who vote yes. Ad spending on immigration is only a fraction of what was spent on health care reform. Over the first 10 months of
2009, $166 million was spent on TV ads on health reform alone, according to CNNMoney. The amount of ad money on TV and radio spent on immigration over the past three months only totaled $7.8 million. "That's been the one part that is lagging. There hasn't really been money flowing into this fight," said Culling. "The frustration is that there is so much money that's in support of immigration, but it won't get off the sidelines." There will be increased efforts, however, to give

cover to Republican lawmakers as the debate moves to the House. Republicans for Immigration
Reform is a super PAC founded by former Bush Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez. But the group has remained relatively quiet during the first half of the year (except for this ad backing Sen. Graham). The group's executive director, Charlie Spies, said that it plans to ramp up efforts in the House. The group will run more ads in select congressional districts, where members may come under fire from conservatives and Tea Party groups for backing immigration reform. "We believe there is a value to Republicans on the fence knowing that there are going to be people who have their backs when they come out in favor of reform," Spies said. "The shrill minority of people who are attacking them aren't representative of Republicans as a whole, or their constituents." But don't expect health care levels of ad-spending. Spies, who formerly ran a super PAC that backed GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney, does not anticipate a flood of political advertising on immigration at least not this year. "[O]ur purpose was always to provide air cover to Republicans that get attacked for supporting reform when it matters most," he said. "And that's going to be next year during the election cycle, when people are paying attention." 3. Go on the attack Of course, there's another way to sway House Republicans:

Spend money to attack their stance on immigration. But so far, advocacy and lobbying groups have
avoided the negative approach. "We have not had to do what I think we would do on other issues, which is to say we'll withhold support or support a challenger," said Jeremy Robbins, director of the pro-immigration Partnership for a New American Economy and a policy advisor to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Robbins said that doesn't mean attack ads are entirely off the table. He's willing to embrace whatever strategy makes the most sense. But, for now, his organization is taking a friendlier tack. "We would much rather work with a target than against a target," he said. There's another reason you might not see ads shaming conservatives who oppose immigration reform: They might not work that well. While immigration is a core issue for Latinos, it's less important for other groups. So it wouldn't make sense to air ads on a topic that doesn't stir enough voters to action. Plus, attacks could turn off fence-sitting GOP congressmen, according to

Spies, of Republicans for Immigration Reform. "We don't anticipate going on offense at this point," he said. "There are

enough persuadable Republicans that can weigh in and we can work with those who are open to a comprehensive approach to reform that its not a productive use of resources to attacking
Republicans whose minds aren't going to be changed."

No PC
Obama PC lowPRISM and scandals
Feldmann 6/17
Linda, Obama job approval drops 17 points among young Americans [http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC Decoder/2013/0617/Obama-job-approval-drops-17-points-among-young-Americans] //mtc The latest wave of polls shows President Obamas job approval rating drifting steadily

downward, into the mid-40s, and thats hardly surprising. Controversies around US government surveillance of telephones and the Internet, the Internal Revenue Services targeting of tea party groups, Justice Department snooping into journalists phone records, and the US response to last Septembers terror attack in Benghazi, Libya, have put the Obama administration on the defensive. Public views of Mr. Obamas personal qualities have also taken a hit: The latest CNN/ORC International
survey, released Monday, shows that, for the first time in his presidency, half the public does not believe Obama is honest and trustworthy. All of the above cuts into Obamas political capital, that elusive commodity that fuels a president's second-term mojo.

No PC
Maxwell 7/4
Leo, USA: Scandals and the Obama Administration [http://www.theforeignreport.com/2013/07/04/usa -scandals-and-the-obamaadministration/] //mtc Barack Obamas second term agenda however, is being besieged by a plethora of scandals,

putting the president on the defensive and confining him to acting as a reactive chief executive with dwindling political capital. It is difficult to identify which of these current scandals may harm Obamas legacy most. The Benghazi embassy debacle and the IRS scandal have enraged tea party firebrands and GOP libertarians on the right of the political spectrum who have consistently argued that Barack
Obamas radical agenda will do irreversible damage to American society.

Not Pushing
Obamas keeping out of the immigration debate
The Hill 7/3
Aimie Parns, Obama hands off push on immigration [http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/309051 -obama-hands-off-pushon-immigration-reform] //mtc President Obama has no plans to launch an aggressive public push to pressure House

Republicans to move on immigration reform, even though a win on the issue is seen as critical to the success of his second term. [WATCH VIDEO] Democratic strategists and GOP aides argue it would be smart politics for Obama to stay on the sidelines because pressure from the president could be counter-productive. It could also make Speaker John Boehners (R-Ohio) job more difficult.

Obama not involved in immigration discussionsafraid of alienating Republicans

Politico 6/27
Carrie Brown and Manu Raju President Obama doesn't get all he wanted on immigration [http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/obama -immigration-reform93541.html] //mtc

At the urging of the Gang of Eight, Obama assumed a low public profile in the debate. The negotiators worried that the presidents involvement would alienate Republicans who already felt they were taking a political risk by tackling immigration. That meant Obama had little choice but to put the issue in the hands of deal-cutting lawmakers.

Obama not pushingwaiting it out on the sidelines

MSNBC 6/11
Benjy Sarlin, Obama: Congress, get your act together on immigration [http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/06/11/president-obama-tellscongress-to-get-its-act-together-on-immigration/] //mtc For the most part, Obama has been content to watch the debate from the sidelines in order to

give Republicans political cover to negotiate a bill without tying themselves to the administration. The White House does have an immigration plan of its own that shares the same general structure as the
Gang of Eight, which officials say they intend to introduce as a bill only if talks break down in Congress.

XO Solves
Executive action solves
Lillis 13
Mike, Dems: Obama can act unilaterally on immigration reform, 2/16/13, The Hill, http://thehill.com/blogs/regwatch/administration/283583-dems-recognize-that-obama-can-act-unilaterally-on-immigration-reform President Obama can and will take steps on immigration reform in the event Congress

doesn't reach a comprehensive deal this year, according to several House Democratic leaders. While the Democrats are hoping Congress will preclude any executive action by enacting reforms legislatively, they say the administration has the tools to move unilaterally if the bipartisan talks on Capitol Hill break down. Furthermore, they say, Obama stands poised to use them.

Executive action solves

Lillis 13 Staff @ The Hill
Mike, Dems: Obama can act unilaterally on immigration reform, http://thehill.com/blogs/regwatch/administration/283583 -demsrecognize-that-obama-can-act-unilaterally-on-immigration-reform#ixzz2NAEmbB00 February 16 President Obama

can

and will take steps on immigration reform in the event Congress

doesn't reach a comprehensive deal this year, according to several House Democratic leaders. While the Democrats are hoping Congress will preclude any executive action by enacting reforms legislatively, they say the administration has the tools to move unilaterally if the bipartisan talks on Capitol Hill break down. Furthermore, they say, Obama stands poised to use them . "I don't think the president will be hands off on immigration for any moment in time," Rep. Xavier Becerra (DCalif.), the head of the House Democratic Caucus, told reporters this week. " He's ready to move forward if

we're not ." Rep. Joseph Crowley (N.Y.), vice chairman of the Democratic Caucus, echoed that message, saying
Obama is "not just beating the drum," for immigration reform, "he's actually the drum major." "There are limitations as to what he can do with executive order," Crowley said Wednesday, "but he did say that if Congress continued to fail to act that he would take steps and measures to enact common-sense executive orders to move this country forward." Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), who heads the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said there are "plenty" of executive steps Obama could take if Congress fails to pass a reform package. "The huge one," Grijalva said, is "the waiving of deportation" in order to
keep families together. "Four million of the undocumented [immigrants] are people who overstayed their visas to stay with family," he said Friday. "So that would be, I think, an area in which there's a great deal of executive

authority that he could deal with." The administration could also waive visa caps, Grijalva said,
to ensure that industries like agriculture have ample access to low-skilled labor. "Everybody's for getting the smart and the talented in, but there's also a labor flow issue," he said. To be sure, Obama and congressional Democrats would prefer the reforms to come through Congress both because that route would solidify the changes into law and because it would require bipartisan buy-in. Still, House Republicans have been loath to accept one of the central elements of Obama's strategy: A pathway to citizenship for the estimated 11-12 million undocumented people currently living in the country a move which many conservatives deem "amnesty." Indeed, when the House Judiciary Committee met earlier this month on immigration reform, much of the discussion focused on whether there is some middle ground between citizenship and mass deportation. If we can find a solution that is short of a pathway to citizenship, but better than just kicking 12 million people out, w hy is that not a good solution? Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho) asked during the hearing. Obama on Tuesday spent a good portion of his State of the Union address urging Congress to send him a comprehensive immigration reform bill this year. Central to that package, he said, should be provisions for "strong border security," for "establishing a responsible pathway to earned citizenship" and for "fixing the legal immigration system to cut waiting periods and attract the highly-skilled entrepreneurs and engineers that will help create jobs and grow our economy." "We know what needs to be done," Obama said. "So lets get this done." Becerra said he and other immigration reformers have had two meetings with the White House on immigration this month, one with the executive team working on the issue and, more recently, with Obama himself. Becerra said administration officials "essentially" know what reforms they want "and they have communicated that to both House and Senate members, bipartisanly" but they also want Congress to take the lead. "They're giving Congress a chance to work its will to move this," Becerra said. "But I don't think he's going to wait too long. "If you were to ask him

would he be prepared to submit a bill if Congress isn't ready he would tell you, I have no doubt, 'I can do it in a heartbeat ,'" Becerra added. "The president will move forward where he

can if Congress doesn't act." Indeed, Obama has already shown a willingness to do just that. Last summer, just months before November's elections, Obama shocked political observers when he launched a program through the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) allowing undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children to remain without threat of deportation. The two-year "deferred action" was modeled on the Dream Act legislation that has been unable to pass Congress.

XO SolvesAT Obama Wont XO

Obama will XO
Kumar 3-24
Anita, In face of hostile Congress, Obama orders in agenda, Detroit Free Press, http://www.freep.com/article/20130324/NEWS15/303240348/In-face-of-hostile-Congress-Obama-orders-in-agenda President Barack Obama came into office four years ago, skeptical of pushing the power of

the White House to the limit, especially if it appeared to be circumventing Congress. Now, as he launches his second term, Obama has grown more comfortable wielding power to try to move his agenda, particularly when a fractured, often-hostile Congress gets in his way. He has done it with a package of tools, some of which date to George Washington and some invented in the modern era of an increasingly powerful presidency. And he has done it with a frequency that belies his original campaign criticisms of predecessor George W. Bush, invites criticisms that he's bypassing the checks and balances
of Congress and the courts, and whets the appetite of liberal activists who want him to do even more. While his decision to send drones to kill U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism has garnered criticism, his use of executive orders and other powers at home is

deeper and wider: He delayed the deportation of young illegal immigrants when Congress wouldn't agree. He ordered the C enters for D isease C ontrol and Prevention to research gun violence, which Congress halted nearly 15 years ago. He told the Justice Department to stop defending the D efense o f M arriage A ct, deciding that the 1996 law defining marriage as between a man and a woman was unconstitutional. He pledged to act on his own if Congress didn't pass policies to address climate change. Possibly more than any other president in modern history , he's using e x ecutive acti o n s to bypass or pressure a Congress , where Republicans can block any proposal. "It's gridlocked and dysfunctional. The place is a mess," said Rena Steinzor, a law professor at the University of Maryland. "I think (executive action) is an inevitable tool, given what's happened." Now that Obama has shown a willingness to use those tactics, advocacy groups, supporters and even members of Congress are lobbying him to do so more and more.

Failure leads to XO
--prefer recency on this question, Obama has changed tone

Strong 13
Jonathan, Becerra: Obama Weighing Executive Actions on Immigration, http://www.rollcall.com/news/becerra_obama_weighing_executive_actions_on_immigration-222402-1.html?pos=oplyh February 13 A top House Democrat who is participating in bipartisan negotiations on immigration said President Barack Obama

is ready to introduce his own legislation and take further executive action if

those talks fall apart. Obama hasnt presented a bill, yet, Democratic Caucus Chairman Xavier Becerra said. But I bet if you were to ask him, would he be prepared to submit a bill if Congress isnt ready real soon. He would tell you, I have no doubt. I can do it in a heart beat. The California Democrat added that White House officials are

exploring further executive actions

to improve the system, but he said Obama prefers not to go that route because its only temporary. Those executive actions last only as long as the executives who are there continue them. Last year, Obama unilaterally instituted a controversial policy of not prosecuting illegal

immigrants who came to the U.S. when they were minors. Becerras focus on what Obama would do if Congress does not act on its own marks a change in tone from last week, when he said the secretive
immigration group he is part of was on the cusp of a bipartisan deal.

Obama will do it
AP 13
How Obama is wielding executive power in 2nd term,http://washingtonexaminer.com/how-obama-is-wielding-executive-power-in2nd-term/article/2520953 February 8

When a promised immigration overhaul failed in legislation, Obama went part way there simply by ordering that immigrants brought illegally to the United States as children be exempted from deportation and granted work permits if they apply. So, too, the ban on gays serving openly in the
military was repealed before the election, followed now by the order lifting the ban on women serving in combat. Those measures did not prove especially contentious. Indeed, the step on immigration is thought to have helped Obama in the election. It may be a different story as the administration moves more forcefully across a range of policy fronts that sat quiet in much of his first term. William Howell, a political science professor at the University of Chicago and the author of "Power Without Persuasion: The Politics of Direct Presidential Action," isn't surprised to see commandments coming at a rapid clip. "In an era of polarized parties and a fragmented Congress, the opportunities to

legislate are few and far between," Howell said. "So presidents have powerful incentive to go it alone. And they do."

XO SolvesAT Not Effective

Obama can avoid quota limitations executively
Endelman and Mehta 9 *in-house immigration attorney at BP America AND ** founder and managing attorney of
Cyrus D. Mehta & Associates SEX EDITED Gary and Cyrus, The Path Less Taken: Is There An Alternative To Waiting For Comprehensive Immigration Reform?, Immigration Daily, http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0225-endelman.shtm Dinesh Shenoy made a huge first step but it was only a first step. Is action by Congress the only, or even the best, way to break the priority date stranglehold on US immigration policy? The authors do not think so. Amendment of INA Section 245 is unlikely since action by Congress, even in the best of times, takes time. When Congress finds such time, legalization and other priority items (like recapture of unused visas) will absorb it. Beyond this, is it necessary to relax the rules on adjustment of status? What do potential immigrants really want for themselves and their spouses? The

ability to work in the United States on a long-term basis and travel back home for vacation and/or family emergency. Can they only do that as adjustment applicants? Is there another way? The authors think there is. While INA Section 245 conditions adjustment of status on having a current priority date and meeting various conditions,9 there would be prohibition anywhere that would bar USCIS from allowing the beneficiary of an approved I-140 or I-130 petition to apply for an employment authorization document (EAD) and advance parole. No action by Congress would be

required; executive fiat suffices . For those who want some comfort in finding a
statutory basis, the government could rely on its parole authority under INA Section 212(d)(5) to grant such interim benefits either for "urgent humanitarian reasons" or "significant public benefit.10 There is nothing in 8 CFR Section 212.5 that would prohibit the DHS from granting
parole for this reason on the grounds that the continued presence of I-140 or I-130 beneficiaries provide a significant public benefit. Since

such parole is not a legal admission,11 there is no separation of powers

argument since the Executive is not trying to change existing grounds of admission or
create any new ones. Moreover, Congress appears to have provided the government with broad authority to provide work authorization to just about any non-citizen .12 It is
undeniably true that more EAD and Parole benefits will be of limited value to retrogressed non-citizens from India and China who are already in the US in the employment-based second and third preferences. After all, most have an H-1B and can extend under Section 106(a) or Section 104(c) of AC 21, but as noted previously, some may still not be able to take advantage of AC 21. The EAD in itself will not have a portability benefit. The foreign national will still need to intend to work for the sponsoring employer even if he/she is using the EAD for open market employment. This reservation, valid as it undoubtedly is, focuses only on those already here. It speaks solely to past migration flows not to future ones. For future

will supplement the H-1B by giving employers of foreign nationals another option. No longer will the constant controversy over the H-1B quota discredit all employment-based immigration in the eyes of its critics and, most importantly, in the court of public
flows, this opinion. No longer will this one dispute suck all the oxygen out of our national immigration debate. Beyond that, it is manifestly not true to argue that all of our immigration needs can be solved with more H1B numbers. This will not work for those who are not H1B material. It will not work for those with essential skills but find themselves in the "Other Worker" backlog under INA Section 203(b)(3)(iii) with no hope of getting the green card any time soon. It will not eliminate the need to legalize the undocumented. If anything, allowing non-citizens with approved I-140/ I-130 petitions to receive EADs and Parole will serve to reduce the size of the permanently undocumented in America many of whom do not leave for fear they will be unable to return. The Executive would not be granting the undocumented legal status for that is what only Congress can do. But, like adjustment of status itself, the Executive certainly can create a period of stay that permits the undocumented to remain here.

Can also choose not to defend laws

Freedman 13
Adam Freedman covers legal affairs for Ricochet. His latest book is The Naked Constitution: What the Founders Said and Why It Still Matters (Broadside Books) "President Obama's deep contempt for the rule of law," 2/5/13 www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/02/05/president-obamas-deep-contempt-for-rule-law/

Obama did not like Bill Clintons D efense o f M arriage A ct, for example, so he declared that he wasnt going to defend it. And he has routinely failed to enforce federal

immigration laws ; most egregiously in his executive order unilaterally exempting 800,000
illegal immigrants from the scope of federal

law. Congress was not consulted. Why bother? Whereas has been exempting states from the laws workfare requirements, even though the welfare reform
President Clinton signed landmark legislation to end welfare as we know it, President Obama

law gives him no such power .

***AT MPXAg

AT AGCIR Not Key

Immigration isnt key
Pumer 1-29
Brad, Were running out of farm workers. Immigration reform wont help, Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/29/the-u-s-is-running-out-of-farm-workers-immigration-reform-maynot-help/ But looser immigration laws may not be able to keep our food cheap forever. A recent study suggests that U.S.

farms could well face a shortage of low-cost labor in the years ahead no matter

what Congress does on immigration. Thats because Mexico is getting richer and can
no longer supply as many rural farm workers to the United States. And it wont be nearly as easy to import low-wage agricultural workers from elsewhere. For decades, farms in the United
States have relied heavily on low-wage foreign workers mainly from Mexico to work their fields. In 2006, 77 percent of all agricultural workers in the United States were foreign-born. (And half of those foreign workers were undocumented immigrants.) All that cheap labor has helped keep down U.S. food prices, particularly for labor-intensive fruits and vegetables. But that labor pool is now drying up. In recent years, weve seen a spate of headlines like this from CNBC: California Farm Labor Shortage Worst Its Been, Ever. Typically, these stories blame drug -related violence on the Mexican border or tougher border enforcement for the decline. Hence the call for new guest-worker programs. But a new paper from U.C. Davis offers up a simpler explanation for the labor shortage. Mexico is getting richer. And, when a

country gets richer, its pool of rural agricultural labor shrinks. Not only are Mexican workers shifting
into other sectors like construction, but Mexicos own farms are increasing wages. That means U.S. farms will have to pay higher and higher wages to attract a dwindling pool of available Mexican farm workers. Its a simple story, says Edward Taylor, an agricultural economist at U.C. Davis and one of the studys authors. By the mid -twentieth century, Americans stopped doing farm work. And we were only able to avoid a farm-labor crisis by bringing in

workers from a nearby country that was at an earlier stage of development. Now that era is coming

to an end . Taylor and his co-authors argue that the United States could face a sharp adjustment period as a result.
Americans appear unwilling to do the sort of low-wage farm work that we have long relied on immigrants to do. And, the paper notes, it may be difficult to find an abundance of cheap farm labor anywhere else potential targets such as

Guatemala and El Salvador are either too small or are urbanizing too rapidly. So the labor shortages will keep getting worse. And that leaves several choices. American farmers could simply stop growing
crops that need a lot of workers to harvest, such as fruits and vegetables. Given the demand for fresh produce, that seems unlikely. Alternatively, U.S. farms could continue to invest in new labor-saving technologies, such as shake-and-catch machines to harvest fruits and nuts. Under this option, the authors write, capital improvements in farm production would increase the marginal product of farm labor; U.S. farms would hire fewer workers and pay higher wages. That could be a boon to domestic workers studies have found that 23 percent of U.S. farm worker families are below the poverty line. In the meantime, however, farm groups are hoping they can fend off that day of reckoning by revamping the nations immigration laws. The bipartisan immigration-reform proposal unveiled in the Senate on Monday contained several provisions aimed at boosting the supply of farm workers, including the promise of an easier path to citizenship. Taylor, however, is not convinced that this is a viable long-term strategy. The idea that you can design a guest-worker

policy to solve this farm labor problem isnt realistic , he assumes that theres a willingness to keep doing farm work on the other side of the border. And thats already dropping off.
program or any other immigration says. It

Labor not key to agriculture

Bloomberg 13
Bloomberg News "Farm profits boom as employment declines," 2/3/13 www.heraldnet.com/article/20130203/NEWS02/702039910?page=single#singlePage AD 2/3/13 The property Kevin Liefer and his son, Kirk, cultivate in southern Illinois has been expanding for decades without adding a single manager. These are boom times for farming and a bust for farm jobs. The 3,600 acres of mostly corn, wheat and soybeans the Liefers hold were about 30 separate, individually operated farms more than 40 years ago, said Kevin. As families left, the homesteads near Red Bud, about 40 miles southeast of St. Louis, melded into one operation. Older

tractors were replaced with models that cultivate more ground and serve as miniature offices, complete with global positioning systems that allow them to steer themselves. Mobile phones enable communication

while in the fields. "There's "The

so much more you can do now without as much labor," said Kevin, 58. consolidation has been rapid." A U.S. farm boom showing few signs of a let-up isn't translating into more opportunities in one of the most robust areas of the economy. Farmers, ranchers and other agricultural managers will see the steepest decline of any employment category by 2020, losing a projected 96,000 jobs this decade out of 1.2 million positions, part of a broader trend toward less labor in the sector, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The drop comes even as agricultural
managers have the highest median wage of any of the top 20 declining categories, at more than $60,000 a year. Farm owners like the Liefers are able to manage larger tracts of land without hiring overseers. Full-time farm managers hired by others can handle more property for more clients, said Jerry Warner, a past president of the American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers, a farm- management organization based in Denver. Many of the fastest-declining U.S. job categories result from industry contraction: post offices closing because of lower mail volume and textiles factories because of outsourcing, for example. Agriculture is an expanding sector with rising profits, even as overall employment,

including laborers, is projected to drop 2.3 percent over this decade.

AT AgAlt Cause
Alt cause to food shortages
Nelson 13
Sam, Reuters, "In 2013, Drought Is Worsening In Midwest And Plains States, Despite U.S. Winter Weather ," 1/28/13 www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/28/2013-midwest-us-drought_n_2566189.html AD 2/3/13 CHICAGO, Jan 28 (Reuters) - Dry weather continues to plague the drought-stricken U.S. Plains

and western Midwest with only light showers and snowfall expected this week, an agricultural meteorologist said on
Monday. "The Plains and the northwest Midwest will still struggle with drought, there's not a whole lot of relief seen," said John Dee, meteorologist for Global Weather Monitoring. Dee said there would be some light rain in the eastern portions of Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas late Monday and Tuesday, with heavier rainfall seen for the eastern and southeastern Midwest late Tuesday and Wednesday. "Roughly east of a line from Kansas City to Chicago will receive 0.50 inch to 1.00 inch or more, but they aren't as affected by the drought at this time," Dee said. Commodity Weather Group (CWG) said light showers fell over the weekend across the Central Plains and much of the Midwest and northern Delta. "Scattered amounts of 0.10 to 0.40 inch were noted for drought areas from Nebraska and northern Kansas into southern Minnesota and Iowa," said CWG meteorologist Joel Widenor. "While very light showers are also possible in parts of Nebraska, South Dakota and Minnesota tonight and again next week, none

of this will be significant enough to put much of a dent in the drought," he said. Without rain or heavy snow before spring, millions of acres of wheat could be ruined while corn and soybean seedings could be threatened in the western Midwest, meteorologists and other crop experts have said. A climatology report issued last Thursday said there were no signs of improvement for Kansas or neighboring farm states. Roughly 57.64 percent of the contiguous United States was in at least "moderate" drought as of Jan. 22, an improvement from 58.87
percent a week earlier, according to last Thursday's Drought Monitor report by a consortium of federal and state climatology experts. But the worst level of drought, dubbed "exceptional," expanded slightly to 6.36 percent from 6.31 percent of the country. Officials

in north-central Oklahoma this month declared a state of emergency due to record-low reservoir conditions. Public and private interests throughout the central United States were examining measures to cope with the drought. The government on Jan. 9 declared much of the central and southern U.S. Wheat Belt a natural disaster area.

***AT MPXEcon

AT EconAging Crisis
Immigration too slow to resolve aging crisis
Campbell Staff Ag Alert 7 (Kate-, Jan. 10, Ag Alert, New Congress faces a growing number of issues,
http://cfbf.com/agalert/AgAlertStory.cfm?ID=742&ck=E94550C93CD70FE748E6982B3439AD3B) AgJOBS legislation is expected to be introduced this week by Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Larry Craig, R-Idaho, said Sharon Hughes, executive vice president of the Washington, D.C.-based National Council of Agricultural Employers, of which CFBF is an active member. Oceanside tomato grower Luawanna Hallstrom, chairwoman of CFBF's Labor Committee; Stanislaus County almond farmer Vito Chiesa, a CFBF director; and Lake County pear packer Toni Scully, whose local growers lost a significant amount of crop last year due to the ongoing labor crisis, were present in the Senate Chamber when AgJOBS was introduced. AgJOBS will reform the H-2A agricultural guest worker program and permit undocumented immigrants working in agriculture to stay on the job in the United States if they meet certain conditions. The Senate is expected to act on AgJOBS before the House of Representatives, which many experts consider more open to passing comprehensive reform. Although House Republicans stymied passage of comprehensive legislation in the last Congress, the change in control of the House from Republicans to Democrats may signal a more receptive climate for meaningful changes. California farmers, such as the North Coast pear growers who this year experienced devastating crop losses because of a shortage of workers, said they cannot afford another season without a reliable supply of workers. "That's why it's crucial for Congress to act now to solve the problems," said Roy Gabriel, CFBF labor relations director. " If a reform bill passed

tomorrow, it would still take a year for it to be fully implemented. If we have to wait through the 110th Congress, it's going to be 2008 before it could be actually put into effect and implemented. "We've been fighting this effort for the last 25 years to get a meaningful, flexible program enacted," he said. "We need this Congress to fix the problem now."

No impact to aging - empirics

Korczyk, Ph.D. Analytical Services, 2 (Sophie M., Back to Which Future: The U.S. Aging Crisis Revisited, Policy and
Strategy Group of the AARP, 2002-18 December) As the U.S. population gets older, it is not venturing into entirely unknown territory. The

share of the American population over age 65 in 2020 will be roughly comparable to the share already in that age group in Japan, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom in 2000 (Anderson and Sotir Hussey 2000). What Older Countries Can Show Us Based on an analysis of eight industrialized countries,23 Anderson and Sotir Hussey (2000) feel that the United States is well positioned to cope with population aging. Next to Japan, for example, the United States has the highest
workforce participation among the elderly and the highest average age of retirement. These factors increase the elderlys economic contribution. One

of this countrys strengths as it confronts population aging is that retirees typically derive their incomes from a mix of public and private sources.
However, gaps in private pension coverage and inadequate individual savings will increase income inequality among the elderly. In addition, Anderson and Sotir Hussey find that the United States has important gaps in the financing of prescription drug coverage and long-term care compared with the other countries considered, and these gaps could become more disruptive and costly as they impact a larger share of the population.

AT EconHigh SkillNot key

Increasing high skilled immigration does not cause faster economic growth, rather rapid economic growth created jobs for high skilled immigrants your makes flawed assumptions empirically proven.
Sana August 10.
Mariano Sana, Ph.D. University of Pennsylvania, Department of Sociology, Vanderbilt University. Immigrants and Natives in U. S. Science and Engineering Occupations, 19942006. Demography Volume 47, Number 3, August 2010. Project Muse. While the international movement of unskilled labor normally confronts obstacles and barriers to entry, virtually all developed countries, as well as the leading emerging economies, compete to attract highly skilled workers (Economist 2006; Hawthorne 2005; Iredale 2000; Regets 2001). This competition spans across all fields of knowledge and is certainly noticeable in science and engineering (S&E1). In the United States, the immigration of S&E workers has

been the subject of debate, especially when predicated upon claimed shortages of skilled labor in the Information, Communications, and Technology (ICT) industry (North 1995; Teitelbaum 2003) and facilitated
by the H-1B visa program. The immigration of S&E workers to meet employers genuine needs, however, is often consi dered a matter of national economic and strategic interest (Jorgenson and Wessner 2007; Lowell 1999; Regets 2001). Under the

perception that the domestic labor supply of S&Es was insufficient to meet U.S. demand, Congress took specific measures to attract foreign-born S&Es toward the end of the previous century and early in the present one. Accepting the strategic and economic importance of a sizable S&E workforce but avoiding judgment on the actual size of the S&E supply, I examine changes in the composition of the U.S. S&E employed workforce by nativity in the 19942006 period. Specifically, I analyze year-to-year changes in the ratio of foreign-born2 S&Es (FSE) to native S&Es (NSE) and relate these changes to immigration policyspecifically, variations in the H-1B visa capand overall economic growth. The analysis is meaningful because the so-called new economy was predicated upon the productivity boost fueled by the ICT industry, an important employer of S&Es and a major lobbyist for pro- immigration measures (Jorgenson and Wessner 2007). For example, a scenario in which pro-immigration policy measures were followed by an increase in the foreign-born component of the S&E [End Page 801] workforce, followed in turn by strong economic growth, would cast an aura of success on such policies even if solid causality claims would demand more nuanced analysis. My methodological tool is a well-known decomposition technique proposed by Das Gupta
(1993). I decompose the change in the ratio in question into a migration effect, a proportional college effect, and a proportional S&E effect. My focus is on the latter, which accounts for the relative proportions of S&Es among migrant and native college-educated workers, or a measure of the relative concentration of foreign-born and native skilled3 workers in S&E occupations. A positive and large proportional S&E effect would signal migration of S&Es of a larger magnitude than what would be expected from given levels of migration and given levels of migration of college-educated workers. In this article, I report that the largest proportional S&E effects have mostly been associated with years

of economic growth and have not been associated with increases in the H-1B visa cap, a policy measure specifically intended to increase the supply of foreign-born S&Es. In other words, a dynamic economy created jobs and opportunities that attracted all kinds of foreign-born workers, including S&Es, but immigration policy designed to attract foreignborn S&Es was of limited consequence when the economy was not on a growing track. This
is not to say that immigrant S&Es do not contribute to economic dynamismthe present analysis cannot address that questionbut that in the absence of a positive economic outlook, immigration policies to attract

skilled workers would probably be ineffective. The current slowdown in applications for H-1B visas seems to confirm this conclusion.

AT EconHigh SkillNo Shortage

No shortage and tech leadership high
Eisenbrey 2/7
Ross, vice president of the Economic Policy Institute, Americas Genius Glut, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/08/opinion/americas-genius-glut.html?_r=0 But Americas technology leadership is not, in fact, endangered. According to the economist Richard B. Freeman, the

United States, with just 5 percent of the worlds population, employs a third of its high-tech researchers, accounts for 40 percent of its research and development, and publishes over a third of its science and engineering articles. And a marked new crop of billion-dollar high-tech companies has sprung up in Silicon Valley recently, without the help of an expanded guest-worker program. Nor are we turning away foreign students, or forcing them to leave once theyve graduated. According to the
Congressional Research Service, the number of full-time foreign graduate students in science, engineering and health fields has grown by more than 50 percent, from 91,150 in 1990 to 148,900 in 2009. And over the 2000s, the United States granted permanent residence to almost 300,000 high-tech workers, in addition to granting temporary work permits (for up to six years) to hundreds of thousands more. The bills proponents argue that for the sake of our global competitiveness, we shouldnt train and then return the tens of thousands of Chinese and Indian students who come here every year. But almost

90 percent of the Chinese students who earn science and technology doctorates in America stay here; the number is only slightly lower for Indians. If theyre talented enough to get a job here, theyre already almost guaranteed a visa. If anything, we have too many high-tech workers:
more than nine million people have degrees in a science, technology, engineering or math field, but only about three million have a job in one. Thats largely because pay levels dont reward their skills. Salaries in computer - and math-related fields for workers with a college degree rose only 4.5 percent between 2000 and 2011. If these skills are so valuable and in such short supply, salaries should at least keep pace with the tech companies profits, which have exploded. And while unemployment for high-tech workers may seem low currently 3.7 percent thats more than twice as high as it was before the recession. If there is no shortage of high-tech workers , why would companies be pushing for more? Simple: workers under the H-1B program arent like domestic workers because they have to be sponsored by an employer, they are more or less indentured, tied to their job and whatever wage the employer decides to give them.

Be highly skeptical of their evidence influence by corporate executives seeking wage deflation
Ruark 11 Director of Research
Eric, http://www.fairus.org/site/DocServer/H1B_2011_final.pdf?docID=6061

Corporate executives in the tech industry have long called for an increase in pliant, lower-cost foreign labor. They argue that the U.S. is failing to produce a sufficient number of talented scientists and engineers. These claims, however, are based upon no actual evidence and do not hold up to scrutiny . Behind the industrys calls for guest worker programs that attract the best
and brightest is the reality that U.S. tech companies are cutting wages by discriminating against qualiied American workers, with the full complicity of the federal government. Labor market data clearly indicate that the U.S. has

no shortage of qualified scientists and engineers, and economic research demonstrates

that immigrants do not make any special contribution to innovation. However, the lood of
low-wage guest workers harms American workers and may threaten the nations future competitiveness. Skilled guest worker programs are being abused by employers, putting many Americans out of work and denying opportunities to millions of others. Even with unemployment at a 30-year high, corporate executives who use foreign workers to suppress wages in the tech industry have found support on Capitol Hill and in the White House. It goes against all sense of fairness, and it is astounding to realize, that Americans are being denied job opportunities in America while at the same time politicians are calling for the expansion of guest worker programs that will exacerbate this problem. The argument

that there exists a shortage of skilled workers in the United States was not true before the recent recession, and certainly is not true now. Simply put, those who promote the idea of a shortage of
scientists and engineers do so without regard for labor market evidence or the welfare of American workers.

AT EconH1BNot Key
Cant solve the tech industry H-1B visas just trade off with American workers
Thibodeau 12
Patrick Thibodeau covers cloud computing and enterprise applications, outsourcing, government IT policies, data centers and IT workforce issues for Computerworld, Senior Editor since 1996, "What will an H-1B cap hike bring to U.S.?" 1/31/13www.computerworld.com/s/article/9236396/What_will_an_H_1B_cap_hike_bring_to_U.S._?taxonomyId=214&pageNumber =1 AD 2/3/13 Computerworld - WASHINGTON -- Ten U.S. senators this week agreed to sponsor a bill that would allow the annual H-1B

visa cap to rise to as high as 300,000, leaving opponents and some researchers concerned.

Under the proposal, the cap would begin at 115,000 and rise as H-1B demand increases or fall when it slackens. Critics

say the plan would escalate problems already faced by U.S. workers. Adding more entrylevel and young H-1B workers may boost offshoring and put pressure on wages, increase age discrimination and discourage U.S. students from entering the IT business, say opponents. The
Senate proponents say the H-1B visas are needed to fill critical jobs and keep the U.S. competitive. The visas give companies the ability to hire who they want. Some lawmakers, though, want to lessen the emphasis on temporary workers and instead focus on encouraging foreign graduates of U.S. universities to remain in the country. These officials would offer permanent residency to foreign students that earn an advanced degree in science, technology, engineering and math, or the so-called STEM degrees. President Barack Obama supports a STEM visa, but his administration has not yet said whether it would support a plan to increase the H-1B cap. Many in the IT industry have long argued that U.S. schools aren't producing experts with the tech skills they needs. The shape of the debate was defined 1998 when Norman Matloff, a computer science professor at the University of California at Davis, challenged the industry at a hearing before a U.S. House committee, where he spoke on "Debunking the Myth of a Desperate Software Labor Shortage." The debate around the H-1B visa follows multiple paths. Microsoft, which may be the most outspoken industry advocate for H-1Bs, says this visa is particularly important for its hiring needs. The company refutes critics who say the guest worker program lowers wages for tech workers. Microsoft says the typical pay for a new programmer or software engineer ranges from $100,000 to $120,000. "A person with an H-1B visa is not be treated differently than any other new hire," a spokeswoman said. But that's Microsoft. At a 2011 House hearing on H-1B visa issues, U.S. Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) said she had asked the Labor

Dept. for a report the average wage for computer system analysts in her district. The result: $92,000 overall for entry level workers, but department also reported that the entry level rate prevailing wage rate for an H-1B worker was $52,000. "We can't have people coming in and undercutting the American educated workforce -- that is just a problem," Lofgren said. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) examined the Labor Dept. data and found that a majority of H-1B workers were hired at entry level. In a year-long period ending midway through 2010, The GAO reported that 54% of the H1B labor applications "were categorized as entry-level positions and were paid at the lowest pay grades allowed under the prevailing wage levels." In response to the I2 bill, the Programmers Guild said all H-1B workers must be paid a salary of $100,000. "This deters employers from misusing" the H-1B visa "as a source of cheap, low-skilled, labor at the exclusion of new graduates." Companies with the most critical need for H-1B visas are in India or

companies that rely heavily on its labor force. Indian offshore outsourcing firms emerge year after year as the top H-1B users. The most recent full-year data, 2011, found Cognizant, a New Jerseybased firm is that major offshore provider, atop the list with 5,715 H-1B approvals. It was followed by year-earlier leader Infosys, an India-based outsourcer, at 4,024. Other India-based firms, Wipro, Tata Consultancy Services, Larsen & Toubro, were among the top 10 users of the H-1B visa, according to data provided by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service. Microsoft, IBM and Google are also among the top H-1B users, and it is those companies, and not the Indian firms, that shape the visa debate in Washington. The visas may increase offshoring, argues Ron Hira, a public

policy professor at the Rochester Institute of Technology. "Since the offshore outsourcing industry is the biggest beneficiary of the H-1B, we know there will be more offshoring of high-wage, high-tech jobs," he said. H-1B battle The conclusions of his examination of the temp visa programs is included in a
2010 2010 report. The H-1B visa now has two caps, a 65,000 cap and a 20,000 cap for advanced degree STEM grads of U.S. universities. The bill that would allow up to 300,000 H-1B visas, the Immigration Innovation (I2) Act, exempts advanced degree STEM grads from any cap. The H-1B provisions I2 Act is seen by experts as an industry "ask" or a "marker," or better yet a wish list untouched by potential opponents. It doesn't include, for instance, a restriction to limit the number of visas that offshore firms may use to 50% of their U.S. workforce. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who is part of a separate group of eight senators working on a comprehensive immigration bill, has long favored such a restriction. He said this week that he would continue to seek it. That threat of a visa restriction prompted one Indian-based firm, Wipro, to suggest, in comments two years ago, that it might accelerate U.S. hiring to decrease reliance on the cap. The I2 bill includes automatic escalators that are intended to be market-based, allowing the H-1B cap to gradually rise with demand, by as much as 20,000 annually. If demand for H-1B visas fall in any year, the cap declines under the proposal. Lindsay Lowell, director of policy studies at the

Student of International Migration at Georgetown University, points out that "demand for H-1Bs' is not the same as 'market based demand based on shortages,' which is to say we graduate somewhere between 1.4 and 2 times as many domestic STEM students as the BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) projects we'll need over the coming decade." "Whatever is driving that makes it likely that escalation triggered by petitions in excess of an annual cap will lead to increasing H-1Bs, maybe all the way to 300,000. Why do we need that?" said Lowell. Hira says that "American engineers and IT workers will

be undercut in both wages and working conditions as they compete with guest-workers who can legally be paid below-market wages and who are essentially indentured servants." It isn't just the H-1B increases that concern Matloff, but the liberalization of the STEM green cards. Those visas user would have a heavy impact on older students, people who come back for graduate study after years in the industry. "It's already bad for students in this category. [The I2 bill] "would make things far
worse," said Matloff in an email to Computerworld. "It's also a shame that there is almost no attention being paid to what I regard as the absolutely core problem with H-1B and green cards: They are causing an internal brain

drain, in which America's own best and brightest realize that the tech field is just into a good long-term route for those who
have good problem-solving ability, quantitative skills and so on," said Matloff.

No impact to current shortages most recent study

Davidson 12
Paul, 10/18/12, Study says shortage of skilled workers not that severe, http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2012/10/14/jobs-skills-gap-study/1630359/ A shortage of skilled manufacturing workers that's blamed for helping push up unemployment is

far smaller than believed, according to a study out today. The study by Boston Consulting Group (BCG) says manufacturers may have openings they can't fill, but it's not because

workers aren't out there . It's because companies are being too selective about who they hire and are unwilling to pay a competitive wage. The report acknowledges a mild skills gap. U.S. manufacturers could use an additional 80,000 to 100,000 highly skilled employees less than 1% of all factory workers and less than 8% of highly skilled workers, the study says. Workers in highest demand are welders, machinists and mechanics. But that's far less than the deficit of 600,000 skilled workers cited in a survey last summer by Deloitte and the Manufacturing Institute. "There's a
relatively small skills gap that can be managed," says BCG senior partner Hal Sirkin. The study identifies
only seven states with significant or severe worker shortages -- Alabama, Alaska, Hawaii, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, and Wyoming. Most have small manufacturing bases, so new manufacturers must draw from sparse worker pools, Sirkin says. Only five of the 50 largest manufacturing centers Baton Rouge, Charlotte, Miami, San Antonio and Wichita are seeing a major shortage, the study says. It says 58% of high-skill manufacturing and engineering jobs remain open at least three to six months. But Sirkin says that's partly because employers are not committed enough to hiring the

workers. A genuine skills gap would have pushed average annual wage growth 3 percentage points above the rate of
inflation over the past five years, the study says, citing a common economic benchmark. Instead, manufacturing wages have grown roughly in line with a below-3% inflation rate. "It's supply and demand," Sirkin says. Also, he says, companies have sharply cut back training of entry-level workers. A skills gap, he says, doesn't exist if manufacturers can train young workers with solid math skills to run computer-controlled machines within a few months. Rather, he says, manufacturers

retrenched in the recession. They're producing more with fewer workers who are earning less, and doing little training after chopping human resource budgets. While they could use more skilled workers, they won't bust their budgets to get them and can do without them,
Sirkin says.

AT EconH1BAT Best and Brightest

H1-B programs to do not bring the best and brightest, the majority of workers are graduates of low quality programs. Matloff in 6
Norm Matloff, professor of computer science at the University of California, Davis. He has written extensively on use of work visas in the tech area, and on the offshoring issue. Best? Brightest? A Green Card Giveaway for Foreign Grads Would Be Unwarranted. May 2006. Center for Immigration Studies. http://www.cis.org/articles/2006/back506.html#author Industry lobbyists have often made the argument that the H-1B program is working well for those who have graduate degrees, as they are the top talents from around the world. The lobbyists claim is that these H-1Bs are being hired

for their superior abilities, not for cheap labor. We saw above that the H-1B program in fact is used as a source of cheap labor even at the graduate level, so the lobbyists argument already fails. But lets set that aside for a moment and address the quality issue itself. Some foreign PhD students are indeed the worlds "best and brightest." I fully support the immigration of such individuals, and have played an active role in
the hiring of outstanding foreign nationals from China, India, and other countries to my departments faculty at the University of California, Davis. However, only a small percentage of all foreign PhDs are of this caliber, as

will be seen below.

Remarkably, even some analysts who have been critical of industrys usage of imported engineers for cheap labor are nevertheless susceptible to the industry lobbyists "best and brightest" argument. They extrapolate from a few success stories to a romantic, starry-eyed view that all the foreign students are Einsteins. Harvard economics professor Richard Freeman is a prime example.27 On the one hand, he agrees that ...the huge influx of foreign students and workers keeps wages and employment opportunities below what they would otherwise be. This discourages U.S. citizens from investing in science and engineering careers... Yet he then says [the U.S.] has attracted large numbers of the best and brightest students, researchers, and science and engineering workers from foreign countries. According to the 2000 Census of Population, 38 percent of Ph.D.s working in science and engineering occupations were foreign-borna massive rise over the 24 percent foreign-born figure for 1990. Apparently Freeman considers all or most of those 38 percent

to be "the best and the brightest." But the reality is quite the opposite. Posssesion of a graduate degree does not imply that one has outstanding talent far from it. The fact is that virtually anyone with a Bachelors degree can be accepted into some graduate program. Thus one should not assume that workers with graduate degrees are "smarter." In fact, foreign PhD students are disproportionately enrolled in the academically weaker universities:28

AT EconH1BAT Innovation
H1-B are not more innovate they are put in jobs that are not innovative and U.S. citizens innovate at the same level.
Matloff in 3
Norman Matloff, Professor of Computer Science, University of California. ON THE NEED FOR REFORM OF THE H-1B NONIMMIGRANT WORK VISA IN COMPUTER-RELATED OCCUPATIONS. Summer 2003. 36 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 815. Lexis. The lobbyists for the tech industry and the American Immigration Lawyers Association know that crying

educational doom-and-gloom sells. Even though it was people born and educated in the United States who were primarily responsible for developing the computer industry, and even though all major East Asian governments have lamented their educational systems' stifling of creativity, the lobbyists have convinced Congress that the industry needs foreign workers from Asia in order to innovate. The data show otherwise. Most foreign tech workers, particularly those from Asia, are in fact of only average talent. Moreover, they are hired for low-level jobs of limited responsibility, not positions that generate innovation. This is true both overall and in the key tech occupations, and most importantly, in the firms most stridently demanding that Congress admit more foreign workers. Note again that the analyses presented here confirm and provide much sharper quantitative insight into previous work showing that the H-1Bs are of just average talent. It has been shown for instance that foreign students in the U.S. tend to be concentrated in the less-selective universities, and that they receive a lower percentage of research awards relative to their numbers in the student population. In the workforce, the foreign nationals in the U.S. participate in teams applying for patents at the same percentage as do the U.S. citizens, and so on.

***AT MPXIndia Econ/Relations

AT India EconNo UQ
India economy projected to recover not decline in 2013 statistical basis and predictive
BusinessStandard 12
BS Reporter, 12-7-2012, Experts see India's economic growth picking up in 2013 Business Standard, http://www.business standard.com/article/finance/experts-see-india-s-economic-growth-picking-up-in-2013-112120700135_1.html

A decline in oil prices, improving demand situation in abroad markets and structural reforms at home will help Indian economy regain its high growth trajectory in the coming years, according to US investment banking giant Goldman Sachs. We see growth picking up gradually to 6.5 per cent in 2013 and further to 7.2 per cent in 2014, Tushar Poddar, managing director and chief India economist of Goldman Sachs, has said. According to Poddar, India's gross domestic product (GDP) growth will accelerate from 5.4 per cent in 2012 and remain high through 2015-16. A decline in oil
prices in real terms over the next few years, a more favourable external demand outlook and domestic structural reforms which can ease some supply-side constraints will drive Indias growth, he said.

AT India EconStructural Issues

They cant solve Indian economy downturn is driven by supply shocks in multiple industries and corporate asset management problems capital flows and demand, which are the only things remittances solve, are already fine and not the problem
Papi 13
(Laura, Assistant Director, Asian and Pacific Department International Monetary Fund, THE STATE OF THE INDIAN ECONOMY: THE BUDGET AND BEYOND, Brookings Institute Roundtable, http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/events/2013/3/04%20india%20economy%20budget/20130304_india_economy_budget_transcript. pdf) March 4 So, I will try to just give you a few of the highlights and I hope you have a chance to actually take a look at the report. First, let me just say a few words about our reading of the economy. Of course, we know that the economy in India has

slowed quite substantially in the last year and a half and it started with quite a weak investment. But this
investment slowdown has now generalized and is affecting both consumption, exports, et cetera. What struck us about the slowdown is that it cannot just be explained by the fact that the global economy has been in pretty poor shape in the last few years. And this chart on the left shows that external factors fall short of explaining India's slowdown. So, there must be something domestic going on and we did a little bit of digging, especially in terms of investment because that's where the slowdown started and continues to persist. And what we found is that looking at standard macro variables, interest rates, the level of activity, the level of global growth, the banks, et cetera, didn't allow us to predict invest well especially in the last year and a half. We consistently overpredicted investment. There was something else which is dragging investment down.

And this is the reason why we said that there

is an important structural

component to this slowdown. What is this structural component? We know that there has
been a significant slowdown in investment projects' implementation, in the approval procedures , such as environmental clearances, and some of the supply bottlenecks that have
existed for a while

have

actually

become much more prominent

especially

in power and

mining . So, we think that these factors have played an important role. Also what led us to this
conclusion is the fact that inflation

remains high and especially consumer prices, but even wholesale prices despite

the fact that the economy was slowing down again suggesting that

this is not a pure demand shock .

Vulnerabilities of the Indian economy have also come to the fore. If you look at corporates' and banks' balance sheets we've seen a significant deterioration. Indian corporates by now are quite leveraged compared to other

emerging markets and we've seen some form of stress appearing in terms of the default rates, the downgrades , et cetera. And the reflection of that can be seen also on banks' balance sheets. Non - performing loans have increased and what has increased even more are so - called restructured assets which are somewhat hybrid element. And
the point we've made is that we think that because of the nature of these restructured assets which are more concentrated in large loans, they come on the back of sort of a second slowdown. They come after another restructuring which was just after the global financial crisis. We think that the percentage of these restructured assets that will turn into

non - performing loans will actually be higher than what the RBI estimates at 15 percent as the historical average. We've seen also pressure on the current account, the deficit has widened. Again, this is another
factor that led us to the conclusion that was talking at the beginning that structural factors have played an important role in the slowdown. And some of these supply bottlenecks act on both sides of export and imports. Take iron ore, now iron ore exports have come down a lot. On the other hand, the problems with coal have resulted in higher coal imports. This is not the entire story but just to give you a sense of how some of these supply bottlenecks turn

into a widening current account. There's also been an important component that we think is linked to inflation and that's due to -- and that's the increase in gold imports which are probably at least partly used as an inflation hedge. Capital flows on the other hand have been quite

buoyant and

hence we conclude that

the financial channel in transmitting external

shocks has not been prominent in this last couple of years.

AT India RelationsCIR Not Key

Relations resilient under Obama despite visa issues
Desai 12 Fellow, Truman National Security Project (Ronak. US-India Relations under the 2nd obama
administration. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ronak -d-desai/usindia-relations-under-t_b_2115396.html) What's ahead for US-India relations now that President Obama has won reelection?

With ties between Washington and New Delhi continuing to flourish over the past four years, the US-India bilateral partnership will likely be characterized by continuity and growth during a second Obama term. The fundamental pillars underlying President Obama's foreign policy towards India-strengthening security and military cooperation, boosting trade, and encouraging New Delhi's collaboration on various regional and global issues--will remain largely intact. The US-India strategic partnership has thrived during Obama's first administration. Initial concerns from
some Indian officials that the newly elected president would "re-hyphenate" relations with New Delhi, prioritize ties with China, insert the US in the Kashmir dispute, and view India exclusively through an Af/Pak lens proved unfounded. On the contrary, President Obama

quickly established himself a reliable champion of the bilateral relationship which witnessed Washington and New Delhi expand their engagement in a number of substantive areas. On the security front, cooperation reached unprecedented levels under Obama's first term. The United States now conducts more military exercises with India than with any other country in the world, while counter-terrorism and intelligence collaboration between the two has increased dramatically following the infamous November 2008 Mumbai terror attacks. President Obama has also taken significant steps to relax export-controls to India to allow New Delhi greater access to advanced US technology. Additionally, since 2008, the Obama Administration has approved the sale of more than $8 billion in military equipment from US defense suppliers to New Delhi. Administration officials have described India as the "linchpin" of its strategic rebalancing towards Asia and are relying on New Delhi to play a greater role stabilizing Afghanistan once the US begins its military withdrawal there. Economically, trade with India is on track to cross the $100 billion mark for the first time, US investment in the country has skyrocketed compared to just a decade ago, and the two sides have worked to conclude a US-India Bilateral Investment Treaty that would further bolster their economic relationship. These positive trends will likely continue during a second Obama administration. Although the basic contours of US-India ties remain unchanged, reflecting the
potent durability of the bilateral relationship, this is not to say that the two countries are in perfect harmony with one another on every issue. As President Obama embarks on a second term, Washington will want New Delhi to

continue reducing its dependence on Iranian oil, implement significant economic reforms that eliminate barriers to foreign investment, and modify liability legislation enacted by the
Indian parliament that has precluded the United States and India from realizing the full benefits of the landmark US-India Civilian Nuclear Agreement. President George W. Bush signed the historic accord with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in 2005 and President Obama moved to quickly implement the deal by concluding a reprocessing agreement with India shortly after taking office. New Delhi, for its part, will want Washington to resolve the Iran

question exclusively through non-military means, resist entering into any formal security pact with the United States that
would appear to compromise its inviolable strategic autonomy,

and press Washington to make it

to come to the United States. Yet

easier for Indian tech workers to obtain visas

none of

these issues--or any other differences that may remain between the two sides-is capable of arresting the overall upward trajectory of US-India relations .
Areas of convergence far exceed areas of disagreement, indicating that earlier misgivings by some observers that bilateral ties had been oversold have been misguided. President Obama has established himself as an able and effective custodian of the US-India strategic partnership. Although the bipartisan consensus that has emerged in Washington around the importance of deepening ties with India would suggest that US engagement with New Delhi would have continued regardless of whether he had won reelection, President Obama is

uniquely well positioned to strengthen the US-India relationship during his second-term. His enduring

popularity within India, close relationship with Manmohan Singh, and widespread support amongst the Indian-American community are just some of the distinctive factors that will help ensure ties
with New Delhi remain robust and continue to grow over the next four years. If the past is any indicator of what's on the horizon, the future looks bright for US-India relations.

AT India RelationsNo Cooperation

No impact India does not have the political will to accomplish any bilateral initiatives.
Karl 8/30
David J. Karl, president of the Asia Strategy Initiative. US-India Relations: It's a Two-Way Street. April 30,2010. http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2434&Itemid=174 While much of the critique against Obama is valid, it also misses the other side of the equation. New Delhi, too, bears

part of the blame for the inertia in bilateral affairs. One cannot have a private discussion these days with US officials responsible for India policy without detecting nagging doubts about New Delhi's eagerness to take on bold bilateral projects. Indeed, it seems that the unexpectedly arduous debate in New Delhi two years ago about the civilian nuclear accord, intended to be a cornerstone of the new era of relations, has had the ironic effect of sapping the readiness of officials in both capitals to invest political capital in ambitious bilateral undertakings. As the Washington Post noted during
the debate, "if New Delhi's politicians cannot find a way to say yes to such a clearly advantageous agreement with a natural ally, the next US administration no doubt will think twice before trying anything like it." Of course, Prime Minister Singh finally did manage to push the nuclear accord through the Indian parliament, but only after a long and bruising debate that revealed the depth of opposition to greater interaction with the United States. It was especially disconcerting that the debate devolved into an unprecedented parliamentary vote of confidence on a foreign policy issue. Singh's narrowly-won victory was possible only through resort to extraordinary maneuvers, including the temporary furloughing from jail of members of parliament who had been convicted of crimes. The entire episode was hardly one to inspire confidence

in New Delhi's capacity to deliver on galvanizing initiatives. That India played such a prominent role in the collapse of the Doha Round world trade talks, just as debate over the nuclear accord heated up only added to this perception. More recent events have reinforced this impression. Despite the large parliamentary support Singh currently enjoys, he has yet to initiate the domestic reforms that would allow for closer economic engagement with the United States. In the face of fierce opposition last month, his government had to backtrack from submitting key legislation that would enable the involvement of US companies in India's nuclear energy sector one of
the very things that the nuclear cooperation accord was suppose to bring about. Despite Singh's renewed determination to promote needed involvement in India by foreign educational institutions, similar legislation has come to naught in the past due to parliamentary concerns about protecting the country's cultural sovereignty. His government has also gone

slow on two agreements designed to strengthen military links with the United States. Even granting the complex, cacophonous nature of Indian democracy, New Delhi still seems to lack the political will necessary for a dramatic deepening of bilateral ties.

AT India RelationsNo UQ
Relations high multiple reasons
Silicon India 2/6
Envoy Sees Limitless Horizon for India-U.S. Ties, 2/6/13, http://www.siliconindia.com/news/general/Envoy-Sees-Limitless-Horizonfor-IndiaUS-Ties-nid-140462-cid-1.html Noting an "increasing convergence" of Indian and U.S. interests across major global issues, Indian ambassador to the U.S. Nirupama Rao

says she sees a "virtually limitless horizon" for the two countries to achieve together. "Just as we share values of democracy, freedom, tolerance and diversity, there is an
increasing convergence of our interests across major global issues," she said in a congratulatory letter to Republican House member Peter Roskam, the new co-chair of the Congressional Caucus of India and Indian Americans. "Today, it is an exciting time for India-U.S. relations when we have a virtually limitless horizon of what we can achieve together, with our futures linked in so many ways," Rao wrote. The Republican party selected Roskam as co-chair to join Democrat co-chair Joe Crowley to head the largest caucus dedicated to one country in the House charged with advancement of U.S.-India relations. He takes over from Ed Royce, who has become chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and on the panel. As India's ambassador to the U.S., Rao said she had closely witnessed a sustained

strengthening and diversification of the global strategic partnership between the two countries, which now encompasses a vast array of collaborative pursuits and touches the lives of millions of people, globally. "Indeed, one of the mainstays of the India-U.S. strategic partnership is the spirited bipartisan support for this relationship in the U.S. Congress embodied by the Congressional Caucus on
India and Indian Americans, just as there is a strong consensus for thriving India-U.S. relations across the political spectrum in India," she said. A vibrant and dynamic Indian American community in the U.S .also acts as a bridge personifying the friendship between the two great nations and is

an increasingly important player in shaping

the future of India-U.S. partnership, Rao said.

AT India RelationsResilient
Relations resilient new defense ties secure them
Times of India 13 (Obama's return could put wind in the sails of the India-US relationship. The Times of India.
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-01-24/edit-page/36506384_1_india-us-relationship-pakistan-new-delhi.) US defence technology and joint R&D are now open to India. Leon Panetta, the outgoing

secretary of defence, made a public commitment on a visit to New Delhi last summer to provide "the best defence technology possible to India". He initiated radical changes in the complex and interlocking web of US regulations to upgrade India's status to that of a non-Nato ally. This is unprecedented. Now the ball is in India's court. New Delhi must set its priorities, do the research, identify the technologies and move forward. In other words, prepare a wish list. The opening allows India to buy almost any cutting-edge techno-logy and also be a partner in joint research projects. It also cements relations with the Pentagon, a crucial actor in US foreign policy. The more ambitious the plan India devises, the greater the wind in the sails of the relationship.

***AT Latin America Relations

AT LA RelationsCIR Not KeyAT Shifter

Their internal link evidence concludes affirmative
Shifter 12 Michael is the President of Inter-American Dialogue. Remaking the Relationship: The United States and Latin
America, April, IAD Policy Report, http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf In the main, hemispheric relations are amicable . Open conflict is rare and, happily, the sharp antagonisms that marred relations in the past have subsided . But the US-Latin America relationship would profit from more vitality and direction . Shared interests are not pursued as vigorously as they should be, and opportunities for more fruitful engagement are being missed . Welldeveloped ideas for reversing these disappointing trends are scarce Some enduring problems stand squarely in the way of partnership and effective cooperation . The inability of Washington to reform its broken immigration system is a constant source of friction between the United States and nearly every other country in the Americas . Yet US officials rarely refer to immigration as a foreign policy issue . Domestic policy debates on this issue disregard the United States hemispheric agenda as well as the interests of other nations .

***They stop here***

Another chronic irritant is US drug policy, which most Latin Americans now believe makes their drug and crime problems worse . Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, while visiting Mexico, acknowledged that US anti-drug programs have not worked . Yet, despite growing calls and pressure from the region, the United States has shown little interest in exploring alternative approaches . Similarly, Washingtons more than halfcentury embargo on Cuba, as well as other elements of United States Cuba policy, is strongly opposed by all other countries in the hemisphere . Indeed, the

US position on these troublesome issuesimmigration ,

drug policy, and Cuba has set Washington against the consensus view of the
hemispheres other 34 governments . These issues stand as obstacles to further cooperation in the Americas . The United States and the nations of Latin America and the Caribbean need to resolve them in order to build more productive partnerships

AT LA RelationsAT Econ
Econ high and resilient Xinhua 13

News Analysis: Latin America's economic stability arouses envy of EU, 1-26-13, http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/indepth/2013-01/26/c_132129380.htm SANTIAGO, Jan. 25 (Xinhua) -- European leaders gathering this weekend in Chile may be filled with uncharacteristic envy toward the economic stability in Latin American countries. The 27-member European Union is still mired in an economic impasse, with Spain and Greece bearing the brunt of a debt crisis that has caused political and economic tension in the eurozone. Spain, which has very close links with Latin America, has suffered economic contraction since 2009. Although it experienced year-on-year growth in 2011, its annual growth rate never exceeded 1 percent. In the last quarter of 2012, it returned to decline, shrinking 0.6 percent. Seeking to cheer markets, Spain's economy minister told media Friday that his country would return to growth in 2013, after the International Monetary Fund forecast no growth until late 2014. Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy, who arrived in Chile Thursday night, used his Friday press conference to announce new plans to stimulate Spain's economy, offering grants of up to 2,000 euros to citizens to buy new less-polluting cars. But he cautioned "Spain is not in any condition to undertake expansive monetary policy right now, but I believe that the nations that are in shape should do so." This was a clear reference to Germany, the eurozone's largest economy, where Chancellor Angela Merkel has been refusing to lend or spend to help the economy grow unless nations with debt problems show enough austerity to convince her. Germany is perceived as having a chokehold over the region as wealthier citizens of vulnerable nations have been sending their money to Germany, whose banking system and economy are believed to be stable, robbing their home governments of much needed economic ballast. Meanwhile, Latin America, led by Brazil, has

experienced years of steady growth , though at lower levels than expected. Brazil had just two quarters of
shrinking gross domestic product, both in 2008, when the world entered an economic tailspin following the financial crisis in the United States. It reported 0.6-percent growth in the last quarter of 2012. Brazil has done a better job of supporting potentially fragile neighbors than Germany, whose demands of austerity have caused political turmoil in Greece and an unemployment spiral in Spain. Through its state banks, such as the National Development Bank, Brazil has been

providing loans to shaky southern neighbor Argentina to keep its financial system

stable and businesses in motion. Chile, host nation of the first summit between the Community of Latin
has done even better, ending last year with a 5.5-percent GDP growth, thanks in large part to high prices for copper, its major export.
American and Caribbean States (CELAC) and the European Union,

Latin American economy is resilient

IMF 9 [International Monetary Fund Regional Economic Outlook, May 6 Facing Global Crisis, Latin America Now More
Resilient, http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2009/CAR050609A.htm] Economic activity in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), sharply

affected by the global economic crisis, is expected to contract by 1 percent in 2009, from about 4 percent growth in 2008, before rebounding next year, according to the latest forecast for the region by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Despite the contraction, the forecast suggests a relatively good performance for the region compared to the past, according to the latest Regional Economic Outlook: Western Hemisphere, published on May 6. There is no doubt that the region is being hurt by the global turmoil, says Nicolas Eyzaguirre, Director of the IMFs Western Hemisphere Department. But the region today has a much higher level of preparednes s. As a result, it is not facing a fiscal crisis, as some other developing regions, or a banking crisis, as the United States and much of Europe. Looking at previous global downturn episodes, the LAC regions growth would normally trail the world by one or two percentage points. Now, however, we expect the region to keep up with world growth, which, in relative terms, is a positive development, Eyzaguirre said. The United States, where the crisis began, is expected to see a contraction in its economy in 2009 of 2.8 percent (see table below). Improved policy underpinning Eyzaguirre noted that in contrast to past downturns, when policymakers in the region had to react defensively to external shocks with spending cuts and interest rate hikes to avoid a deeper downward spiral, this time around they have been able to respond in a very different way: with active policies to boost output and employment. They have been
able to implement more countercyclical policies than at any other time. To different degrees, according to each countrys condition,

governments have been able either to maintain public expenditure or increase it. Many central banks were able to provide liquidity and interest rates were lowered, Eyzaguirre said. The external shocks
hitting the region have been severe, the latest outlook notes. All countries have sustained a loss of external demand, and many also

have suffered deterioration in their terms of trade as commodity export prices plunged. Countries with relatively large manufacturing sectors have been especially hard hit. Income from remittances and tourism is also sinking. And external financing has become more costly for all, with some borrowers cut off from financing, the report explains. Overall, output losses from the current crisis would amount to several percentage points of the regions GDP over 200910, the report estimates. Sources of strength But the

outcome for the LAC region could have been much worse. Instead, the region has accumulated many sources of strength and resilience during the past decade, in varying degrees. Many countries have made important strides in strengthening fiscal positions and public debt structures, solidifying financial systems and their regulation, anchoring inflation expectations, and

building more credible policy frameworks .

AT LA RelationsAT Instability
Instability is inevitable but wont escalatemilitary conflict is empirically denied
Perez-Linan, prof @ Pitt, 7 [Anbal Prez-Lin is associate professor of political science at the University of Pittsburgh,
Presidential Impeachment and the New Political Instability in Latin America, http://www.cup.cam.ac.uk/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521178495&ss=fro]

The 1990s were an era of great hopes for Latin America. After the demise of authoritarian regimes in the 1980s and the early 1990s, major economic reforms were undertaken in most
Latin American countries in order to reduce chronic inflation and promote sustained growth. For many contemporary observers, the confluence of democracy and free markets signaled a break with the past, the

dawn of a new era of civil liberties, prosperity, and political stability. More than a decade later, it is hard to look back at this period without a mixture of nostalgia and sarcasm. The legacies of the 1990s varied from country to country, but they can be generally described as notable achievements overshadowed by missed opportunities. In the economic realm, hyperinflation was eventually defeated, but economic growth remained elusive and poverty resilient. In the political arena, the military eventually withdrew from politics (not a minor feat), but elected governments, surprisingly, continued to collapse. Starting in the early 1990s, presidents were removed from office in Brazil, Venezuela, Guatemala, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, Argentina, and Bolivia in some countries recurrently. This outcome frequently represented the triumph of an indignant society over a corrupt or abusive executive, but it seldom prevented the occurrence of new abuses in later administrations. By the early years of the twentyfirst century, it was clear that the particular circumstances of each crisis represented only parts of a broader puzzle a new pattern of political instability emerging in the region. This book explores the origins and the consequences of this novel pattern of instability, emphasizing the critical events that defined the new trend between 1992 and 2004. During this period,

civilian elites realized that traditional military coups had become for the most part unfeasible and experimented with the use of constitutional instruments to remove unpopular presidents from office. Presidential impeachment thus became a distinctive mark of the new political landscape in Latin America. The recurrence of presidential crises without democratic breakdown challenged many dominant views among political scientists. Latin American democracies proved to be simultaneously enduring and unstable, willing to punish presidential corruption but unable to
prevent it, and responsive to popular demands only in the context of massive protests and widespread frustration. My attempts to understand these facts initially relied on well-delimited theoretical perspectives that proved rather disappointing, and I was forced to embark on a long exploration across the disciplinary boundaries of political sociology, communication, political behavior, institutional analysis, democratization, and the study of social movements. Others who have studied these topics more thoroughly than I may be reluctant to recognize their subject in the chapters that follow, but I hope that they will forgive my intrusion. In the course of this exploration I have wandered through the academic fields of many colleagues and collected a large number of intellectual debts along the way.

Latin America literally poses no security threat

Naim 6 (Moises, Foreign Policy no157 40-3, 45-7 N/D 2006, editor of foreign policy magazine)
For decades, Latin

America's weight in the world has been shrinking. It is not an economic powerhouse, a security threat, or a population bomb. Even its tragedies pale in comparison to Africa's.
The region will not rise until it ends its search for magic formulas. It may not make for a good sound bite, but patience is Latin America's biggest deficit of all. Latin America has grown used to living in the backyard of the United States. For decades, it has been a region where the U.S. government meddled in local politics, fought communists, and promoted its business interests. Even if the rest of the world wasn't paying attention to Latin America, the United States occasionally was. Then came September 11, and even the United States seemed to tune out. Naturally, the world's attention centered almost exclusively on terrorism, the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lebanon, and on the nuclear ambitions of North Korea and Iran. Latin America became Atlantis--the lost continent. Almost overnight, it disappeared from the maps of investors, generals, diplomats, and journalists. Indeed, as one commentator recently quipped, Latin America can't compete on the

world stage in any aspect, even as a threat. Unlike anti-Americans elsewhere, Latin Americans are not willing to die for the sake of their geopolitical hatreds. Latin America is a nuclear-weapons free zone. Its only weapon of mass destruction is cocaine. In contrast to emerging markets like India and China, Latin America is a minor economic player whose global significance is declining. Sure, a few countries export oil and gas, but only Venezuela is in the top league of the

world's energy market. Not even Latin America's disasters seem to elicit global concern anymore. Argentina experienced a massive financial stroke in 2001, and no one abroad seemed to care. Unlike prior crashes, no government or international financial institution rushed to bail it out. Latin America doesn't have Africa's famines, genocides, an

HIV/AIDS pandemic, wholesale state failures, or rock stars who routinely adopt its tragedies. Bono, Bill Gates, and Angelina Jolie worry about Botswana, not Brazil. But just as the five-year-old war on
terror pronounced the necessity of confronting threats where they linger, it also underscored the dangers of neglect. Like Afghanistan, Latin America shows how quickly and easy it is for the United States to lose its influence when Washington is distracted by other priorities. In both places, Washington's disinterest produced a vacuum that was filled by political groups and leaders hostile to the United States. No, Latin America is not churning out Islamic terrorists as Afghanistan was during the days of the Taliban. In Latin America, the power gap is being filled by a group of disparate leaders often lumped together under the banner of populism. On the rare occasions that Latin American countries do make international news, it's the election of a so-called populist, an apparently anti-American, anti-market leader, that raises hackles. However, Latin America's populists aren't a monolith. Some are worse for international stability than is usually reported. But some have the potential to chart a new, positive course for the region. Underlying the ascent of these new leaders are several real, stubborn threads running through Latin Americans' frustration with the status quo in their countries. Unfortunately, the United States'---and the rest of the world's--lack of interest in that region means that the forces that are shaping disparate political movements in Latin America are often glossed over, misinterpreted, or ignored. Ultimately, though, what matters most is not what the northern giant thinks or does as much as what half a billion Latin Americans think and do. And in the last couple of decades, the wild swings in their political behavior have created a highly unstable terrain where building the institutions indispensable for progress or for fighting poverty has become increasingly difficult. There is a way out. But it's not the quick fix that too many of Latin America's leaders have promised and that an impatient population demands.

AT LA RelationsAT Terrorism
No Latin American terrorism
Weitz 11 - Senior Fellow and Director, Center for Political-Military Analysis, Hudson Institute
Richard, Where are Latin Americas Terrorists? 11 -9-11 http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/where-are-latin-america-s-terroristsThe Colombian armys killing of Alfonso Cano, head of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), will

not eliminate that countrys largest guerrilla group anytime soon. But it does partly illustrate why international terrorism has not established a major presence in Latin America. Local security forces, bolstered by generous American assistance, have made the region a difficult place for foreign terrorists to set up operational cells and other conditions also help to make Latin America less vulnerable. One reason why the FARC has survived repeated blows to its leadership is the support that it receives from various groups, perhaps including government officials, in neighboring Ecuador and Venezuela. Fortunately, this backing appears to have declined in the last year or so, following improvement in Colombias relations with these countries. Another factor contributing to the FARCs survival has been its transformation over the years
from a revolutionary organization into a narco-terrorist group that uses violence to support its criminal operations. Many former terrorist and insurgent groups in the region have undergone similar transformations over the last two decades. These

groups, some with transnational reach, mostly engage in narcotics trafficking, arms smuggling, and kidnapping. At worst, they sometimes employ terrorist tactics (commonly
defined as violence that deliberately targets civilians). In Colombia, the FARC and the National Liberation Army (ELN) finance their operations through drug trafficking, kidnapping, and extortion. These groups might kill civilians, but their main targets are the police and security personnel who threaten their activities. Latin America is distinctive in the

recurring and broad overlap of mass movements professing revolutionary goals with transnational criminal operations. The Internet and modern social media are allowing these mass criminal
movements to expand their activities beyond kidnapping, extortion, and trafficking in drugs, arms, and people, to include fraud, piracy, information theft, hacking, and sabotage. Violent mass movements remain in some Latin

American countries, but, like the FARC, they are typically heavily engaged in organized crime. Drug cartels and gang warfare may ruin the lives of thousands of innocent people, but they should not be seen as
equivalent to the ideological revolutionaries who used to wreak havoc in the region, or to contemporary mass terrorists.

Extra-regional terrorist movements such as al-Qaeda have minimal presence in South America, with little independent operational activity and few ties to local violent movements. At most, the two types of groups might share operational insights and revenue from transnational criminal operations. Hezbollah has not conducted an attack in Latin America in almost two decades. Indigenous organized criminal movements are responsible for the most serious sources of local violence. Latin American countries generally are not a conducive environment for major terrorist groups. They lack large Muslim communities that could provide a bridgehead for Islamist extremist movements based in Africa and the Middle East. The demise of military dictatorships and the spread of democratic regimes throughout Latin America (except for Cuba) means that even severe economic, class, ethnic, and other tensions now more often manifest themselves politically, in struggles for votes and influence. No Latin American government appears to remain an active state sponsor of foreign terrorist movements. At worst, certain public officials may tolerate some foreign terrorists activities and neglect to act vigorously
against them. More often, governments misapply anti-terrorist laws against their non-violent opponents. For example, despite significant improvement in its human-rights policies, the Chilean government has at times applied harsh anti-terrorism laws against indigenous Mapuche protesters. Indeed, Latin American terrorism is sometimes exaggerated,

because governments have incentives to cite local terrorist threats to secure foreign support, such as US capacity-building funding. Just as during the Cold War, when Latin American leaders were lavished with aid for fighting communist subversion, governments seek to fight terrorist threats at Americas expense. Ironically, the strength of transnational criminal organizations in Latin America may act as a barrier to external terrorist groups. Extra-

regional terrorists certainly have incentives to penetrate the region. Entering the US, a high-value
target for some violent extremist groups, from Latin America is not difficult for skilled operatives. Extra-regional terrorist groups could also raise funds and collaborate operationally with local militants. But Latin Americas powerful

transnational criminal movements, such as the gangs in Mexico that control much of the drug trafficking into the US, do not want to jeopardize their profits by associating themselves with al-Qaeda and its affiliates. Supporting terrorism would merely divert time and other resources from profit-making activities, while focusing unsought US and other international
attention on their criminal operations.

AT LA RelationsAT Prolif
No LA prolif
Naim 6 Senior Associate @ Carnegie Endowment
Moises, Foreign Policy no157 40-3, 45-7 N/D 2006, editor of foreign policy magazine For decades, Latin America's weight in the world has been shrinking.

It is not an economic powerhouse, a security threat, or a population bomb. Even its tragedies pale in comparison to Africa's.
The region will not rise until it ends its search for magic formulas. It may not make for a good sound bite, but patience is Latin America's biggest deficit of all. Latin America has grown used to living in the backyard of the United States. For decades, it has been a region where the U.S. government meddled in local politics, fought communists, and promoted its business interests. Even if the rest of the world wasn't paying attention to Latin America, the United States occasionally was. Then came September 11, and even the United States seemed to tune out. Naturally, the world's attention centered almost exclusively on terrorism, the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lebanon, and on the nuclear ambitions of North Korea and Iran. Latin America became Atlantis--the lost continent. Almost overnight, it disappeared from the maps of investors, generals, diplomats, and journalists. Indeed, as one commentator recently quipped, Latin America can't compete on the

world stage in any aspect, even as a threat. Unlike anti-Americans elsewhere, Latin Americans are not willing to die for the sake of their geopolitical hatreds. Latin America is a nuclear-weapons free zone . Its only weapon of mass destruction is cocaine. In contrast to emerging markets like India and China, Latin America is a minor economic player whose global significance is declining. Sure, a few countries export oil and gas, but only Venezuela is in the top league of the world's energy
market. Not even Latin America's disasters seem to elicit global concern anymore. Argentina experienced a massive financial stroke in 2001, and no one abroad seemed to care. Unlike prior crashes, no government or international financial institution rushed to bail it out. Latin America doesn't have Africa's famines, genocides, an HIV/AIDS

pandemic, wholesale state failures, or rock stars who routinely adopt its tragedies. Bono, Bill
Gates, and Angelina Jolie worry about Botswana, not Brazil. But just as the five-year-old war on terror pronounced the necessity of confronting threats where they linger, it also underscored the dangers of neglect. Like Afghanistan, Latin America shows how quickly and easy it is for the United States to lose its influence when Washington is distracted by other priorities. In both places, Washington's disinterest produced a vacuum that was filled by political groups and leaders hostile to the United States. No, Latin America is not churning out Islamic terrorists as Afghanistan was during the days of the Taliban. In Latin America, the power gap is being filled by a group of disparate leaders often lumped together under the banner of populism. On the rare occasions that Latin American countries do make international news, it's the election of a so-called populist, an apparently anti-American, anti-market leader, that raises hackles. However, Latin America's populists aren't a monolith. Some are worse for international stability than is usually reported. But some have the potential to chart a new, positive course for the region. Underlying the ascent of these new leaders are several real, stubborn threads running through Latin Americans' frustration with the status quo in their countries. Unfortunately, the United States'--and the rest of the world's--lack of interest in that region means that the forces that are shaping disparate political movements in Latin America are often glossed over, misinterpreted, or ignored. Ultimately, though, what matters most is not what the northern giant thinks or does as much as what half a billion Latin Americans think and do. And in the last couple of decades, the wild swings in their political behavior have created a highly unstable terrain where building the institutions indispensable for progress or for fighting poverty has become increasingly difficult. There is a way out. But it's not the quick fix that too many of Latin America's leaders have promised and that an impatient population demands.

***AT MPXStartup Visas

AT StartupsNo Startups
No startups
--theyll go home --theyll hold out for a less restrictive visa

Gobry, 10 - Paris-based entrepreneur (Paul, The Startup Visa Act Must Be Stopped, Business Insider, 3/22,
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-the-startup-visa-is-actually-a-really-bad-idea-2010-3)

Finally, the Startup Visa will be bad for investors as well. The best foreign entrepreneurs will self-select away from it, either by starting their companies in their home countries
(precisely what the Startup Visa wants to avoid) or

by waiting to have enough money for a fair

EB-5 visa (at which point it might be too late, because cookie-cutter wantrapreneurs have killed that category to get
more Startup Visas). Also, if

foreign entrepreneurs get a green card by raising an additional million dollar round after two years, their incentive is clearly to get that million dollars, at any price, from any "qualified investor" and then bail to start a company on his own terms. This would be bad for everyone , including the investors.

AT StartupsAT K/T Econ

Doesnt solve
Racoma 1-31
E27, Will the proposed US startup visa help the world connect with Silicon Valley?, http://e27.co/2013/01/31/will -the-proposed-us-startup-visa-help-promote-cooperation-between-asia-and-silicon-valley/ The startup visa does have its limitations, particularly that those eligible are ones who have

attained advanced degrees in American universities. In essence, though, the proposed immigration law
amendments mean that it will be easier for aspiring entrepreneurs to set-up shop in the U.S., hire talent from within the country and target their market there, as well. Immigration horror stories are commonplace, after all, even among moneyed investors and entrepreneurs who are forced to leave the country due to visa limitations. Oftentimes potential

entrepreneurs are prevented from starting up in the U.S. because of bureaucratic red tape. It could take years for a visa to get approved, and within that time frame, an entrepreneur could already have started a business somewhere else. This has prompted governments around the world
to make their immigration policies easier for entrepreneurs. Mexico, for instance, is reportedly interested in loosening immigration policies to attract entrepreneurs. Even the concept of BlueSeed a cruise ship docked just outside of U.S. jurisdiction, enabling entrepreneurs to ferry in and out on a regular basis might sound interesting. The main purpose of the startup visa is to promote local entrepreneurship among qualified foreigners, although this does not preclude the possibility of these people bridging the divide between the U.S. startup community and elsewhere. Given the connectedness of economies today, whatever benefits an entrepreneur can reap in the U.S. would inevitably flow back to his or her home country. This can be both monetary (such as capital flowing back from U.S. based Filipino entrepreneurs to the Philippines) or non-monetary (such as cultural and idea exchanges in the community). Given the usual legislative processes

and economic lags, though, it might take five to ten years before the U.S. and the rest of the world would feel the actual effects of the country loosening its immigration policies to accommodate entrepreneurs better. But if the net benefit is a positive one, then it would surely be a welcome
move.

*****Link Core

***Generic

Link Framing
Their arguments are not situated within the current political narrative. The plans sudden shift will suck the oxygen out of Washington
Hirsch 13
Michael Hirsch, National Journal, Theres No Such Thing as Political Capital 2013, http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/there-s-no-such-thing-as-political-capital-20130207 But the abrupt emergence of the immigration and gun-control issues

illustrates how suddenly shifts in mood can occur and how political interests can align in new ways just as suddenly. Indeed,
the pseudo-concept of political capital masks a larger truth about Washington that is kindergarten simple: You just dont know what you can do until you try. Or as Ornstein himself once wrote years ago, Winning wins. In theor y, and in practice, depending on Obamas handling of any particular issue, even in a polarized time, he could still deliver on a lot of his secon dterm goals, depending on his skill and the breaks. Unforeseen catalysts can appear, like Newtown. Epiphanies can dawn, such as when many Republican Party leaders suddenly woke up in panic to the huge disparity in the Hispanic vote. Some political scientists who study the elusive calculus of how to pass legislation and run successful presidencies say that political capital is, at best, an empty concept, and that almost nothing in the academic literature successfully quantifies or even defines it. It can refer to a very abstract thing, like a presidents popularity, but theres no mechanism there. That makes it kind of useless, says Richard Bensel, a government professor at Cornell University. Even Ornstein concedes that the calculus is far more complex than the term suggests. Winning on one issue often changes the calculation for the next issue; there is never any known amount of capital. The idea here is, if an issue comes up where the conventional wisdom is that president is not going to get what he wants, and he gets it, then each time that happens, it changes the calculus of the other actors Ornstein says. If they think hes going to win, they may change positions to get on the winning side. Its a bandwagon effect. ALL THE WAY WITH LBJ Sometimes, a clever practitioner of power can get more done just because hes aggressive and knows the hallways of Congress well. Texas A&Ms Edwards is right to say that the outcome of the 1964 election, Lyndon Johnsons landslide victory over Barry Goldwater, was one of the few that conveyed a mandate. But one of the main reasons for that mandate (in addition to Goldwaters ineptitude as a candidate) was President Johnsons masterful use of power leading up to that election, and his ability to get far more done than anyone thought possible, given his limited political capital. In the newest volume in his exhaustive study of LBJ, The Passage of Power, historian Robert Caro recalls Johnson getting cautionary advice after he assumed the presidency from the assassinated John F. Kennedy in late 1963. Dont focus on a long-stalled civil-rights bill, advisers told him, because it might jeopardize Southern lawmakers support for a tax cut and appropriations bills the president needed. One of the wise, practical people around the table [said that] the presidency has only a certain amount of coinage to expend, and you oughtnt to expend it on this, Caro writes. (Coinage, of course, was what political capital was called in those days.) Johnson replied, Well, what the hells the presidency for? Johnson didnt worry about coinage, and he got the Civil Rights Act enacted, along with m uch else: Medicare, a tax cut, antipoverty programs. He appeared to understand not just the ways of Congress but also the way to maximize the momentum he possessed in the lingering mood of national grief and determination by picking the right issues, as Caro records. Momentum is not a mysterious mistress, LBJ said. It is a controllable fact of political life. Johnson had the skill and wherewithal to realize that, at that moment of history, he could have unlimited coinage if he handled the politics right. He did. (At least until Vietnam, that is.) And then there are the presidents who get the politics, and the issues, wrong. It was the last president before Obama who was just starting a second term, George W. Bush, who really revived the claim of political capital, which he was very fond of wielding. Then Bush promptly demonstrated that he didnt fully understand the concept either. At his first news conference after his 2004 victory, a confident-sounding Bush declared, I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. Thats my style. The 43rd president threw all of his political capital at an overriding passion: the partial privatization of Social Security. He mounted a full-bore public-relations campaign that included town-hall meetings across the country. Bush failed utterly, of course. But the problem was not that he didnt have enough political capital. Yes, he may have overestimated his standing. Bushs margin over John Kerry was thinhelped along by a bumbling Kerry campaign that was almost the mirror image of Romneys gaffe-filled failure this timebut that was not the real mistake. The problem was that whatever credibility or stature Bush thought he had earned as a newly reelected president did nothing to make Social Security privatization a better idea in most peoples eyes. Voters didnt trust the plan, and four years later, at the end of Bushs term, the stock -market collapse bore out the publics skepticism. Privatization just didnt have any momentum behind it, no matter who was pushing it or how much capital Bush spent to sell it. The mistake that Bush made with Social Security, says John Sides, an associate professor of political science at George Washington University and a well-followed political blogger, was that just because he won an election, he thought he had a green light. But there was no sense of any kind of public urgency on Social Security reform. Its like he went into the garag e where various Republican policy ideas were hanging up and picked one. I dont think Obamas going to make that mistake. Bush decided he wanted to push a rock up a hill. He didnt understand how steep the hill was. I think Obama has more momentum on his side because of the Republican Partys concerns about the Latino vote and the shooting at Newtown. Obama may also get his way on the debt ceiling, not because of his reelection, Sides says, but because Republicans are beginning to doubt whether taking a hard line on fiscal policy is a good idea, as the party suffers i n the polls. THE REAL LIMITS ON POWER Presidents are limited in what they can do by time and attention span, of course, just as much as they are by electoral balances in the House and Senate. But this, too, has nothing to do with political capital. Another well-worn meme of recent years was that Obama used up too much political capital passing the health care law in

his first term. But the real problem was that the plan was unpopular, the economy was bad, and the president didnt realize that the national mood (yes, again, the national mood) was at a tipping point against

big-government intervention, with the tea-party revolt about to burst on the scene. For Americans in 2009 and 2010 haunted by too many rounds of layoffs, appalled by the Wall Street bailout, aghast at the amount of federal spending that never seemed to find its way into their pocketsgovernment-imposed health care coverage was simply an intervention too far. So was the idea of another economic stimulus. Cue the tea party and what ensued: two titanic fights over the debt ceiling. Obama, like Bush, had settled on pushing an issue that was out of sync with the countrys mood. Unlike Bush, Obama did ultimately get his idea passed. But the bigger political problem with health care reform

was that it distracted the governments attention from other issues that people cared about more
urgently, such as the need to jump-start the economy and financial reform. Various congressional staffers told me at the time that their bosses didnt really have the time to understand how the Wall Street lobby was riddling the Dodd-Frank financialreform legislation with loopholes. Health care was sucking all the oxygen out of the room, the aides said. Weighing the imponderables of momentum, the often-mystical calculations about when the historic moment is ripe for an issue, will never be a science. It is mainly intuition, and its best practitioners have a long history in American politics. This is a tale told well in Steven Spielbergs hit movie Lincoln. Daniel Day-Lewiss Abraham Lincoln attempts a lot of behindthe-scenes vote-buying to win passage of the 13th Amendment, banning slavery, along with eloquent attempts to move peoples hearts and minds. He appears to be using the political capital of his reelection and the turning of the tide in the Civil War. But its clear that a surge of conscience, a sense of the changing times, has as much to do with the final vote as all t he backroom horse-trading. The reason I think the idea of political capital is kind of distorting is that it implies you have chits you can give out to people. It really oversimplifies why you elect politicians, or why they can do what Lincoln did, says Tommy Bruce, a former political consultant in Washington. Consider, as another example, the storied political career of President Franklin Roosevelt. Because the mood was ripe for dramatic change in the depths of the Great Depression, FDR was able to push an astonishing array of New Deal programs through a largely compliant Congress, assuming what some described as near-dictatorial powers. But in his second term, full of confidence because of a landslide victory in 1936 that brought in unprecedented Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, Roosevelt overreached with his infamous Courtpacking proposal. All of a sudden, the political capital that experts thought was limitless disappeared. FDRs plan to expand the Supreme Court by putting in his judicial allies abruptly created an unanticipated wall of opposition from newly reunited Republicans and conservative Southern Democrats. FDR thus inadvertently handed back to Congress, especially to the Senate, the power and influence he had seized in his first term. Sure, Roosevelt had loads of popularity and momentum in 1937. He seemed to have a bank vault full of political capital. But, once again, a president simply chose to take on the wrong issue at the wrong time; this time, instead of most of the political interests in the country aligning his way, they opposed him. Roosevelt didnt fully recover until World War II, despite two more election victories. In terms of Obamas

second-term agenda, what all these shifting tides of momentum and political calculation mean is this: Anything goes.
Obama has no more elections to win, and he needs to worry only about the support he will have in the House and Senate after 2014. But if he picks issues that the countrys mood will supportsuch as, perhaps,

immigration reform and gun controlthere is no reason to think he cant win far more victories than any of the careful calculators of political capital now believe is possible, including battles over tax reform
and deficit reduction. Amid todays atmosphere of Republican self-doubt, a new, more mature Obama seems to be emerging, one who has his agenda clearly in mind and will ride the mood of the country more adroitly. If he can get some early wins as he already has, apparently, on the fiscal cliff and the upper-income tax increasethat will create momentum, and one win may well lead to others. Winning wins. Obama himself learned some hard lessons over the past four years about the falsity of the political-capital concept. Despite his decisive victory over John McCain in 2008, he fumbled the selling of his $787 billion stimulus plan by portraying himself naively as a post -partisan president who somehow had been given the electoral mandate to be all things to all people. So Obama tried to sell his stimulus as a long-term restructuring plan that would lay the groundwork for long-term economic growth. The president thus fed GOP suspicions that he was just another big-government liberal. Had he understood better that the country was digging in against yet more government intervention and had sold the stimulus as what it mainly wasa giant shot of adrenalin to an economy with a stopped heart, a pure emergency measurehe might well have escaped the worst of the backlash. But by laying on ambitious programs, and following up quickly with his health care plan, he only sealed his reputation on the right as a closet socialist. After that, Obamas public posturing provoked automatic opposition from the GOP, no mat ter what he said. If the president put

his personal imprimatur on any planfrom deficit reduction, to health care, to immigration reformRepublicans were virtually guaranteed to come out against it. But this year, when he sought to exploit the chastened GOPs newfound willingness to compromise on immigration, his approach was different. He seemed to understand that the Republicans needed to reclaim immigration reform as their own issue, and he was willing to let them have some credit.
When he mounted his bully pulpit in Nevada, he delivered another new message as well: You Republicans dont have to listen to what I say anymore. And dont worry about whos got the political capital. Just take a hard look at where Im sayin g this: in a state you were supposed to have won but lost because of the rising Hispanic vote. Obama was cleverly pointing the GOP toward conclusions that he knows it is already reaching on its own: If you, the Republicans, want to have any kind of a future in a vastly changed electoral map, you have no choice but to move. Its your choice. The future is wide open.

No link turnsLatin America issues have zero saliency in congress

Hakim et al 12
Peter Hakim, Andrs Rozental, Rubens Barbosa, Riordan Roett, Ruben Olmos, What Will Obama's Secon d Term Mean for Latin America? [http://www.thedialogue.org/page.cfm?pageID=32&pubID=3135] November 8 //mtc

how does Latin America fit into his plans? How will Latin American leaders and their citizens react to the election
Q: Barack Obama was re-elected president of the United States on Tuesday. What is his vision for foreign policy and results? What role did Latinos in the United States play in the election and what does that mean for U.S. policy changes on issues such as immigration, drugs and Cuba? A: Peter Hakim, member of the Advisor board and president emeritus of the Inter-American Dialogue: "Any speculation about Obama's second term has to come mainly from his first-term performance. The campaign was about the candidates and their biographiesnot about issues. Nothing suggests Congress will

be more productive. The House remains virtually unchanged. The Senate will be more divisive still as most remaining moderate Republicans and Democrats resigned or lost their seats. We will know soon
whether compromise is possible when the lame-duck Congress returns next week, and begins discussion of the fiscal cliff embroglio. The best guess is that Congress will find a way, not to resolve the problem, but to defer its consequences. The election results focused attention on immigration policy, which both Republicans and Democrats may be motivated to address. President Obama's declared intention to address immigration was surely reinforced by the huge Latino vote. Many of the Republicans who blocked previous immigration initiatives will resist again. But some recognize their party may become irrelevant unless they take seriously the Latino and black constituencies that accounted for more than 40 percent of Obama's total. U.S. immigration reform would be a welcome change in most of Latin America, particularly in Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean. Obama may seek to pursue further openings to Cubabut these will be limited unless the Cuban government shows a willingness to reciprocate with new human rights measures or political changes. Drug policy is not high on the U.S. agenda, but the approval in Colorado and Washington of ballot initiatives to legalize marijuana use may spark wider discussion on drug issues. But Mitt Romney offered the most significant policy proposal for Latin America, when called for more intensive U.S. efforts to pursue multiplying economic opportunities in the region." A: Andrs Rozental, member of the Advisor board, president of Rozental & Asociados in Mexico City and senior fellow at the Brookings Institution: "President Obama's re-election is a welcome development for Latin Americans in general, and Mexicans in particular. Although many of Obama's campaign promises in 2008 relevant to the region remain unrealized, there is a modicum of hope that as a leader in his second term, with more political capital to spend, he can at least make a stronger effort to tackle comprehensive immigration reform and trade issues critical to Latin American prosperity. Although I don't foresee any major change in the United States' foreign policy toward the region, especially as long as Afghanistan, Iran and the Middle East remain priorities for Washington, that may not necessarily be a bad thing. We often complain when Washington pays too much attention to us, and equally when there's less overt interest in the region, but I believe that Obama has mostly shown a much more mature attitude toward Latin America over the last four years than has traditionally been the case. This will hopefully also be the case as his administration continues through 2016. Presumably, there will continue to be a strong focus on completing ongoing trade negotiations, especially the Trans-Pacific Partnership, to open new opportunities for economic growth and hopefully a re-visiting of NAFTA as a key option to make North America more competitive on the global scene. Latinos played a key role in re-electing Obama, just as they did in 2008, and the one message that Republicans have to take home at this stage is that the anti-immigrant, exclusionary policies voiced during the campaign by Mitt Romney, the Tea Party and other conservatives were a key factor in their ultimate defeat. Many of Obama's liberal views on minority rights and tolerance turned out to be much more popular among Americans as a whole than the opposing Republican positions on those same issues." A: Rubens Barbosa, former ambassador of Brazil to the United States: "In his second term, Obama will be more interested in looking for his legacy in history. The U.S. government will tend to be more proactive and try to increase its influence in the current hot spots: Pakistan, Syria, Iran and elsewhere in the Middle East. The relationship with China will continue to be high on the foreign policy agenda. Having in mind this scenario,

Latin America

will continue to be off the radar of U.S. decision makers : the region will remain a
low priority for Washington. Despite this fact, the reaction of the Latin American leaders and citizens to Obama's re-election has been very positive. The role of Latinos in the election was important and in some places crucial. In terms of policy changes on issues such as immigration, drugs and Cuba, Obama will continue to face strong

opposition from the Republican Party but I would not be surprised if new ideas could be advanced by the administration especially in relation to immigration and Cuba." A: Riordan Roett, director of the Latin American Studies program at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies: "While the president's re-election is welcome in general terms, it is difficult to imagine Latin America will receive greater attention in the next four years. Congress remains deeply divided. The administration's foreign policy priorities will continue to focus on China, the Middle East and the ongoing fiscal challenges. Given the strong turnout by the Latino community, one area that should receive priority is continued immigration reform, but it is the third rail for the Republican majority in the House. In general, the democratic governments of the region will welcome the president's election without great expectation for major policy initiatives. The populist regimes will continue to denounce any democratically elected administration. The deadlock over Cuba
will continue unless there is a dramatic leadership shift to a new generation. The major policy initiative that would be welcome in the region is on drug policy, but that issue will remain taboo."

Agencies Link
Obama gets blamed even if he doesnt push the plan
Strong 12
Jonathan, covers House Leadership for Roll Call, GSA Scandal Enters a New Phase, http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_125/GSA_Scandal_Enters_a_New_Phase-213980-1.html At last Mondays House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing about

a lavish Las Vegas

conference for the General Services Administration, cameras clicked rapid-fire and reporters scrambled
for seats as a lineup of GSA officials were sworn in. The circus-like atmosphere culminated with one official, Jeff Neely, invoking his Fifth Amendment right, and committee members from both sides of the aisle expressing outrage at the GSA scandal. Two days later, the mood had passed. At the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government, Chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and ranking member Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) soberly questioned two witnesses, neither of whom attended the now-infamous conference. Six reporters and a few attendees from the general public sat among dozens of empty seats. The hearing was over in 53 minutes. Afterward, acting GSA Administrator Dan Tangherlini enjoyed a warm conversation with Durbin and Moran, punctuated by laughter. A president is often

awarded credit and assigned blame for what happens at federal agencies, even when he or his aides had no actual involvement in the decisions made, because the president chooses the political leadership for the agencies. In this case, Republicans hope that tales of the mismanagement of taxpayer dollars will also cut into popular support for Democratic policy positions, which tend to favor government funding to stimulate the economy. I dont think in [and] of itself the scandal will hurt [President Barack] Obama, but it plays to a larger narrative of his ineptitude at management of our federal dollars. Solyndra, GSA, other green programs all have had significant spending with little to no oversight from appointees made by him, a GOP aide
said.

Agencies link all policies are tied to Obama

Nicholas and Hook 10
Peter and Janet, Staff Writers LA Times, Obama the Velcro president, LA Times, 7/30, http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/30/nation/la-na-velcro-presidency-20100730/3

is made of Velcro . Through two terms, Reagan eluded much of the responsibility for recession and foreign policy scandal. In less than two years, Obama has become ensnared in blame. Hoping to better insulate Obama, White House aides have sought to give other Cabinet officials a higher profile and additional public exposure. They are also crafting new ways to explain the president's policies to a skeptical public. But Obama remains the
If Ronald Reagan was the classic Teflon president, Barack Obama

colossus of his administration to a point where trouble anywhere in the world is

often his to solve. The president is on the hook to repair the Gulf Coast oil spill disaster, stabilize Afghanistan, help fix
Greece's ailing economy and do right by Shirley Sherrod, the Agriculture Department official fired as a result of a misleading fragment of videotape. What's not sticking to Obama is a legislative track record that his recent

predecessors might envy. Political dividends from passage of a healthcare overhaul or a financial regulatory bill have been fleeting. Instead, voters are measuring his presidency by a more
immediate yardstick: Is he creating enough jobs? So far the verdict is no, and that has taken a toll on Obama's approval ratings. Only 46% approve of Obama's job performance, compared with 47% who disapprove, according to Gallup's daily tracking poll. "I think the accomplishments are very significant, but I think most people would look at this and say, 'What was the plan for jobs?' " said Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.). "The agenda he's pushed here has been a very important agenda, but it hasn't translated into dinner table conversations." Reagan was able to glide past controversies with his popularity largely intact. He maintained his affable persona as a small-government advocate while seeming above the fray in his own administration. Reagan was untarnished by such calamities as the 1983 terrorist bombing of the Marines stationed in Beirut and scandals involving members of his administration. In the 1986 Iran-Contra affair, most of the blame fell on lieutenants. Obama lately has tried to rip off the Velcro veneer. In a revealing moment during the oil spill crisis, he reminded Americans that his powers aren't "limitless." He told residents in Grand Isle, La., that he is a flesh-and-blood president, not a comic-book superhero able to dive to the bottom of the sea and plug the hole. "I can't suck it up with a straw," he said. But as a candidate in 2008, he set sky-high expectations about what he could achieve and what government could accomplish. Clinching the Democratic nomination two years ago, Obama described the moment as an epic breakthrough when "we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless" and

"when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." Those towering goals remain a long way off. And most people would have preferred to see Obama focus more narrowly on the "good jobs" part of the promise. A recent Gallup poll showed that 53% of the population rated unemployment and the economy as the nation's most important problem. By contrast, only 7% cited healthcare a single-minded focus of the White House for a full year. At every turn, Obama makes the argument that he has improved lives in concrete ways. Without the steps he took, he says, the economy would be in worse shape and more people would be out of work. There's evidence to support that. Two economists, Mark Zandi and Alan Blinder, reported recently that without the stimulus and other measures, gross domestic product would be about 6.5% lower. Yet, Americans aren't apt to cheer when something bad doesn't materialize. Unemployment has been rising from 7.7% when Obama took office, to 9.5%. Last month, more than 2 million homes in the U.S. were in various stages of foreclosure up from 1.7 million when Obama was sworn in. "Folks just aren't in a mood to hand out gold stars when unemployment is hovering around 10%," said Paul Begala, a Democratic pundit. Insulating the president

from bad news has proved impossible . Other White Houses have tried doing so with more success. Reagan's Cabinet officials often took the blame, shielding the boss. But the Obama administration is about one man . Obama is the White House's chief spokesman, policy pitchman, fundraiser and negotiator. No Cabinet secretary has emerged as an adequate surrogate. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner is seen as a tepid public speaker; Energy Secretary Steven Chu is
prone to long, wonky digressions and has rarely gone before the cameras during an oil spill crisis that he is working to end. So, more falls to Obama, reinforcing the Velcro effect: Everything sticks to him . He has opined on virtually everything in the hundreds of public statements he has made: nuclear arms treaties, basketball star LeBron James' career plans; Chelsea Clinton's wedding. Few audiences are off-limits. On Wednesday, he taped a spot on ABC's "The View," drawing a rebuke from Democratic Pennsylvania Gov. Edward G. Rendell, who deemed the appearance unworthy of the presidency during tough times. "Stylistically he creates some of those problems," Eddie Mahe, a Republican political strategist, said in an interview. "His favorite pronoun is 'I.' When you position

yourself as being all things to all people, the ultimate controller and decision maker with the capacity to fix anything, you set yourself up to be blamed when it doesn't get fixed or things happen." A new White House strategy is to forgo talk of big policy changes that are easy to ridicule. Instead,
aides want to market policies as more digestible pieces. So, rather than tout the healthcare package as a whole, advisors will talk about smaller parts that may be more appealing and understandable such as barring insurers from denying coverage based on preexisting conditions. But at this stage, it may be late in the game to downsize either the president or his agenda. Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) said: "The man came in promising change. He has a higher profile than some presidents because of his youth, his race and the way he came to the White House with the message he brought in. It's naive to believe he can step back and have some Cabinet secretary be the face of the oil spill. The buck stops with his office."

Obama accountable for executive agencies- stimulus proves

Star-Ledger 9
(Mayors warned to spend wisely, February 21, 2009, LN) In the days since the White House and Congress came to terms on the $787 billion economic package, the political focus has shifted to how it will work. Obama has staked his reputation not just on the promise of 3.5 million jobs saved or created, but also on

a pledge to let the public see where the money goes. His budget chief this exactly how Cabinet and executive agencies, states and local organizations must report spending. It is a system meant to streamline reports so they can be displayed on the administration's new website, Recovery.gov. Using his presidential pulpit, Obama demanded accountability, from his friends in local government as well as his own agencies. He said the
week released a 25,000-word document that details new legislation gives him tools to "watch the taxpayers' money with more rigor and transparency than ever," and that he will use them. "If a federal agency proposes a project that will waste that money, I will not

hesitate to call them out on it, and put a stop to it," he said. "I want everyone here to be on notice that if a local government does the same, I will call them out on it, and use the full power of my office and our administration to stop it."

The president is accountable for agency policy making

Seidenfeld 94
(Mark, Associate Professor at Florida State University College of Law, Iowa Law Review, October, LN) Unlike the courts and even the agencies themselves, the President is [*13] directly elected and hence

politically accountable.

Thus, we should expect presidential influence on agency decision-making to

constrain agency policy to conform to democratically determined values. Furthermore, the

President is the unique official who is answerable to the entire electorate. Consequently, the President stands to

pay a price if his policies benefit special interest groups to the detriment of society as a whole.

AT Agencies Link
Obama deflects blame for agencies only a risk of a link turn
Herz 12
Michael E., professor of law and co-director of the Floersheimer Center for Constitutional Democracy Political Oversight of Agency Decisionmaking, Administrative Law JOTWELL, 1-23-2012 Mendelson begins with two important but often overlooked points. First, we know remarkably little about the

content and scope of presidential oversight of rulemaking. Second, theres presidential oversight and theres
presidential oversight; that is, some presidential influence is almost indisputably appropriate and enhances the legitimacy of agency decisionmaking, and some (e.g. leaning on the agency to ignore scientific fact or to do something inconsistent with statutory constraints) is not. Although presidents have long exerted significant influence on agency

rulemaking, and although that influence has been regularized and concentrated in OIRA for three decades, it remains quite invisible. The OIRA review process is fairly opaque (though less so than it once was), influence by other parts of the White House even more so, and official explanations of agency action almost always are silent about political considerations. As a result, the democratic responsiveness and accountability that, in theory, presidential oversight provides goes unrealized. Presidents take credit when it suits them, but keep their distance from controversy. (Although Mendelson does not make the connection explicit, her account resonates with
critiques by supporters of a nondelegation doctrine with teeth who are dismayed by Congresss desire to take credit but not blame.)

UnpopularAid
New foreign aid costs PC even if its popular
Lancaster 8
Carol, GEORGE BUSHS FOREIGN AID TRANSFORMATION or CHAOS? [www.cgdev.org/files/16085_file_Lancaster_WEB.pdf] //mtc No matter how much need there has been for reform in the system of aid giving, major

changes in the volume and organization of U.S. aid have never been easy. Such changes typically involve gaining a measure of consensus within administrations for change, usually in the face of resistance from those bureaucracies whose interests may be gored. Then there is the challenge of obtaining enough support from Congress, especially where new legislation is requirednot easy when members of Congress are tempted to add extraneous or unwelcome amendments to legislation involving a program as controversial as foreign aid and one that lacks a constituency coherent enough and strong enough to fend off such amendments. Finally, proposed changes must garner the support of the many outside interests associated with foreign aid programs, which typically all have connections with members of Congress and elements of the bureaucracy, and so can be ignored by an administration only at a potentially high political cost. In short, presidents and administration officials usually have to spend considerable political capital to bring about major changes in aid programs or, for that matter, in any major federal program.

Foreign aid costs PCfiscal hawks

The Washington Diplomat 11
Americas Foreign Affairs Budget Faces Congressional Chopping Block [http://washdiplomat.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7203:americas-foreign-affairs-budget-facescongressional-chopping-block&catid=1088:march-2011&Itemid=469] March //mtc But behind the optimism, an air of trepidation lurked in the background a nagging reminder

of struggles to come. And when the evening ended, reality sunk in: These idealists would have to defend government aid programs not among themselves but on Capitol Hill and in American living rooms. The sweeping nationwide demand for fiscal responsibility has put funding for all federal programs, including the international affairs budget, on the chopping block. Pressured to tighten the country's fiscal belt, Republican lawmakers are promising to gut tens of billions of dollars across the board, as is President Obama which means proponents of diplomacy and humanitarian assistance will have to do some serious convincing to keep America's foreign affairs budget from getting axed.

Highly controversial even if the funding comes from internal budgets or the program is ideologically popular
Richter 11
Paul, Debt worries stymieing U.S. financial aid to help Arab nations in transition [http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/12 /world/lafg-mideast-aid-20110413] April 12 //mtc Reporting from Washington The Obama administration's efforts to use foreign aid to help Middle East and North African nations undergoing democratic transitions have

been stopped short by a Congress focused on paring federal debt and other spending priorities. The administration is weighing a request
from the new government in Egypt to forgive a debt of $3.3 billion, and another appeal from the fledgling administration in Tunisia to forgive a far smaller debt, about $7 million. But the budget battles raging in Washington have made debt relief unlikely, officials said. U.S. lawmakers not only have shut the door on new spending to stabilize countries rocked by the so-called Arab Spring. They

have resisted proposals to shift money from other foreign aid programs. Administration officials say such aid offers a way to shape historic change sweeping the
region. They fear steep economic declines could cripple nascent democracies in Cairo and Tunis, where popular uprisings toppled dictators this year, and could turn their populations toward Islamist groups that threaten U.S. strategic interests. Opponents say they support democracy in the Arab world but won't necessarily pay for it. "There's

just no appetite to spend more money," said Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), who serves on

the House Budget Committee. "When we can't pay our own bills, it's difficult to justify nation-building in foreign
countries." The resistance in Congress reflects in part the influence of "tea party" members and other conservatives who long have opposed foreign aid and who nearly forced the U.S. government to close last week in a bruising fight over budget cuts. Some lawmakers are skeptical because audits have shown that billions of dollars were

squandered over the last decade to prop up governments in Iraq and Afghanistan. Others, including Sen. Richard
G. Lugar (R-Ind.), ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the administration hasn't made a persuasive case for new spending. Lugar held up for several weeks a State Department effort to funnel $20 million from an aid program into direct economic support for Tunisia. Lobbyists for the American University in Cairo and the Lebanese American University, independent schools founded by Americans, had argued that the money should not be shifted from their scholarship programs. The pushback in Congress has frustrated administration officials and

spurred them to search for other sources of aid. They have tried with limited success to enlist other
major donors, including European countries and international financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. They also have discussed trying to persuade European countries that have seized bank accounts and other assets from allegedly corrupt officials in Egypt's former regime to use the money to help the new government in Cairo. "These are pivotal countries in a pivotal region," a senior Obama administration official said. "Their stability is crucial." But the administration has been blocked at almost every turn.

UnpopularEconomic Reform
Economic reform programs costs PC
Dunne 4
(Michele, visiting scholar in the Democracy and Rule of Law Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Prof @ Georgetown University in 2003, formerly of Department of State. Her assignments included the National Security Council sta, the Secretary of States Policy Planning Sta, the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, and the U.S. Consulate General in Jerusalem, Carnegie Endowment. INTEGRATING DEMOCRACY PROMOTION INTO U.S. MIDDLE EAST POLICY, http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/CP50FINAL.pdf The case of Egypt is certainly less tragic than that of the Palestinians, but there too the sacrifice of

democratization as a policy goal to the priorities of ArabIsraeli peace produced unsatisfactory results. Military cooperation and economic reform absorbed any political capital left over after Arab Israeli peace priorities. Throughout the 1990s, promotion of democratization appeared on State Department planning documents as a policy goal in Egypt, and USAID carried out an active program of democracy assistance funded at an average of over $20 million annually. Assistance
programs centered on developing nongovernmental and civil society organizations, promoting decentralization of local government, modernizing the judiciary, and improving parliamentary information systems, with smaller programs on strengthening labor unions and promoting education on legal and human rights. One of the largest single democracy

programs in Egypt, the NGO Service Center, demonstrated the problems that result when there is inadequate policy support for sizeable assistance projects. In 1999, after several years of
dicult negotiations, the United States and Egypt agreed on the terms for a U.S.-funded NGO Service Center that would oer grants and training to nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). The U.S. Embassy in Cairo and USAID had agreed to unfavorable Egyptian government terms for the center, notably that a board headed by an Egyptian minister would approve the eligibility of all NGO applicants to receive grants, eectively excluding organizations that the government considered too critical or unfriendly. To refuse such terms would have meant a nasty and perhaps public confrontation with the Egyptian government, as well as pulling the plug on a project in which USAID had already invested several years of eort.

UnpopularLatin AmericaControversial
Latin America policy inherently partisan and polarizing
Whitehead and Nolte 12
Laurence and Detlef, The Obama Administration and Latin America: A Disappointing First Term [http://www.gigahamburg.de/dl/download.php?d=/content/publikationen/pdf/gf_international_1206.pdf] //mtc USLatin America relations are routinely managed by multiple bureaucratic agencies, which can act quite autonomously and are often not coordinated via a common strategy. Obamas

Latin America policy

has frequently been hampered by political polarization and partisan divisions in Congress. The intermestic dimension of USLatin American relations has complicated foreign policy, because a more
self-confident and autonomous majority in Latin America has sometimes sought a policy shift with regard to highly sensitive topics, such as drugs, immigration and Cuba. One issue area where some would criticize the Obama administration is its slowness in improving relations with Brazil or placing Brazil on par with, for example, India. It is unlikely that

Latin Americas modest ranking in US foreign policy will increase or that Washingtons priorities will shift much after the November 2012 elections.

Engagement unpopularreelection concerns

Whitehead and Nolte 12
Laurence and Detlef, The Obama Administration and Latin America: A Disappointing First Term [http://www.giga hamburg.de/dl/download.php?d=/content/publikationen/pdf/gf_international_1206.pdf] //mtc Latin America has clearly ranked low in the administrations policy priorities, and in all prob - ability it will continue to do so for the next few years as well. Domestic and economic challeng - es are likely to outweigh most foreign policy con - cerns, and other parts of the world are likely to de - mand whatever attention the administration can spare for international affairs (except those with a very direct linkage to internal policy issues or do - mestic partisan divides). This is especially true as regards the focus of the White House. A fair assessment of President Obamas

Latin America record needs to recognize that the region is not central in US foreign policy. Candidates do not expect to win elections with topics related to Latin America, but they know they could lose elec - tions with topics like illegal migration, drug traf - ficking, organized crime, or weakness in the face of anti-American stances. So while it is correct that there are many so-called intermestic topics link - ing the US with Latin America, most of these top - ics have a negative connotation. To make things even more complicated, in some of these areas Latin American countries are
now demanding a policy shift on the part of the US government, as a report from the Inter-American Dialogue from April 2012 states: The US position on these trou - blesome issues immigration, drug policy, and Cuba has set Washington against the consensus view of the hemispheres other 34 governments. These issues stand as obstacles to further cooper - ation in the Americas. The United States and the nations of Latin America and the Caribbean need to resolve them in order to build more produc - tive partnerships. For the moment it is quite dif - ficult to foresee major progress with regard to any of these topics in the near future given the appar - ent distribution of US electoral preferences in the 6 November contest.

UnpopularLatin AmericaPolitical Capital

Plan costs PConly way to get Latin America engagement through congress
Oppenheimer 13
Andres, Andres Oppenheimer: Boost ties with Latin America [http://www.fresnobee.com/2013/05/09/3293617/andres oppenheimer-boost-ties.html#storylink=cp] May 9 //mtc But, sadly, it showed the absence of any U.S. plans to drastically expand trade ties with Latin

America -- like the Obama administration has done with Asia and Europe -- or any sign that, in his second term, Obama will pay greater attention to this hemisphere. Before we get into what Obama should do, let's take
a quick look at the facts. In his article, Obama stated that about 40% of U.S. exports are currently going to Latin America, and that these exports are growing at a faster pace than U.S. shipments to the rest of the world. Obama also celebrated that the U.S. Congress is finally close to approving comprehensive immigration reform. While that's a U.S. domestic issue, it would have a positive economic impact on Mexico and Central America, since millions of newly legalized immigrants would be able to visit their native countries, and most likely would be sending more money to their families back home. But here are some of the facts that Obama failed to mention in his article: U.S. total trade with Latin America has actually fallen as a percentage of our total trade over the past decade. While 39% of the nation's overall trade was with the Western Hemisphere in 2000, that percentage fell to 38% in 2012, according to U.S. Department of Commerce data. Despite Obama's May 23, 2008, campaign promise to launch "a new alliance of the Americas," he has not started any major hemispheric free-trade initiative. By comparison, every recent U.S. president had started -- or at least tried to start -- a hemisphere-wide trade deal. Obama has launched the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade talks with mostly Asian countries, and a similar Trans-Atlantic Partnership free-trade negotiation with the 27-member European Union, but has not announced any plans for a TransAmerican Partnership. Granted, he has helped ratify free trade deals with Colombia and Panama, which had been signed by his predecessor. And, sure, the Trans-Pacific Partnership plan includes a few Latin American countries, such as Mexico, Peru and Chile, but they are a minority within the proposed new bloc. In his May 2 trip to Mexico, Obama failed to meet Mexico's request to be included in the U.S.-proposed Trans-Atlantic partnership free-trade talks with the European Union. The Mexican governments had asked that Mexico and Canada be included in the Trans-Atlantic Partnership plan so that the proposed deal could become a North American-European Union deal. But the White House response was not yet. Despite Obama's 2011 announcement of a plan to increase to 100,000 the number of Latin -American students in U.S. colleges and to 100,000 the number of U.S. students in Latin-American universities -- his most ambitious initiative for the region -- progress on the project has been slow. The plan calls for significant private-sector funding, but Obama has invested little time or political capital in it. Fund-raising has been left in charge of the State Department, whose boss -- Secretary of State John Kerry -- has shown scant interest in Latin America. Kerry did not travel with Obama to Mexico and Costa Rica last week, and his April 18 remark at a congressional hearing about Latin America being "our backyard" had the rare effect of antagonizing friends and foes alike in the region. My opinion: As regular readers of this column know well, I much prefer Obama over his Republican critics on most issues. But I find it unfortunate that, as Obama's recent trade initiatives with Asia and Europe show, he looks East and West, but very little toward the South. Neither he, nor Kerry, nor any Cabinet-level official is focused on the region. Perhaps it's too late to expect any changes. But the least Obama could do is get

personally involved in the projects he has already launched. For instance, he should pick up the phone and ask
CEO's of top multinationals to chip in funds for his plan to raise student exchanges with Latin America to 100,000 in both directions.

If Obama doesn't get personally involved, not even that will happen.

New economic engagement costs PC

Isacson 11
Adam, President Obamas Upcoming Trip to Latin America [http://www.wola.org/commentary/president_obama_s_upcoming_trip_to_latin_america] March 10 //mtc Though Latin Americans perceptions of the United States have improved since a low point during the Bush admi nistration,

our country is no longer the central player in the economic lives of most Latin American countries, either through trade or aid. As a result, it carries much less political weight. Though it is not his
intention, President Obamas trip will underscore that the era of unquestioned U.S. leadership has ended, as the President himself acknowledged at the 2009 Summit of the Americas, when he emphasized building an equal partnership with the regions states. In this new reality, the White House has made an astute choice of countries to visit. Each carries great symbolic value. In Brazil, President Obamas discussions with President Dilma Rousseff will highlight the global power and influence of South Americas rapidly growing giant. It may also m ark a notable improvement in the tone of U.S. relations with Rousseffs government, which assumed power in January. In both Brazil and Chile, President Obama will recognize the success of long, difficult transitions from military dictatorship to democracy. Both countries are still trying to uncover the truth about the mass human rights abuses committed before those transitions began, and to hold the worst abusers accountable. The President would do well to acknowledge these important efforts. In El Salvador, the President will be commemorating a successful transition from all-out civil war to stable peace, with a democracy so healthy that, following its 2009 elections, it underwent a smooth transition of power to the opposition: the party of the former guerrilla insurgency. President Obamas trip is also important for what it is not about. This is not a visit driven by U.S. threat perceptions. Except for where it touches discussions of public security and organized crime, drugs and the U.S. war on

them are not on the agenda. Nor should we expect much discussion of terrorism, Iran or even Venezuela. The focus on opportunities instead of threats is very welcome. Not all of the messages will be positive, however. In a time of

reduced power and deep budget cuts, President Obama will be arriving largely empty-handed. There is relatively little new economic aid to offer; much of what the Administration can propose is re-programming to meet priority needs, improved coordination, and technical assistance. These are important, but not a substitute for new assistance and new initiatives. Not only can we expect few offers of new economic aid, we can expect few commitments to spend substantial political capital. The administration, though supportive, is unlikely to make a major political commitment to help Latin America address what, according to opinion polls throughout the region, are its main concerns: public security, unemployment, weak institutions, and migration.

UnpopularEnergy
No compromise on energy undermines Obamas agenda
Kemp 13
John, Reuters analyst, Murkowski's energy report shows scope for compromise: Kemp, 2/6/13, http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/06/column-kemp-us-energyreport-idUSL5N0B67QI20130206 Ultras in his own party will urge the president to seize this moment to cement the transition from fossil fuels to clean energy with a raft of ambitious new regulations that burden oil, gas and coal industries to

tilt the playing field in favour of zero-carbon technologies. Why compromise, they will say, if the other side is uninterested in reaching agreement. But that would be a mistake. If the policymaking machinery in Washington is to be made to work and rescued from gridlock, both parties will have to show greater willingness to compromise on issues that matter to them (climate, taxes, energy, immigration, spending and entitlements). Zero compromise on

energy issues will only encourage the president's opponents to block other parts of his agenda .

UnpopularFTAs
US-Latin America free trade is deeply partisan
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, 10 (A New Trade Policy for The United States:
Lessons from Latin America, WWICS, September 2010, http://wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/New_Trade_Policy.pdf)//MC To understand the reason for this difficulty, one must understand the U.S. political process. As with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) 12 years earlier, the approval challenge had little to do with the trade agreements themselves. Rather, the challenge was largely caused by domestic politics. For most of the post-war period

the United States had a bipartisan trade policy. Democratic administrations were responsible for the reversal
of the excessive duties of the Smoot Hawley Tariff Act, which was credited with deepening the depression of the 1930s. The Democrats gained approval for multilateralism with the approval of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1947. The Kennedy Round of GATT (19641967) became the first of a series of comprehensive negotiations moving beyond tariffs, and the Tokyo Round (1973 1979) was approved with a lopsided vote in which only 14 of the 525 members of the U.S. Congress opposed its passage. This bipartisan approach began to erode

during the Reagan-H. W. Bush administration and fell apart completely during the W. Bush administration. Unfortunately, later agreements paid the price with the long delay and narrow
vote in favor of CAFTA-DR, the long delay and additional negotiations for the approval of U.S.-Peru FTA, and the continuing delay and uncertain future of U.S. FTAs with Colombia, Korea, and Panama. The major issue that

has made passage of recent FTAs difficult is the difference between Democrats and Republicans regarding the treatment of labor issues. Until recently labor issues did not impinge on
multilateral trade negotiations; they simply were not covered. Even FTAs with Canada and Israel did not involve labor issues given the high standard of living in these countries.Trade Agreements and Contemporary U.S. Politics | 29 | However, the issue of labor arose with a vengeance during the NAFTA negotiations. This was the first U.S. FTA negotiation with a country which had significantly lower wages than those existing in the United States. Until NAFTA, the United States provided duty-free treatment to developing countries under unilateral preference programs. Unlike FTAs, these programs did not require binding commitments. Duty-free treatment could be withdrawn unilaterally by the United States, and one justification for its withdrawal could be violation of labor rights. Regardless of how the provision was expressed, U.S. labor was being asked to replace unilateral duty-free treatmentwhich could be withdrawn by the United States at willwith a binding commitment which subjected any removal to dispute settlement. Complicating the situation was a disagreement between Democrats and Republicans over

the terms of the labor provision in the FTAs. The Democrats favored a continuation of the definition of labor rights incorporated in U.S. preference programs. This definition provided that dutyfree treatment could be withdrawn if any country violated internationally recognized labor rights. Republicans felt that this definition was too strict since foreign countries could bring complaints against U.S. labor practices as well. They argued that the test should be a simpler one: whether a country was enforcing
its labor laws as they applied to exports in general and export zones specifically. A second disagreement was over the appropriate sanction against violations of the labor provisions. The Democrats favored treating labor

violations as any other violations with the right to retaliate by withdrawing concessions on products. They argued that since concessions could be withdrawn for a violation of market access or intellectual
property rights (IPR) commitments, the same sanctions should be available for a violation of labor rights. The

Republicans were not willing to provide such a strict penalty for labor violations and argued for further mediation. First, under NAFTA, not all labor violations were subject to sanctions. Second,
there were more opportunities to work out a mutually acceptable solution. Thirdly, if a violation was established under dispute settlement and it was a violation covered by sanctions, the sanction could be a fine as opposed to a withdrawal of concessions

FTAs with Latin American unpopularempirics prove

Villarreal and Fergusson, 13Congressional Research Service Specialists in International Trade and Finance
(M. Angeles Villarreal and Ian F. Fergusson, NAFTA at 20: Overview Trade Effects, Congressional Research Service, 2/21/13, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42965.pdf)//MC

NAFTA was controversial when first proposed, mostly because it was the first FTA involving two wealthy, developed countries and a developing country. The political debate surrounding the agreement was divisive with proponents arguing that the agreement would help generate thousands of jobs and reduce income disparity in the region, while opponents warned that the agreement would cause huge job losses in the United States as companies

moved production to Mexico to lower costs. In reality, NAFTA did not cause the huge job losses feared by
the critics or the large economic gains predicted by supporters. The net overall effect of NAFTA on the U.S. economy appears to have been relatively modest, primarily because trade with Canada and Mexico account for a small percentage of U.S. GDP. However, there were worker and firm adjustment costs as the three countries adjusted to more open trade and investment among their economies.

UnpopularHostile Nations
Engagement with hostile governments costs PC and derails the agenda
Kupchan 10
Charles, Enemies Into Friends [http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/65986/charles-a-kupchan/enemies-into-friends] March/April //mtc IF THE Obama administrations tentative engagement with the United States' rivals is to be

more than a passing flirtation, Washington will have to conduct not only deft statecraft abroad but also particularly savvy politics at home. Progress will be slow and incremental; it takes years, if not decades, to turn enmity into amity. The problem for Obama is that patience is in

extraordinaril y short supply in Washington. With midterm elections looming in November, critics will surely intensify their claims that Obama's outreach has yet to pay off. In preparation, Obama should push particularly hard on a single front, aiming to have at least one clear example that his strategy is working. Rapprochement with Russia arguably offers the best prospects for near-term success. Washington and Moscow are well on their way toward closing a deal on arms control, and their interests intersect on a number of other important issues, including the need for stability in Central and South Asia. Moreover, the United States can piggyback on the progress that the European Union has already made in reaching out to Russia on issues of trade, energy, and security. Obama also needs to start laying the groundwork for
congressional support. To help clear the legislative hurdles ahead , Obama should consider including in his stable of special envoys a prominent Republican - such as former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft, former Senator Chuck Hagel, or former Secretary of State James Baker - to lend a bipartisan imprimatur to any proposed deals that might come before Congress. He must also be careful not to overreach . For example, his call to eliminate nuclear weapons altogether, however laudable in theory, may scare off centrist senators who might otherwise be prepared to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Obama should also be mindful of the order

in which he picks his fights. If advancing rapprochement with Russia is a priority for 2010, it makes sense to put off heavy lifting with Cuba until the following year. It is better to shepherd a few key items through Congress than to ask for too much - and risk coming back empty-

handed . Despite the numerous obstacles at home and abroad, the Obama administration should stick to its strategy of engaging U.S. adversaries. Rapprochement usually takes place in fits and starts and, under the best of circumstances, requires painstaking diplomacy and persistence. But when it works, it makes the world a much safer place. That realization alone should help buy Obama at least some of the time that he will need if he is to succeed in turning enemies into friends.

UnpopularMilitary
Military engagement costs PC
Dunne 4
(Michele, visiting scholar in the Democracy and Rule of Law Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Prof @ Georgetown University in 2003, formerly of Department of State. Her assignments included the National Security Council sta, the Secretary of States Policy Planning Sta, the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, and the U.S. Consulate General in Jerusalem, Carnegie Endowment. INTEGRATING DEMOCRACY PROMOTION INTO U.S. MIDDLE EAST POLICY, http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/CP50FINAL.pdf The case of Egypt is certainly less tragic than that of the Palestinians, but there too the sacrifice of

democratization as a policy goal to the priorities of ArabIsraeli peace produced unsatisfactory results. Military cooperation and economic reform absorbed any political capital left over after Arab Israeli peace priorities. Throughout the 1990s, promotion of democratization appeared on State Department planning documents as a policy goal in Egypt, and USAID carried out an active program of democracy assistance funded at an average of over $20 million annually. Assistance
programs centered on developing nongovernmental and civil society organizations, promoting decentralization of local government, modernizing the judiciary, and improving parliamentary information systems, with smaller programs on strengthening labor unions and promoting education on legal and human rights. One of the largest single democracy

programs in Egypt, the NGO Service Center, demonstrated the problems that result when there is inadequate policy support for sizeable assistance projects. In 1999, after several years of
dicult negotiations, the United States and Egypt agreed on the terms for a U.S.-funded NGO Service Center that would oer grants and training to nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). The U.S. Embassy in Cairo and USAID had agreed to unfavorable Egyptian government terms for the center, notably that a board headed by an Egyptian minister would approve the eligibility of all NGO applicants to receive grants, eectively excluding organizations that the government considered too critical or unfriendly. To refuse such terms would have meant a nasty and perhaps public confrontation with the Egyptian government, as well as pulling the plug on a project in which USAID had already invested several years of e ort.

***Cuba

UnpopularGeneric
Any liberal policy towards Cuba drains PCcongress will retaliate and take the rest of Obamas agenda hostage
LeoGrande 12public affairs professor @ American University
William, Fresh Start for a Stale Policy: Can Obama Break the Stalemate in U.S.-Cuban Relations? [http://www.american.edu/clals/upload/LeoGrande-Fresh-Start.pdf] December 18 //mtc The Second Obama Administration Where in the executive branch will control over Cuba policy lie? Political

considerations played a major role in Obama's Cuba policy during the first term, albeit not as
preeminent a consideration as they were during the Clinton years. In 2009, Obama's new foreign policy team got off to a bad start when they promised Senator Menendez that they would consult him before changing Cuba policy. That was the price he extracted for providing Senate Democrats with the 60 votes needed to break a Republican filibuster on a must-pass omnibus appropriations bill to keep the government operating. For the next four years, administration officials worked more closely with Menendez, who opposed the sort of major redirection of policy Obama had promised, than they did with senators like John Kerry (D-Mass.), chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, whose views were more in line with the president's stated policy goals. At the Department of State, Assistant Secretary Arturo Valenzuela favored

initiatives to improve relations with Cuba, but he was stymied by indifference or

resistance elsewhere in the bureaucracy. Secretary Hillary Clinton, having staked out a tough position
Cuba during the Democratic primary campaign, was not inclined to be the driver for a new policy. At the NSC, Senior Director for the Western Hemisphere Dan Restrepo, who advised Obama on Latin America policy during the 2008 campaign, did his best to avoid the Cuba issue because it was so fraught with political danger. When the president finally

approved the resumption of people-to-people travel to Cuba, which Valenzuela had been pushing, the White House political team delayed the announcement for several months at the behest of Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Any easing of the travel regulations, she warned, would hurt Democrats' prospects in the upcoming mid-term elections.43 The White House shelved the new
regulations until January 2011, and then announced them late Friday before a holiday weekend. Then, just a year later, the administration surrendered to Senator Rubio's demand that it limit the licensing of travel providers in exchange for him dropping his hold on the appointment of Valenzuela's replacement.44 With Obama in his final term and Vice-President Joe Biden unlikely to seek the Democratic nomination in 2016 (unlike the situation Clinton and Gore faced in their second term), politics will presumably play a less central role in deciding Cuba policy over the next four years. There will still be

the temptation, however, to sacrifice Cuba policy to mollify congressional conservatives,

both Democrat and Republican, who are willing to hold other Obama initiatives hostage to extract concessions on Cuba . And since Obama has given in
to such hostage-taking previously, the hostage-takers have a strong incentive to try the same tactic again. The only way to break this cycle would be for the president to stand up to them and refuse to give in,
as he did when they attempted to rollback his 2009 relaxation of restrictions on CubanAmerican travel and remittances. Much will depend on who makes up Obama's new foreign policy team, especially at the Department of State. John Kerry has been a strong advocate of a more open policy toward Cuba, and worked behind the scenes with the State Department and USAID to clean up the "democracy promotion" program targeting Cuba, as a way to win the release of Alan Gross. A new secretary is likely to bring new assistant secretaries, providing an opportunity to revitalize the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, which has been thoroughly cowed by congressional hardliners. But even with new players in place, does Cuba rise to

the level of importance that would justify a major new initiative and the bruising battle with conservatives on the Hill? Major policy changes that require a significant

expenditure of political capital rarely happen unless the urgency of the problem forces policymakers
to take action.

Plan tanks Obamas PCspillsover and derails the entire agenda

LeoGrande 12public affairs professor @ American University
William, Fresh Start for a Stale Policy: Can Obama Break the Stalemate in U.S. -Cuban Relations? [http://www.american.edu/clals/upload/LeoGrande-Fresh-Start.pdf] December 18 //mtc

The Republicans' sweeping victory in the 2010 mid-term elections put the House back under their control and ended any hope of a progressive initiative on Cuba coming

from Congress. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen became chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, a post from which she could hold Obama's foreign policy hostage over the issue of Cuba. Mario Diaz Balart introduced legislation to roll back Obama's 2009 relaxation of restrictions on CubanAmerican travel and remittances, but it was dropped when President Obama threatened a veto.39 Tea Party darling Marco Rubio was elected to the Senate from Florida in 2010, and joined the Foreign Relations Committee. In 2011, he put a hold on Obama's nominee for Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs until the administration promised to tighten regulations on academic and educational travel that Obama had authorized in January. 40 Although the Democrats made significant gains in both the House and Senate in 2012, Republicans retained control of the House and enough votes in the Senate to block any measure by filibuster. Nevertheless, the election produced some important personnel changes that
could have a bearing on Cuba policy. In the House, Ros-Lehtinen will step down as chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee because of Republican rules on term limits for chairs. Her likely replacement is Ed Royce (R-Calif), who criticized Obama in 2009 for turning off the electronic billboard on the U.S. Interests Section in Havana, but who has not been especially engaged in the debate over Cuba policy otherwise. Howard Berman (D-Calif), who had been the ranking Democrat on the Committee and a vocal critic of U.S. democracy promotion programs in Cuba, lost his bid for reelection. His successor as ranking member, Eliot Engel (D-NY), was ranking member of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee in the previous Congress. In recent years, Engel has voted consistently against Democrats' attempts to ease restrictions on travel and food sales to Cuba, and the U.S.-Cuba Democracy PAC has been among his top 20 campaign contributors since the 2008 election cycle. In short, although the exact composition of the Foreign Affairs Committee is in flux, it seems clear that conservative

Republicans and Democrats together will retain a sufficient majority to block any progressive initiatives on Cuba emerging from the committee. David Rivera (R-Fl.), one of the most
extreme anti-Cuban voices in the House, was defeated by Joe Garcia, a moderate Cuban-American who defended Obama's Cuba policy. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz), a perennial voice for opening up to Cuba, traded his House seat for one in the Senate. In the Senate, Tea Party favorite Ted Cruz, won a seat from Texas. Although his father came from Cuba in 1957, Cruz did not identify himself as Latino or show any special interest in Latino issues or in Cuba. Democratic gains in the Senate did not produce a filibuster-proof majority, and the determined opposition of Rubio and Menendez will probably be sufficient to prevent any progressive legislation on Cuba from making it through the Senate. Most likely, the next four years will

reprise the last two, with conservatives fighting a legislative guerrilla war against

Obama's Cuba policy by holding up nominations and threatening to filibuster mustpass legislation in an effort to brow-beat the administration into policy concessions. If
there are to be any new initiatives on Cuba, they will have to come from the White House. Despite HelmsBurton's constraints, the president retains substantial executive authority to selectively loosen the embargo for both commerce and travel.42

Plan is massively controversialcosts PC and trades off with other agenda items
CDA 13
Center for Democracy in the Americas, LA Times: Political calculus keeps Cuba on U.S. list of terror sponsors [http://www.democracyinamericas.org/blog-post/la-times-political-calculus-keeps-cuba-on-u-s-list-of-terror-sponsors/] //mtc Politicians who have pushed for a continued hard line against Cuba cheered their victory in getting the Obama administration to keep Cuba on the list. U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a South Florida Republican whose efforts to isolate and punish the Castro regime have been a central plank of her election strategy throughout her 24 years in Congress, hailed the State Department decision as reaffirming the threat that the Castro regime represents. Arash Aramesh, a

national security analyst at Stanford Law School, blamed the continued branding of Cuba as a terrorism sponsor on politicians pandering for a certain political base. He also said President Obama
and Secretary of State John F. Kerry have failed to make a priority of removing the impediment to better relations with Cuba. As much as Id like to see the Castro regime gone and an open and free Cuba, it takes away from the State Departments credibility when they include countries on the list that arent even close to threatening Americans, Aramesh said. Political considerations also factor into excluding countries from the state sponsor list, he said, pointing to Pakistan as a prime example. Although Islamabad very clearly supports terrorist and insurgent organizations, he said, the U.S. government has long refused to provoke its ally in the region with the official censure. The decision to retain Cuba on the list surprised some observers of the long-contentious relationship between Havana and Washington. Since Fidel Castro retired five years ago and handed the reins of power to his younger brother, Raul, modest economic reforms have been tackled and the government has revoked the practice of requiring Cubans to get exit visas before they could leave their country for foreign travel. There was talk early in Obamas first term of easing the 51 -year-old embargo, and Kerry, though still in the Senate then, wrote a commentary for the Tampa Bay Tribune in 2009 in which he deemed the security threat from Cuba a faint shadow. He called then for freer travel between the two countries and an end to the U.S. policy of isolating Cuba that has manifestly failed for nearly 50 years. The political clout of the Cuban American community in South Florida and more

recently Havanas refusal to release Gross have kept any warming between the Cold War adversaries at bay.

Its a

matter of political priorities and trade-offs , Aramesh said. He noted that former Secretary of State
Hillary Rodham Clinton last year exercised her discretion to get the Iranian opposition group Mujahedeen Khalq, or MEK, removed from the governments list of designated terrorist organizations. That move was motivated by the hopes of some in Congress that the group could be aided and encouraged to eventually challenge the Tehran regime. Its a question of

how much political cost you want to incur or how much political capital you want to spend, Aramesh said. President Obama has decided not to reach out to Cuba, that he has more

important foreign policy battles elsewhere.

Any policy change towards Cuba unpopular

Huffington Post 12
(Ricardo Herrero, Getting Serious About Alan Gross, December 27th, 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ricardoherrero/getting-serious-about-ala_b_2370767.html, accessed 7/5/13) MB Earlier this month, USAID subcontractor Alan Gross began his fourth year in a Cuban prison. Ever

since his incarceration, a debate has raged over whether the United States should halt further efforts to engage with the Cuban people until the Cuban government releases Gross. Both Alan and his wife Judy have repeatedly called on the U.S. and Cuba to engage in a dialogue without preconditions. Sadly, like all things Cuba-related, the debate over Gross' incarceration has since devolved into an ideological three-ring circus where finding a solution has become a secondary objective behind not appearing to be making concessions to the enemy. The Washington Post perfectly captured
the tone deafness of the current debate in a recent editorial: "better relations between Cuba and the United States must be conditioned on real steps toward democratization by Havana. But until Mr.Gross is released, they ought to get worse." This position reflects exactly the sort of stale, inside-the-box thinking that has long plagued the discourse

over U.S.-Cuba policy.

UnpopularEmbargo
Even small adjustments to the embargo cause massive fights in congress
Cave 12
Damien, Easing of Restraints in Cuba Renews Debate on U.S. Embargo [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/20/world/americas/changes-in-cuba-create-support-for-easingembargo.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0] November 19 With Cuba cautiously introducing free-market changes that have legalized hundreds of thousands of small private businesses over the past two years,

new economic bonds between Cuba and the United States have formed, creating new challenges, new possibilities and a more complicated debate over the embargo.The longstanding logic has been that broad sanctions are necessary to suffocate the totalitarian
government of Fidel and Ral Castro. Now, especially for many Cubans who had previously stayed on the sidelines in the battle over Cuba policy, a new argument against the embargo is gaining currency that the tentative move toward capitalism by the Cuban government could be sped up with more assistance from Americans.Even as defenders of the embargo warn against providing the Cuban government with economic lifelines, some Cubans and exiles are advocating a fresh approach. The Obama administration already showed an openness to engagement with Cuba in 2009 by removing restrictions on travel and remittances for Cuban Americans. But with Fidel Castro, 86, retired and President Ral Castro, 81, leading a bureaucracy that is divided on the pace and scope of change, many have begun urging President Obama to go further and update American policy by putting a priority on assistance for Cubans seeking more economic independence from the government.Maintaining this embargo, maintaining this hostility, all it does is strengthen and embolden the hardliners, said Carlos Saladrigas, a Cuban exile and co-chairman of the Cuba Study Group in Washington, which advocates engagement with Cuba. What we should be doing is helping the reformers. Any easing would be a gamble. Free enterprise may not necessarily lead to the embargos goal of free elections, especially because Cuba has said it wants to replicate the paths of Vietnam and China, where the loosening of economic restrictions has not led to political change. Indeed, Cuban officials have become adept at using previous American efforts to soften the embargo to their advantage, taking a cut of dollars converted into pesos and marking up the prices at state-owned stores.And Cuba has a long

history of tossing ice on warming relations. The latest example is the jailing of Alan Gross, a State
Department contractor who has spent nearly three years behind bars for distributing satellite telephone equipment to Jewish groups in Havana. In Washington, Mr. Gross is seen as the main impediment to an easing of the embargo, but there are also limits to what the president could do without Congressional action. The 1992 Cuban Democracy Act conditioned the waiving of sanctions on the introduction of democratic changes inside Cuba. The 1996 Helms-Burton Act also

requires that the embargo remain until Cuba has a transitional or democratically elected government. Obama administration officials say they have not given up, and could move if the president decides to act
on his own. Officials say that under the Treasury Departments licensing and regulation -writing authority, there is room for significant modification. Following the legal logic of Mr. Obamas changes in 2009, further expansions in travel

are possible along with new allowances for investment or imports and exports, especially if narrowly applied to Cuban businesses. Even these adjustments which could also include travel for
all Americans and looser rules for ships engaged in trade with Cuba, according to a legal analysis commissioned by the Cuba

probably mean a fierce political fight. The handful of CubanAmericans in Congress for whom the embargo is sacred oppose looser rules.
Study Group would

Plan unpopular among republicans

Davis 8
Davis, Charles. 2008 "Hawks Push to Maintain Embargo against Cuba." Hawks Push to Maintain Embargo against Cuba. N.p., 06 Feb. 2008. Web. 01 July 2013. <http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_4368.shtml>.

Right-wing hawks are mobilizing against any possibility that Washington might ease its 46-year-old trade embargo against Cuba. Hawks are particularly concerned that the recent rise in realists
influence over the Bush administrations foreign policy might begin to affect U.S. policy toward the Caribbean nation. Now, of all times, we must do nothing that will slow momentum toward genuine political

change, declared Roger Noriega, a former assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs under President George W. Bush. He was speaking at a mid-January conference devoted to Cuba policy hosted by the influential neoconservative American Enterprise Institute. There will be plenty of time to help the Cuban people rebuild their economy on firm foundations, Mr. Noriega said, but moving in prematurely to provide a modicum of material benefits to some Cubans may allow whats left of the Castro brothers regime to bide a few more tragic days in power.
The conference, which was held on the eve of President Fidel Castros announcement that he is too ill to return to public lif e

and take part in Cubas upcoming parliamentary elections, came amid growing evidence that the administrations realists, led by Pentagon chief Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, have made major gains in asserting control over policy toward other U.S. nemeses such as North Korea, Syria and Iran. But participants in the American Enterprise Institute conference, including a senior State Department official, made it clear that no changes in U.S. policy will occur during Mr. Bushs last year as president unless both Fidel and Raul Castro are removed and democratic reform is well underway. President Bush has clearly stated that changes in our policy will be driven by changes in Cuba, said Kirsten Madison, a deputy assistant secretary of state in the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs. We want our businesses to

engage in Cuba at a time and in a circumstance that they will be able to reinforce and support a process of change, not reinforce a repressive state, she said.

UnpopularEmbargoCuba Lobby
Massive Cuban-American lobby opposition to the plan
Leogrande 13
William, The Cuba Lobby [http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/04/11/the_cuba_lobby_jay_z] April 11 Jay-Z and Beyonc are discovering that fame provides no immunity from the Cuba Lobby's animus for anyone who has the audacity to act as if Cuba is a normal country rather than the heart of darkness. After the pop icons' recent trip to the island to celebrate their wedding anniversary, the Cuba Lobby's congressional contingent -- Sen. Marco Rubio,

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart -- castigated the couple, demanding that they be
investigated for violating the half-century-old U.S. embargo. (As it turned out, the trip had been authorized by the U.S. Treasury Department as a cultural exchange.) Still, celebrity trips to Cuba make headlines, and condemnation by the Cuba Lobby is always quick to follow. But what seems like a Hollywood sideshow is actually symptomatic of a much deeper and more dangerous problem -- a problem very much like the one that afflicted U.S. policy toward China in the 1950s and 1960s. Then, as now, an aggressive foreign-policy lobby was able to prevent rational debate about a
n

anachronistic policy by intimidating anyone who dared challenge it."A wasteland." That's how W. Averell Harriman described the State Department's Bureau of Far Eastern Affairs when he took it over for President John F. Kennedy in 1961. "It's a disaster area filled with human wreckage. Some of them are so beaten down they c an't be saved. Some of those you would want to save are just finished. They try and write a report and nothing comes out. It's a terrible thing." As David Halberstam recounts in The Best and the Brightest, the destruction of the State Department's expertise on Asia was the result of the China Lobby's decade-long assault on everyone, from professors to Foreign Service officers, who disputed the charge that communist sympathizers in the United States had "lost China." The China Lobby and its allies in Congress forced President Harry Truman and President Dwight Eisenhower to purge the State Department of its most senior and knowledgeable "China hands," while continuing to perpetuate the fiction that the Nationalist government in Taiwan was the "real" China, rather than the communist government on the mainland -- a policy stance that persisted long after the rest of the world had come to terms with Mao Zedong's victory. The result was a department that had little real knowledge about Asia and was terrified of straying from far-right orthodoxy. This state of affairs contributed directly to the debacle of Vietnam.Today, U.S. relations with Latin America are suffering from an equally irrational policy toward Cuba -- a policy designed in the 1960s to overthrow Fidel Castro's government and which, more than 50 years later, is no closer to success.

policy toward Cuba is frozen in place by a domestic political lobby, this one with roots in the electorally pivotal state of Florida. The Cuba Lobby combines the carrot of political money with the stick of political denunciation to keep wavering Congress members, government bureaucrats, and even presidents in line
Like U.S. policy toward China in the 1950s and 1960s, behind a policy that, as President Barack Obama himself admits, has failed for half a century and is supported by virtually no other countries. (The last time it came to a vote in the U.N. General Assembly, only Israel and the Pacific island of Palau sided with the United States.) Of course, the news at this point is not that a Cuba Lobby exists, but that it astonishingly lives on -- even during the presidency of Obama, who publicly vowed to pursue a new approach to Cuba, but whose policy has been stymied thus far.Like the China Lobby, the Cuba Lobby isn't one organization but a loose-knit

conglomerate of exiles, sympathetic members of Congress, and nongovernmental organizations, some of which comprise a self-interested industry nourished by the flow of "democracy promotion"
money from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). And like its Sino-obsessed predecessor, the Cuba Lobby was launched at the instigation of conservative Republicans in government who needed outside backers to advance their partisan policy aims. In the 1950s, they were Republican members of Congress battling New Dealers in the Truman administration over Asia policy. In the 1980s, they were officials in Ronald Reagan's administration battling congressional Democrats over Central America policy.

Seriously, the Cuban-American lobby hates the plan Pecquet 13

Julian Pecquet, writer for The Hill, Cuban-American lawmakers press White House to keep Cuba on terror list http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/americas/296521--cuban-american-lawmakers-keep-cuba-on-terror-list

Cuban-American lawmakers are pressing the Obama administration to keep Cuba on its list of state sponsors of terrorism as the State Department prepares to release its annual assessment next week. The
four Cuban-Americans in the House are drafting a joint letter to Secretary of State John Kerry laying out why they think the communist island still meets the criteria established by the 1979 sanctions law. And the Senate's three Cuban-Americans are also vocally opposed to delisting Cuba, which was first added in 1982. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) told

The Hill she's collaborating with Reps. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.), Albio Sires (D-N.J.) and Joe Garcia (D-Fla.) on a letter urging the State Department to retain Cuba alongside Iran, Syria and Sudan. The push comes amid reports vehemently denied by the State Department that U.S.
diplomats have concluded Cuba should be removed from the list to pave the way for better relations with President Raul Castro.We will be laying out a very concrete plan in this coming week about why Cuba deserves to maintain its place in this

rogues' gallery, Ros-Lehtinen said.She said she was particularly encouraged by Thursday's news that the Justice Department has indicted a former U.S. Agency for International Development employee, Marta Rita Velazquez, for allegedly helping a convicted former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst spy for Cuba. The Obama administration is seeking her extradition from Sweden.It's a recent indication again of the threat that the Castro regime poses to U.S. national security interests, RosLehtinen said. It means that somebody in the administration is still aware of the threat that Castro poses. To delist a

country, the State Department must make the case to Congress that a country has seen a change in leadership and policies or that it has not engaged in acts of international terrorism in the past six months and has provided assurances it won't in the future. Cuba says it has stopped supporting Colombia's leftist rebels and is hosting peace talks, but U.S. lawmakers say the country is still running afoul of the law by serving as a safe haven for fugitives from U.S. law and keeping USAID contractor Alan Gross in prison on charges he sought to undermine the Cuban state by distributing communications equipment. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said he is also drafting a letter to Kerry. We've certainly communicated with them, we have, he said. We think it's critically important they remain on the list, for multiple reasons. But certainly I think Cuba continues to classify as a country that supports terrorism and has actively supported it in the
past increasingly against its own people, unfortunately, Rubio said, a reference to recent incidents such as the death of Cuban activist Oswaldo Pay in a car crash. His driver has said he was driven off the road by a car with government license plates.

UnpopularEmbargCuba Lobby I/L

Cuba lobby incredibly powerfulensures congressional opposition to the plan
Stieglitz 11
Matthew, Constructive Engagement: The Need for a Progressive Cuban Lobby in Obamas Washington [http://www.thepresidency.org/storage/Fellows2011/Stieglitz-_Final_Paper.pdf] //mtc This collaboration represented positive dialogue with Cuba, yet it did nothing to improve relations with Cuba. Subsequent to the Balsero crisis, the US Congress acted to enforce stricter standards towards the island in a landmark legislation that would effectively relegate the presidency to the backburner in relation to Cuba. Driven in part by CANF and the

lobbying efforts of the exile community, the Cuban Liberty & Solidarity Act was passed in 1996 (also known as the Helms-Burton Act) further complicating relations with Cuba (Bardach, 2002). Essentially, the legislation cedes greater authority to the US Congress in ending the trade embargo, making a potential pro-embargo majority in Congress the powerbrokers on everything US-Cuba related. Simply stated, the Cuban Liberty & Democratic Solidarity Act disempowers the presidency in relation to Cuba.
While the legislation calls for a variety of different elements, it has two key components in relation to the presidency: the embargo can only be repealed by Congressional vote, and it cannot be repealed until a democratic government is elected in Cuba that includes neither Fidel nor Raul Castro. This clearly hinders normalization because it effectively mitigates any transition efforts or progressive policies that the Castro brothers sponsor. Unless the legislation is repealed or amended, any progressive efforts or dialogue from the Cuban government will be irrelevant so long as the Castro brothers continue to lead the government. It also constrains the US presidency, as President Obamaor any future president cannot simply end

must defer to the US Congress, which will make progressive policy with Cuba difficult. This again exemplifies the strength and
the embargo with Cuba. Instead, presidents

importance of the Cuban-American lobby in policy discussions with Cuba. Not only did their efforts result in Congressional legislation that effectively ceded control of US relations with Cuba to Congress, but they also imposed the agenda of the electorate on American foreign policy. Subsequent to this legislation passing, the Cuban-American lobby would again work to have its voice heard when a young boy, Elian Gonzlez, was found floating in American waters, one of three survivors of an ill-fated voyage that claimed the lives of eleven people, including his mother. Under the Wet Foot, Dry Foot policy, Elian Gonzlez could not be granted asylum in the United States because he was found in water. While his family in the US was more than willing to take the boy in, his status as a minor complicated matters with his father remaining in Cuba. This placed the Clinton Administration in the middle of a highly contested debate that the Cuban-American electorate immediately moved to shape (Bardach, 2002). The Gonzlez case called into questions components of family law, immigration law, refugee policy, and politics, and presented the CubanAmerican electorate its greatest opportunity to embarrass the Castro government. For President Clinton, it presented a crisis that necessitated caution, and would ultimately entail a moral debate that stirred immense media coverage of the Cuba dilemma itself. Gonzlez's mother drowned in late 1999 while traveling with her son to the United States, and while the INS originally placed him with paternal family in Miami, his father objected to Gonzlez remaining in the United States (Bardach, 2002). What ensued was a media nightmare, with national media outlets descending on Miami to interview the boy. Local politicians became involved, with the case eventually being deliberated in court where the familys asy lum petition was dismissed and Gonzlez was ordered to return to his father. President Clinton almost exclusively deferred to Attorney General Janet Reno during the proceedings, who ultimately ordered the return of Gonzlez to his father prior to the court decision. Gonzlezs return to Cuba coincided with the beginning of yet another decade in which the Cuban trade embargo would continue, and to date is the last controversial event of US-Cuba policy during the Castro regime (Bardach, 2002). Reflecting upon the Castro reign during the 20th century, two themes emerge: the prominence of the Cuban-American
community, and the actions of US presidents towards Cuba.

The clout of the Cuban-American lobby

cannot be understated, as the 2000 presidential election showed us. President George W. Bush
secured his victory as president in no small part due to the Cuban-American vote, which he and Al Gore campaign vigorously for. As such, the Gore and Bush campaigns remained relatively silent on the Elian Gonzlez case, leaving the matter to the courts so as not to risk any backlash from
the Cuban-American community. After his victory, President Bush tightened restrictions on Cuba much like his Republican predecessors. He further restricted travel to the island for CubanAmericans, reduced the amount of remittances that could be sent to the island, placed Cuba on terror-watch lists after 9/11, and maintained that Cuba was a strategic threat to national security (Erlich, 2009). Further, cultural and academic exchanges were suspended, and many Cuban and American artists found themselves unable to attain visas to travel between Cuba and the United States to share the rich culture of both nations. By the time President Bush left office, the only Americans legally allowed to enter Cuba were journalists, family members (who could only go once every three years), and those visiting the island for religious reasons.

UnpopularOil
Cuba oil engagement is unopular
Voss 11
Michael Voss Cuban oil project fuels US anxieties November 15th, 2011. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america15737573) Cuba has long produced some oil from a series of small onshore and coastal deposits. Cuba already has a small domestic oil industry Tourists going from Havana to the beach resort of Varadero drive past several kilometres of nodding donkeys and the occasional Chinese or Canadian drilling rig. Cuba currently produces about 53,000 barrels of oil a day but still needs to import about 100,000 barrels, mainly from Venezuela. Its deep territorial waters, though, lie on the same geological strata as oil rich Mexico and the US Gulf. Estimates on just how much offshore oil Cuba is sitting on vary. A US Geological Survey estimate suggests 4.6bn barrels, the Cubans say 20bn. Even the most conservative estimate would make Cuba a net oil exporter. A large find would provide untold riches. It is one of the USbased anti-Castro lobby's worst nightmares. "The decaying Cuban regime is desperately reaching out for an economic lifeline, and it appears to have found a willing partner in Repsol to come to its rescue," Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the Cuban-born Republican and Chairwoman of the influential House Foreign Affairs Committee, said in a statement recently.

The Florida Congresswoman and a group of 33 other legislators, both Republican and Democrat, wrote to Repsol warning the company that the drilling could subject the company to "criminal and civil liability in US courts". Repsol responded saying that its exploratory
wells complied with all current US legislation covering the embargo as well as all safety regulations. If oil exploration goes well, Cuba could meet its energy needs and become a net exporter It has also agreed to allow US officials to conduct a safety inspection of the Chinese rig before it enters Cuban waters. Under the embargo it is limited to just 10% American technology. The rig was fitted in Singapore and the one piece of US equipment which was installed was the blow-out preventer. It was the failure of BP's blow-out preventer which was at the heart of that disaster. According to Lee Hunt, the Scarabeo 9 is a state of the art deep-water rig and there are six similar platforms built at the same Chinese shipyard currently operating in US waters. For the moment environmental concerns appear to be taking precedence over politics. The government will take up Repsol's offer to inspect Scarabeo 9 and a limited number of licences have been issued to US cleanup operators to enter Cuban waters and assist in the event of a spill. But the arguments are far from over as

environmentalists are pushing for greater co-operation while Cuban-American groups are looking at ways to place legal and legislative hurdles in the way.

UnpopularTerrorism List
Removing Cuba from the State Sponsors of Terrorism list has bipartisan opposition
Ros-Lehtenin 13
(Ileana, Congresswoman for FL-27, Bipartisan Congressional Group Asks Administration to Keep Cuba on State Sponsor of Terrorism List, April 29th, 2013, http://ros-lehtinen.house.gov/press-release/bipartisan-congressional-group-asks-administrationkeep-cuba-state-sponsor-terrorism, accessed 7/4/13) MB (WASHINGTON) A bipartisan group of Congressional Members (Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Mario DiazBalart, and Albio Sires) explained today in

a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry the reasons why Cuba should remain on the State Sponsors of Terrorism. Statement by Ros-Lehtinen: The Castro
regime must continue to be designated as a State Sponsor of Terrorism as it: supports and collaborates with Iran and Syria, fellow sponsors of terrorism; provides a safe haven for members of terrorist organizations such as the FARC and ETA; offers sanctuary for fugitives from the U.S. (such as cop killer Joanne Chesimard); unjustly holds a U.S. citizen hostage (Alan Gross); ordered the Brothers to the Rescue shootdown resulting in the deaths of U.S. citizens; and continues its active espionage networks that attempt to undermine U.S. interests and poses a risk to our national security. These are just a few example of why the Castro regime rightly deserves to be on the State Department terrorism list. Just last week, law enforcement officials indicted Marta Rita Velazquez, a former USAID employee who helped recruit convicted spy Ana Belen Montes, highlighting the real and present threat that the Castro regime poses to the United States.

UnpopularTravel Restrictions
Reducing travel restrictions toward Cuba would lead to political fights
New York Times November 12
(Easing of Restraints in Cuba Renews Debate on U.S. Embargo, November 19th, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/20/world/americas/changes-in-cuba-create-support-for-easing-embargo.html?pagewanted=all, accessed 7/3/13) MB In Washington, Mr. Gross is seen as the main impediment to an easing of the embargo, but there are also limits to what the president could do without Congressional action. The 1992 Cuban Democracy Act conditioned the waiving of sanctions on the introduction of democratic changes inside Cuba. The 1996 Helms-Burton Act also requires that the embargo remain until Cuba has a transitional or democratically elected government. Obama administration officials say they have not given up, and could move if the president decides to act on his own. Officials say that under the Treasury Departments licensing and regulation-writing authority, there is room for significant modification. Following the legal logic of Mr. Obamas changes in 2009, further expansions in travel are possible along with new allowances for investment or

imports and exports, especially if narrowly applied to Cuban businesses. Even these adjustments which could also include travel for all Americans and looser rules for ships engaged in trade with Cuba, according to a legal analysis commissioned by the Cuba Study Group would probably mean a fierce political fight. The handful of Cuban-Americans in Congress for whom the embargo is sacred oppose looser rules.

Easing travel restrictions empirically controversial

Sullivan 13 Mark P. Sullivan Specialist in Latin American Affairs, Congressional Research Service, 6/12/13, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R43024.pdf
In early April 2013, some Members of Congress strongly criticized singers Beyonc KnowlesCarter and her husband Shawn Carter, better known as Jay-Z, for traveling to Cuba. Members were concerned that the trip, as described

in the press, was primarily for tourism, which would be contrary to U.S. law and regulations. The Treasury Department stated that the two singers were participating in an authorized people-to-people
exchange trip organized by a group licensed by OFAC to conduct such trips (pursuant to 31 CFR 515.565(b)(2) of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations). Some Members also criticized the singers for not meeting with those who have been oppressed by the Cuban government. On April 30, 2013, 59 House Democrats sent a letter to

President Obama lauding the President for his 2009 action lifting restrictions on family travel and remittances, and for his 2011 action easing restrictions on some categories of travel, including people-to-people travel. The Members also called for the President to further use his executive authority
to allow all current categories of permissible travel, including people-to-people travel, to be carried out under a general license (instead of having to apply to Treasury Department for a specific license). Such an action, according to

the Members, would increase opportunities for engagement and help Cubans create more jobs and
opportunities to expand their independence from the Cuban government. Major arguments made for lifting the Cuba travel ban altogether are that it abridges the rights of ordinary Americans to travel; it hinders efforts to influence conditions in Cuba and may be aiding Castro by helping restrict the flow of information; and Americans can travel to other countries with communist or authoritarian governments. Major arguments in opposition to lifting the Cuba

travel ban are that more American travel would support Castros rule by providing his government with potentially millions of dollars in hard currency; that there are legal provisions allowing travel to Cuba for humanitarian purposes that are used by thousands of Americans each year; and that the President should be free to restrict travel for foreign policy reasons. In the 112th Congress, interest on the issue of Cuba travel and remittances continued. Legislation was introduced to roll back some of the easing of restrictions and some bills were introduced to further ease travel restrictions or lift them altogether, but ultimately none of the measures were enacted. To
date in the 113th Congress, several legislative initiatives again have been introduced that would lift all travel restrictions: H.R. 871 (Rangel) would lift travel restrictions; H.R. 873 (Rangel) would lift restrictions on U.S. agricultural exports as well as travel restrictions; and H.R. 214 (Serrano), H.R. 872 (Rangel), and H.R. 1917 (Rush) would lift the overall embargo on Cuba, including travel restrictions.

UnpopularAT XO
Even executive action on Cuba tanks Obamas PCbacklash and bureaucratic hurdles
LeoGrande 12public affairs professor @ American University
William, Fresh Start for a Stale Policy: Can Obama Break the Stalemate in U.S. -Cuban Relations? [http://www.american.edu/clals/upload/LeoGrande-Fresh-Start.pdf] December 18 //mtc Can Obama Break the Stalemate? Many of the same forces that prevented Obama

from a taking truly new approach to U.S.- Cuban relations during his first term will still be operative during his second. Seemingly more urgent issues will demand his time, pulling his attention away from Cuba. He will still face fierce congressional resistance to any Cuba

initiative , some from within his own party. Without pressure from above, the foreign policy bureaucracy, especially
the Department of State, will remain paralyzed by inertia and fear. And, for the time being, Alan Gross is still in prison. If Obama is going to finally keep the promise of his 2008 campaign to take a new direction in relations with Cuba, he will need to give the issue more sustained attention than he did in his first term. The damage being done to U.S. relations with Latin America because of U.S. intransigence on Cuba justifies moving Cuba higher up on the president's foreign policy agenda.

Only sustained attention from the White House and a willing secretary of state will be able to drive a new policy through a reluctant bureaucracy . Obama will also need to be willing to marshal his forces on Capitol Hill to confront those who have developed a vested interest in sustaining the policy of the past. Finally, the president will need the courage to take the
first step, proposing a humanitarian initiative that leads to the release of Alan Gross, thereby opening the way to a wide range of state-to-state cooperative agreements.

PopularGeneric
Economic engagement toward Cuba is becoming more popular
Politics Daily 10
(Ten Reasons to Lift the Cuba Embargo, August 24th, 2010, http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/24/ten-reasons-to-lift-the-cubaembargo/, accessed 7/3/13) MB This summer, that apparent thaw in Cuban-American relations accelerated dramatically. In June, the House

Agriculture Committee voted to reverse a decades-long ban on U.S. citizens traveling to Cuba and to ease restrictions on the sale of American commodities there. In July, two senators followed suit by announcing a bipartisan bill that would also facilitate travel to Cuba, which they claimed enjoyed two-thirds support in Congress. And last week, the White House
reportedly stepped into the fray again, with signals that the president would issue an executive order to further open existing travel opportunities for American students, teachers and researchers, possibly before Labor Day. For its part, Cuba released 52 of its 167 political prisoners in a July deal brokered by the Catholic Church, which many see as an important precursor for normalization of relations between the two countries.

PopularEmbargo
Bipart support for removing the embargo
Zimmerman 10
Chelsea A. "Rethinking The Cuban Trade Embargo: An Opportune Time To Mend a Broken Policy." Thepresidency.org. N.p., 2010. Web. 1 July 2013. <http://www.thepresidency.org/storage/documents/Fellows2010/Zimmerman.pdf>

Over the past several years a bipartisan consensus has been developing in Congress to lift the trade embargo with Cuba. In 2002 a group of senators forming the Congressional Cuban Working Group proposed legislation that would allow private financing of food and agricultural sales to Cuba. In May of 2004, a bipartisan group of legislators, including Senators Max Baucus and Diane Feinstein, introduced the Cuba
Sanctions Reform Act, which required that the Cuba trade embargo be subject to a periodic review and renewal procedure which, according to Senator Baucus, would not lift the embargobut would simply give Congress and the American people a say in the process (French, 39). While the bill was referred to various Congressional committees, the legislation ultimately did not receive consideration. In February of 2008 more than 100 House members signed a

letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urging a complete review of the embargo since the U.S. policy toward Cuba serves neither the U.S. national interest nor average Cubans, the intended beneficiaries of our policy (USA Engage). Pressure from the United Nations General Assembly, which has passed fifteen consecutive resolutions calling for the U.S. to end its trade embargo with Cuba, and the Organization of American States, which has voted by an overwhelming margin to lift the trade embargo against Cuba, has served as an added impetus for encouraging legislators to consider policy changes. In 2009 Representative Charles
Rangel of New York proposed legislation to lift the trade embargo ban on Cuba, to end the travel ban, and to establish an agricultural promotion program with respect to Cuba (H.R. 1530). Representative Jerry Moran sponsored legislation that would allow Cuba to send payments directly to U.S. banks rather than having payments routed through other countries (H.R. 1737). In May of 2009 Senator Baucus introduced legislation to ease the restrictions on the export of U.S. agricultural products to Cuba (S. 1089). Representative Bobby Rush introduced the United States-Cuba Trade Normalization Act of 2009, which would lift the trade embargo on Cuba as well as remove Cuba from the State Sponsors of Terrorism List (H.R. 2272). In the Senate, Cuban-American legislators like Senator Mel Martinez from Florida and Senator Bob Menendez from New Jersey historically have blocked such legislative efforts. However, in December of 2009 Congress passed an omnibus spending bill that included limited provisions enabling U.S. farmers and exporters to sell agricultural products to Cuba (USA Engage). Senator Richard Lugar, the ranking Republican member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, acknowledged in a report issued in early 2009 that the sanctions based policy has significantly impeded the United States ability to influence the direction of policy in Cuba or gain a broader understanding of events taking place on the island (Staff Trip Report to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the U.S. Senate).

***Mexico

UnpopularGeneric
Plan derails CIRperceived as giving up on security issues and the war on drugssupercharges opposition
Shear 13
Michael, In Latin America, U.S. Focus Shifts From Drug War to Economy [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/05/world/americas/in-latin-america-us-shifts-focus-from-drug-war-toeconomy.html?pagewanted=all] May 5 //mtc Last week, Mr. Obama returned to capitals in Latin America with a vastly different

message. Relationships with countries racked by drug violence and organized crime should focus more on economic development and less on the endless battles against drug traffickers and organized crime capos that have left few clear victors. The countries, Mexico in particular, need to set their
own course on security, with the United States playing more of a backing role.

That approach runs the risk

of being seen as kowtowing to governments more concerned about their public image than the underlying problems tarnishing it. Mexico, which is eager to play up its economic growth, has
mounted an aggressive effort to play down its crime problems, going as far as to encourage the news media to avoid certain slang words in reports. The problem will not just go away, said Michael Shifter, presid ent of the Inter-American Dialogue. It needs to be tackled head-on, with a comprehensive strategy that includes but goes beyond stimulating economic growth and alleviating poverty. Obama becomes vulnerable to the charge of downplaying the regions

overriding issue, and the chief obstacle to economic progress, he added. It is fine to change the
narrative from security to economics as long as the reality on the ground reflects and fits with the new story line. Administration officials insist that Mr. Obama remains cleareyed about the security challenges, but the new emphasis corresponds with a change in focus by the Mexican government. The new Mexican president, Enrique Pea Nieto, took office in December vowing to reduce the violence that exploded under the militarized approach to the drug war adopted by his predecessor, Felipe Caldern. That effort left about 60,000 Mexicans dead and appears not to have significantly damaged the drug-trafficking industry. In addition to a focus on reducing violence, which some critics have interpreted as taking a softer line on the drug gangs, Mr. Pea Nieto has also moved to reduce American involvement in law enforcement south of the border. With friction and mistrust between American and Mexican law enforcement agencies growing, Mr. Obama suggested that the United States would no longer seek to dominate the security agenda. It is obviously up to the Mexican people to determine their security structures and how it engages with other nations, including the United States, he said, standing next to Mr. Pea Nieto on Thursday in Mexico City. But the main point I made to the president is that we support the Mexican governments focus on reducing violence, and we look forward to continuing our good cooperation in any way that the Mexican government deems appropriate. In some ways, conceding leadership of the drug fight to

Mexico hews to a guiding principle of Mr. Obamas foreign policy, in which American supremacy is played down, at least publicly, in favor of a multilateral approach. But that philosophy could collide with the concerns of

lawmakers in Washington , who have expressed frustration with what they see as a
lack of clarity in Mexicos security plans. And security analysts say the entrenched corruption in Mexican law enforcement has long clouded the partnership with their American counterparts. Putting Mexico in the drivers seat on security marks a shift in a balance of power that has always tipped to the United States and, analysts said, will carry political risk as Congress negotiates an immigration bill that is expected to include provisions for tighter border security. If there is a perception in

the U.S. Congress that security cooperation is weakening, that could play into the hands of those who oppose immigration reform , said Vanda Felbab-Brown, a
counternarcotics expert at the Brookings Institution in Washington. Realistically, the border is as tight as could be and th ere have been few spillovers of the violence from Mexico into the U.S., she added, but perceptions count in Washington and can be easily distorted. Drugs today are not very important to the U.S. public over all, she added, but they are

important to committed drug warriors who are politically powerful.

UnpopularImmigration
Mexican immigration is controversialRepublicans and slow US economic recovery
ONeil 13senior fellow for Latin American studies @ CFR
Shannon, Mexico Makes It [http://www.cfr.org/mexico/mexico-makes/p30098] March/April //mtc For all these reasons, the United States should strengthen its relationship with its

neighbor, starting with immigration laws that support the binational individuals and communities that already exist in the United States
and encourage the legal immigration of Mexican workers and their families. U.S. President Barack Obama has promised to send such legislation to Congress, but a strong anti-immigrant wing within the Republican Party and

the slow U.S. economic recovery pose significant barriers to a comprehensive and far-reaching deal.

UnopopularOil
Plan costs PCempirics prove it wont make it out of congress alonenew controversies
Reuters 13
Washington stalling US-Mexico oil deal [http://www.thenews.com.mx/index.php/mexico-articulos/8983-washington-stalling-usmexico-oil-deal] April 30 //mtc Washington More than a year after the United States and Mexico signed a much-lauded deal that

would remove obstacles to expanding deepwater drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico, the agreement still has not been finalized by the United States. The delay, for which people close to the administration blame Congress while Republicans in Congress blame the administration, is certain to be discussed when President Barack Obama visits Mexican President Enrique Pea Nieto in Mexico City on Thursday. Mexico immediately ratified the pact in April 2012, but the United States has so far been unable to pass a simply worded, one-page law to put the agreement into force. The deal,
formally known as the Transboundary Hydrocarbons Agreement, provides legal guidelines for deepwater drilling in the 1.5 million acres (600,000 hectares) of the Gulf that straddle the U.S.-Mexico boundary. It is seen as the key to opening a new era of cooperation on oil production between the two countries. Mexicos state-owned oil company Pemex needs technology and investment to boost its stagnant production, and U.S. companies are eager to help. The U.S. has a real opportunity now to put energy back on the agenda with Mexico in a way that it really hasnt been able to be on the agenda f or the last several years, said Neil Brown, who worked on the issue during the last Congress as lead Republican international energy aide in the Senate. But the final step of implementing the deal has languished. Im not aware of strong opposition to it. I think its been a little more inertia, said Jason Bordoff, a top energy official at the White House until January who now runs Columbia Universitys Center on Global Energy Policy. In the past several weeks, there have been some signs that the implementing legislation may move forward, but there

also could be new

complications related to disclosure requirements. DEAL COULD OPEN THE DOOR Oil is critical
for the Mexican economy, paying for a third of the governments budget. But production peaked in 2004 at 3.4 million barrels per day and has slipped below 2.6 million bpd. Pemex says it can revive production with deepwater wells in the Gulf, but needs technical and financial help. The agreement would be the first step toward joint projects for reservoirs that cross the boundary, providing a way for Pemex and other oil companies to share production and creating a framework to solve disputes that could arise. Without the agreement, it creates a barrier to investment, said Erik Melito, a director at t he American Petroleum Institute, the oil industrys lobby group. The agreement could help calm Mexicos fears about what is termed the popote or drinking-straw effect fears that U.S. oil companies are going to drain reservoirs that extend into Mexicos side of the border, robbing Mexico of its share, said David Goldwyn, a former State Department official who helped launch negotiations. This has been an urban myth in Mexico for decades, said Goldwyn, now president of Goldwyn Global Strategies, a consulting firm. Pea Nieto is working toward reforms for Pemex that would allow for more production and cooperation in projects generally a delicate issue in a country where Pemex and oil are symbols of national pride. If they can see some success here (with the transboundary deal), thats going to change the political conversation in Mexico, Goldwyn said. To finalize the deal, Congress needs to pass legislation that gives the Interior Department the authority it needs to implement the technical aspects of the agreement. But in the Senate last year, dissension over an unrelated Law of the Sea treaty and the

heated politics

of the U.S. presidential election effectively

put the deal on

hold.

PopularMerida
Bipartisan support for Merida assistance
Seelke 13 Clare Ribando Seelke (Specialist in Latin American Affairs) Mexico and the 112th Congress January 29th, 2013. (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32724.pdf)
There appears to be strong support in both the Senate and House for maintaining U.S. support to Mexico provided through Mrida Initiative accounts. The Administrations FY2013 budget request asked for $234 million in Mrida assistance for Mexico: $199
million in the International Narcotics and Law Enforcement (INCLE) account and $35 million in the Economic Support Fund (ESF) account. The Senate Appropriations Committees version of the FY2013 foreign operations appropriations measure, S. 3241 (S.Rept. 112-172), would have met the request for INCLE and provided $10 million in additional ESF for economic development projects in the border region. S. 3241 included restrictions on aid to the Mexican military and police. The House Appropriations Committees version

of the bill, H.R. 5857 (H.Rept. 112-494), would have increased INCLE funding by $49 million to match the FY2012 enacted level for that account and met the request for ESF. In the absence of a final FY2013 foreign appropriations measure, Congress passed a continuing resolution, H.J.Res. 117, to fund most foreign aid programsincluding assistance to Mexicoat FY2012 levels plus 0.6%
through March 27, 2013.

***Venezuela

UnpopularGeneric
Venezuela engagement causes fights between Obama and Congress
Farnsworth 10
Eric, Now What? Elections and the Western Hemisphere [http://americasquarterly.org/node/1976] November 3 //mtc Tuesdays election results were not unexpected. The question now is what will they mean for U.S. policy in the Western Hemisphere. The outlines are already clear: expect a sharper tone across the board of Congressional

oversight and initiative toward the Administration in trying to impact policy. Here are a few
predictions for regional policy based on the midterm election results. The new chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee will be Ileana Ros-Lehtinen; the chair of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee will be Connie Mack. Together with newly-elected Senator Marco Rubio, this troika of Florida Republicans may well seek to reverse the Obama Administrations slow motion liberalization of Cuba policy. Expect also a harder line coming from

Congress toward Venezuela and the possible renewal of an effort to sanction Venezuela as a state sponsor of terror.
As well, Chairman-To-Be Ros-Lehtinen has earned strong pro-Israel credentials and is a strong supporter of Iran sanctions; further moves of Brazil or Venezuela toward Tehran could well prove to be a point of friction

between the Administration and Congress if the Administration is perceived as downplaying their significance.

Congressional opposition to engaging Maduro

Sullivan 13
Mark, Hugo Chvezs Death: Implications for Venezuela and U.S. Relations[http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42989.pdf] April 9 //mtc Some observers have criticized the Obama Administration for making overtures to engage with

Maduro, contending that U.S. policy should focus on attempting to ensure that the upcoming election is free and fair. A Washington Post editorial from early March 2013 contended that further wooing of Mr. Maduro should wait until he survives the scrum in his own party, wins a free vote and demonstrates that he is more than a Castro puppet.19 While it is likely that any improvement in relations will remain on hold during the election process,
some analysts maintain that it is important for U.S. policymakers to remember that taking sides in Venezuelas internal politics can be counter-productive. According to Cynthia Arnson of the Woodrow Wilson Center: Supporting broad principles such as internal dialogue to overcome polarization for the rule of law is not the same as promoting a particular political outcome, an approach that is destined to only backfire.20 Other analysts maintain that it is important for U.S. policymakers to recognize the level of popular support in Venezuela for President Chvez. While there was considerable controversy over past elections in which Chvezs campaign unfairly utilized state resources and broadcast media, the margins of his electoral victories in four elections over the years left no doubt that he had won those elections. His death, at least in the short to medium term, could deepen popular support for the PSUV. In the aftermath of the presidential election, there could be an opportunity for U.S.-Venezuelan relations to get back on track. An important aspect of this could be restoring ambassadors in order to augment engagement on critical bilateral issues, not only on anti-drug, terrorism, and democracy concerns, but on trade, investment issues, and other commercial matters. With Chvezs death and an

upcoming presidential election, the 113th Congress is likely to maintain its strong oversight on the status of human rights and democracy in Venezuela as well as drug trafficking and terrorism concerns, including the extent of Venezuelas relations with Iran.

Strong opposition to the planseen as appeasement

Oppenheimer 11
Andres, New Congress to push Obama on Latin America [http://www.newstimes.com/opinion/article/New-Congress-to-pushObama-on-Latin-America-964030.php] January 18 //mtc There is a consensus in Washington's foreign policy circles that the Congress that took office earlier this month after the GOP victory in the midterm election will

put pressure on the administration to

take a harder line on the authoritarian regimes of Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Cuba.
Key congressional committees have changed hands, and are now led by Republican

foreign policy hawks who have long criticized President Barack Obama for allegedly being too
soft on Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez and his allies in the region. In an interview last week, Rep. Ileana RosLehtinen of Miami, the new chairwoman of the House's powerful Committee on Foreign Affairs, told me that there will be

subcommittee hearings and investigations into issues such as Chavez's suspected aid to Middle Eastern terrorist groups and his links to Iran's secret nuclear weapons program. "It will be good for congressional subcommittees to start talking about Chavez, about (Bolivian President Evo) Morales, about issues that have not been talked about," she said. "We are going

to have a discussion about all of these issues." Ros-Lehtinen, who has scheduled a trip to Brazil, Argentina,
Colombia and Honduras in March, said that the House subcommittee on Western Hemisphere affairs is likely to hold hearings on whether to place Venezuela on the State Department's list of terrorist countries. The subcommittee's new chairman, Rep. Connie Mack of Florida, supports the idea. Ros-Lehtinen suggested to me that she doesn't, for practical reasons. The House is also likely to hold hearings on whether to impose economic sanctions on Venezuela's oil monopoly PDVSA and Venezuelan banks, she said. Won't these discussions be counterproductive, and give Chavez great ammunition to support his claims that he is a victim of the "U.S. empire," I asked her. "The United States must have principles. It's very nice to think that one can be friends of the entire world, but if we do that, we don't have principles," she said. She added that Chavez and his allies are going to blame the United States for everything anyway, regardless of what Washington does. Ros-Lehtinen will not be the only new powerful voice in Congress demanding a tougher

line on Venezuela. The new Republican chairmen of the House's Intelligence Committee and Judiciary Committee are also more likely to press for inquiries into Venezuela's ties with Iran and
terrorism, Republican foreign affairs analysts say. "They will start asking questions, and they will make a difference," says Roger Noriega, who was head of the State Department's Latin American affairs during the George W. Bush administration. "They will demand accountability from the administration, and that will bring about consequences."

Obama supporters concede that the new Congress is likely to have an impact on the administration's Latin America policy, but warn that it will be a negative one. "Ileana RosLehtinen has already said that she wants to cut the State Department budget and foreign assistance," said Jeffrey Davidow, who served as head of the State Department's Latin American affairs office during the
Clinton administration.

*****Internal Link Core

***Bipart

Bipart
Bipartisanship is key to the agenda
Rottinghaus and Tedin 11 Professors of Political Science
Brandon Rottinghaus, Professor of Political Science, and Kent L. Tedin, Professor of Political Science, 2011, Presidential Going Bipartisan, Opposition Reaction and the Consequences for Political Opinions, The Monkey Cage, http://www.themonkeycage.org/Going%20Bipartisan%20Final.pdf As candidate and chief executive, Barak Obama promised the American public that his interaction

with Congress would be one of accommodation and bipartisanship. Mr. Obama sought to build a
cordial relationship with Republicans by seeking guidance on policy proposals, asking for advice on appointments and hoping to avoid perceptions of political arrogance given the wide margins of his victory (Zeleny 2008). Lamenting that in the nations political debate, something is broken, the President sought to foster an image that he and his Administration were willing to listen to and work with Republicans in Congress (Fletcher 2010). His approach is not altogether surprising. First, the American public was tired of the partisan bickering and disappointed with the (alleged) efforts

at bipartisanship (Nagourney and TheeBrenan 2010). Second, bipartisanship is an electoral strategy that some politicians believe will broaden their appeal, and secure the support of middle-of-theroad or swing voters (Tubowitz and Mellow 2005, 433). Third, bipartisanship may help the president get his agenda passed into law, as some argue was the case in the 2010 lame duck Congress.

Bipartisanship is key to the agenda motivates the center

Rottinghaus and Tedin 11 Professors of Political Science
Brandon Rottinghaus, Professor of Political Science, and Kent L. Tedin, Professor of Political Science, 2011, Presidential Going Bipartisan, Opposition Reaction and the Consequences for Political Opinions, The Monkey Cage, http://www.themonkeycage.org/Going%20Bipartisan%20Final.pdf The implications from our findings suggest that discussion of bipartisanship is not an empty exercise.

Presidents can improve their own approval for all respondents when their message is viewed in isolation but the effect is much greater when paired with a bipartisan message from the opposition. This is especially true for Democrats who we would expect to support the President anyway, but is also notably true for Republicans. Yet, it takes two to be bipartisan. The opposition party can hurt the approval of the sitting
president if they reject bipartisan advances with a partisan response. In fact, Democrats and independents that see the President making overtures and being rejected in a bitterly partisan way are more likely to disapprove of the President. The response from the opposition matters as well. As the partisan messages from the House Minority Leader grow more partisan, Democrats ratings of the Republican Party go from very small to negative, not a surprise since these groups were predisposed to not favor the opposition party. On the other hand, as the response from Representative Boehner grew more partisan, Republicans grew more likely to favor the Republican Party. Although independents are not especially persuaded by bipartisan messages from either or both parties, they are certainly angered from the opposition party as

by partisan messages the evidence suggests that the aggressive partisan message from John Boehner significantly reduced support for the Republican Party.

Bipartisanship and dealmaking is key to the agenda.

Dickinson 10 Professor of Political Science
Matthew, professor of political science at Middlebury College and taught previously at Harvard University where he worked under the supervision of presidential scholar Richard Neustadt. Take Me To Your Leader!. September 29, 2010. http://blogs.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/2010/09/29/take-me-to-your-leader/ Friedmans argument is, to state it succinctly, complete nonsense. The reality is that the Framers designed

the American political system precisely to prevent a single leader from accomplishing any of the objectives he cites without the active cooperation of most other political actors and institutions. In our system of shared powers, no politician especially the President has the capability to fulfill these expectations alone. If change is to come, it requires the president to work closely with, and through, the majority party in Congress (and sometimes the minority party too), and to act within the latitude afforded by public opinion that is, it requires engaging in the dealmaking that Axelrod
so despises. Even then change is likely to occur haltingly, in incremental and not uncontroversial steps. The problem with columns like Friedmans with their call for leadership is that they contribute to the inflated expectations and inevitable disillusionment characteristic of Axelrods Washington experience. That disillusionment is rooted in wholl y unrealistic understanding about what a President can hope to accomplish. Now, the Obama administration is not blameless in fueling these expectations its senior members, including Axelrod, somewhat naively but sincerely believed, I am sure, that they

would bring genuine change and they did nothing to tamp down expectations in this regard when they took office. And, in important respects, they have brought substantive change. But all presidents, and their senior aides, take office overestimating their influence. It is partly a function of the inevitable political high that comes from overcoming extraordinary odds to win the presidency. Moreover, the current method of selecting presidents one that tends to treat executive inexperience and a lack of Washington ties as a virtue and their converse as a curse (see Hillary Clinton) often produces winners who initially think governing is much like campaigning. Inevitably reality sets in as they discover that their capacity

to bring change is highly contingent on the willingness of others to work with them. And that willingness comes with a hefty price tag. (This comes through most clearly in Obamas decision-making process in Afghanistan, as described in Woodwards latest book. Ill have more
to say about this in a future post, but Woodwards account lends credence to my earlier posts describing a president being led down the garden path by his generals.)

BipartPartisanship Spillsover
Partisanship spills over
Cohen 1 - Counselor at CSIS and Former Sec of Defense
William Cohen, Counselor at CSIS and Former Secretary of Defense, Washington Quarterly, Spring, Lexis. Finally, a more bipartisan approach to the formulation of national security policy specifically

can

only occur with a less partisan approach to political discourse generally.

Social and political observers alike have chronicled an absence of civility in the public sphere and increasing hostility in the political sphere. Debate too often gives way to diatribe, and practical problem-solving to rhetorical finger-pointing. At timessuch as the Desert Fox strikesthe enmity has become so intense that some openly question the motivations of the leaders on the opposite side of the aisle. At other timessuch as during the national debate on CTBTincendiary rhetoric is

used to inflame core constituencies, gain political advantage, or to humiliate or embarrass ones opponents. Such scorched earth tactics may be chauvinistically satisfying, but they only diminish the trust and respect among policymakers that is essential to responsible and reasonable compromise.

AT Bipart
Bipartisanship fails
Bai 9
Matt Bai, staff writer. Yes, More Mr. Nice Guy. NYT Magazine March 8, 2009. Ebsco Host Not quite seven weeks into Barack Obama's presidency, the capital's

leading thinkers seem to agree that the era of postpartisanship is over. Obama's team made little secret of their intention to win broad support for his stimulus plan -- an effort that yielded three Republican votes in the Senate and none in the House. The president's pick for the Commerce
Department, Senator Judd Gregg, a Republican from New Hampshire, turned down the job, citing his personal opposition to the bill. According to E. J. Dionne Jr. of The Washington Post, Obama himself, speaking to a group of columnists aboard Air Force One, suggested that in the future, he would approach Republicans with more wariness. ''You know, I am an eternal optimist,'' the president said. ''That doesn't mean I'm a sap.'' Such talk acted like a shot of adrenaline to the stilled hearts of liberal bloggers and columnists who had feared that Obama might squander a chance to stomp on his bewildered opposition. So much energy has been spent berating the idea of bipartisanship, in fact, that no one has stopped to ask what Obama means by it. As the political scientist James Morone recently pointed out on The Times's Op-Ed page, legislative bipartisanship, in

the sense of two-party unity behind a single agenda, has never really existed. The presidents we tend to immortalize hardly managed to transcend party politics; their greatness grew from their willingness to articulate arguments that were calibrated to be divisive. Franklin Roosevelt infuriated generations of conservatives who reviled his concept of expansive government.
Ronald Reagan's passionate counterargument made him an enduring enemy to the left.

Bipartisanship failsnot key to the agenda and weakens bills.

Sargent 10
Greg, the editor of Election Central, Talking Points Memo's politics and elections. Liberals were rig ht about futility of bipartisanship. May 17, 2010. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/05/the_liberals_were_right_about.html Liberals were right about futility of bipartisanship There's another fascinating revelation buried in The Promise, Jonathan Alter's new book on Obama's first year: Specifically, it

turns out key players on health care had decided early on that the quest for GOP support was futile -- yet they continued pursuing it anyway. Many on the left, of course, were loudly claiming at the time that Dems were falling into the
GOP's trap by continuing to chase bipartisan support for its own sake. But those making this argument were dismissed as unserious and unschooled in the real workings of Washington. Turns out, though, that this was a view shared inside the White House. Alter writes that top Obama aides concluded early that the pursuit for Chuck Grassley's

support in particular was not going to pay off. Senior Obama adviser Jim Messina, for instance, pleaded with Senator Max Baucus, who at the time was trying to cut an awesomely bipartisan deal with Senate Republicans, to forget about Grassley. Rahm Emanuel agreed with Messina that
Grassley was a non-starter. "They thought the president was wasting his time by having Grassley over to the White House half a dozen times," Alter writes. Harry Reid, too, had concluded early on that bipartisan support for health reform would never materialize -- but he let Baucus continue pursuing it, anway. "Harry Reid knew from long experience

with the opposition that there would be no `Kumbaya moment' when the Republicans would concede error and convert to support for comprehensive health care reform," Alter
writes. "But Reid was old-school and deferred to Baucus." As one White House aide condeded to Alter: "I wish we'd put our foot down harder and said, 'It's over, Max.'" These players, of course, have their own reasons for leaking this account now. But it seems feasible. After all, a five year old could see at the time that Senate Republicans were

playing for time, in order to drag the process on for as long as possible and sour the public on it. Depressing.

Efforts at bipart cause backlash, not support

Potter 9
Andrew Potter, Maclean's, March 23, 2009 - March 30, 2009, Bipartisan he's not, and that's a good thing, Lexis. Worse, the fetish for consensus is liable to be counterproductive, generating a political

culture that is more partisan and polarized. If your political opponent knows you are committed to a bipartisan splitting of the difference between his position and yours, the sensible strategy is for him to tack as far out into his ideological home waters as possible. This was the explicit

Republican strategy during the 1990s, when the party reacted to every Democratic initiative by staking out a position as far to the right as they could. This moved the political "centre" ever further to the right, toward which the triangulating Bill Clinton dutifully followed.

***PC Theory

PC TheoryTrue
Political capital theory is true newest data proves that presidents have significant legislative influence
-conventional wisdom underestimates political capital theory

Beckman 10 Professor of Political Science

Matthew N. Beckman, Professor of Political Science @ UC-Irvine, 2010, Pushing the Agenda: Presidential Leadership in U.S. Lawmaking, 1953-2004, pg. 2-3 Developing presidential coalition building as a generalizable class of strategies is itself instructive, a way of bringing clarity to presidential congressional dynamics that have previously appeared idiosyncratic, if not irrational. However, the

studys biggest payoff comes not from identifying presidents legislative strategies but rather from discerning their substantive effects. In realizing how presidents target congressional processes upstream
(how bills get to the oor, if they do) to inuence downstream policy outcomes (what passes or does not), we see that

standard tests of presidential inuence have missed most of it. Using original data and new analyses that account for the interrelationship between prevoting and voting stages of the legislative process, I nd that presidents legislative inuence is real, often substantial, and, to date, greatly underestimated.

Even if pundits exaggerate the presidents influence, it still is salient

Beckman 10 Professor of Political Science
Matthew N. Beckman, Professor of Political Science @ UC-Irvine, 2010, Pushing the Agenda: Presidential Leadership in U.S. Lawmaking, 1953-2004, pg. 17

Even though Washington correspondents surely overestimate a sitting president's potential sway in Congress, more than a kernel of truth remains. Modern presidents do enjoy tremendous persuasive assets: unmatched public visibility; unequaled professional staff, unrivaled historical prestige, unparalleled fundraising capacity. And buttressing these persuasive power sources are others, including a presidents considerable discretion over federal appointments, bureaucratic rules, legislative vetoes, and presidential trinkets.9 So even with their limitations duly noted, presidents clearly still enjoy an impressive bounty in the grist of political persuasion - one they can (and do) draw on to help build winning coalitions on Capitol Hill.

Political capital theory is true

-this evidence cites longitudinal statistical analysis -PC leads to deal-cutting, adds to presidential attractiveness and results in vote-switching

Beckman 10 Professor of Political Science

Matthew N. Beckman, Professor of Political Science @ UC-Irvine, 2010, Pushing the Agenda: Presidential Leadership in U.S. Lawmaking, 1953-2004, pg. 61-62 For cases where the president wants to lobby but has limited political capital to draw on (0 < C < C1), looking back, Figure 2.11 affirms the intuitive: the

president's legislative options are limited. Lacking enough capital to induce leaders to accept any sort of "deal" that is better than he could get from lobbying
pivotal voters, the president and his staffers' only viable strategy is the vote-centered one. But, of course, even executing the vote-centered strategy

does not yield much influence; the president simply does not have enough "juice" to substantially alter members' preferences or, in turn, the outcome. The president's prospects improve substantially, though, when he allocates even modest levels of political capital (C, < C < c,.) to lobbying for a particular initiative. At this point - specifically, at C1 _ an agenda-centered-strategy becomes viable. That is, with a medium investment of political capital, now the president has enough resources to get opposing leaders to cut a "deal" with the White House that is better than he could get from just lobbying pivotal voters. In fact, even with this rather modest infusion of
political capital, C, to 4, an agenda-centered lobbying strategy allows a president to exert even more influence than would be possible with a massive investment (up to Gj) in voce-centered lobbying. And granting the president even more political

capital to invest in an issue (c,. < C) only adds to an agenda-centered strategy's attractiveness and effectiveness compared to the more familiar vote-centered strategy. Overall, the predicted impact of the

president's agenda-centered lobbying is real, and potentially substantial, but also highly conditional. In contrast to a vote-centered strategy, which can be employed whenever a president is willing and able to
invest lobbying resources in advocating an issue, the White House's agenda-centered strategy only applies with (I) a far-off status quo, and (2) a medium to large supply of political capital. Absent these prerequisites, the president's fate turns on pivotal voters and his ability to influence them via vote- centered lobbying. But often these strategic stars do align that is, the president is flush with political capital when seeking to change a distant status quo - and when they do, an agenda-centered strat- egy affords presidents not just a second path for exerting influence but also a better path. Indeed, under these favorable conditions, the president gets far more policy bang for his

lobbying buck from an agenda-centered strategy than a vote-centered one - without having to prevail in an all-out floor
fight for pivotal voters' support.

Academic studies go our way

Schier 9
Professor of Political Science at Carleton, (Steven, "Understanding the Obama Presidency," The Forum: Vol. 7: Iss. 1, Berkely Electronic Press, http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol7/iss1/art10) In additional to formal powers, a presidents informal power is situationally derived and highly variable. Informal power is

a function of the political capital presidents amass and deplete as they operate in office. Paul Light defines several components of political capital: party support of the president in
Congress, public approval of the presidential conduct of his job, the Presidents electoral margin and patronage appointments (Light 1983, 15). Richard Neustadts concept of a presidents professional reputation likewise

figures into his political capital. Neustadt defines this as the impressions in the Washington community about the
skill and will with which he puts [his formal powers] to use (Neustadt 1990, 185). In the wake of 9/11, George W. Bushs political capital surged, and both the public and Washington elites granted him a broad ability to prosecute the war on terror. By the later stages of Bushs troubled second term, beset by a lengthy and unpopular occupation of Iraq and an aggressive Democratic Congress, he found that his political capital had shrunk. Obamas informal powers will prove

variable, not stable, as is always the case for presidents. Nevertheless, he entered office with a formidable
store of political capital. His solid electoral victory means he initially will receive high public support and strong backing from fellow Congressional partisans, a combination that will allow him much leeway in his presidential appointments and with his policy agenda. Obama probably enjoys the prospect of a happier honeymoon during his first year than did George W. Bush, who entered office amidst continuing controversy over the 2000 election outcome. Presidents usually

employ power to disrupt the political order they inherit in order to reshape it according to their own agendas. Stephen Skowronek argues that presidents disrupt systems, reshape political landscapes, and pass to successors leadership challenges that are different from the ones just faced (Skowronek 1997, 6). Given their limited time in office and the hostile political alignments often present in Washington policymaking networks and among the electorate, presidents must force political

change if they are to enact their agendas. In recent decades, Washington power structures have become
more entrenched and elaborate (Drucker 1995) while presidential powers through increased use of executive orders and legislative delegation (Howell 2003) have also grown. The presidency has more powers in the early 21st century but also faces

more entrenched coalitions of interests, lawmakers, and bureaucrats whose agendas often differ from that of the president. This is an invitation for an energetic president and that seems to describe Barack Obama to engage in major ongoing battles to impose

his preferences .

PC TheoryTrueAT Beckman and Kumar

Political capital theory is true modern presidents have unique capabilities its finite
-and PC finite

Beckmann and Kumar 11

Matt, Professor of Political Science, and Vimal, How presidents push, when presidents win: A model of positive presidential power in US lawmaking, Journal of Theoretical Politics 2011 23: 3 Fortunately for contemporary presidents, todays White House affords its occupants an

unrivaled supply of persuasive carrots and sticks. Beyond the ofces unique visibility and prestige, among both citizens and their representatives in Congress, presidents may also sway lawmakers by
using their discretion in budgeting and/or rulemaking, unique fundraising and campaigning capacity, control over executive and judicial nominations, veto power, or numerous other options under the chief executives control. Plainly, when it

comes to the arm-twisting, brow-beating, and horse-trading that so often characterizes legislative battles, modern presidents are uniquely well equipped for the ght In the following we employ the
omnibus concept of presidential political capital to capture this conception of presidents positive power a s persuasive bargaining. 1 Speci cally, we dene presidents political capital as the class of tactics White House ofcials employ to induce changes in lawmakers behavior. 2 Importantly, this conception of presidents positive power as persuasive bargain ing not only meshes with previous scholarship on lobbying (see, e.g., Austen-Smith and Wright (1994), Groseclose and Snyder (1996), Krehbiel (1998: ch. 7), and Snyder (1991)), but also presidential practice. 3 For example, Goodwin recounts how President Lyndon Johnson routinely allocated rewards to cooperative members: The rewards themselves (and the withholding of rewards) . . . might be something as unobtrusive as receiving an invitation to join the President in a walk around the White House grounds, knowing that pictures of the event would be sent to hometown newspapers . . . [or something as pointed as] public works projects, military bases, educational research grants, poverty projects, appointments of local men to national commissions, the granting of pardons, and more. (Goodwin, 1991: 237) Of course, presidential

political capital is a scarce commodity with a oating value. Even a favorably situated president enjoys only a nite supply of political capital; he can only promise or pressure so much. What is more, this capital ebbs and ows as realities and/or perceptions change. So, similarly to Edwards
(1989), we believe presidents bargaining resources cannot fundamentally alter legislators predispositions, but rather opera te at the margins of US lawmaking, however important those margins may be (see also Bond and Fleisher (1990), Peterson (1990), Kingdon (1989), Jones (1994), and Rudalevige (2002)). Indeed, our aim is to explicate those margins and show how presidents may systematically inuence them.

PC TheoryTrueAT Dickinson
Dickinson votes negtheir ev is from a blog post and explicity about supreme court nominationswell cite his peer reviewed study
Dickinson 9
(Matthew, professor of political science at Middlebury College. He taught previously at Harvard University, where he also received his Ph.D., working under the supervision of presidential scholar Richard Neustadt, We All Want a Revolution: Neustadt, New Institutionalism, and the Future of Presidency Research, Presidential Studies Quarterly 39 no4 736-70 D 2009) Small wonder, then, that initial efforts to find evidence of presidential power centered on explaining legislative outcomes in Congress. Because scholars found it difficult to directly and systematically measure presidential influence or "skill," however, they often tried to estimate it indirectly, after first establishing a baseline model that explained these outcomes on other factors, including party strength in Congress, members of Congress's ideology, the president's electoral support and/or popular approval, and various control variables related to time in office and political and economic context. With the baseline established, one could then presumably see how much of the unexplained variance might be attributed to presidents, and whether individual presidents did better or worse than the model predicted. Despite differences in modeling assumptions and measurements, however, these studies came to remarkably similar conclusions: individual presidents did not seem to matter very much in explaining legislators' voting behavior or lawmaking outcomes (but see Lockerbie and Borrelli 1989, 97-106). As Richard Fleisher, Jon Bond, and B. Dan Wood summarized, "[S]tudies that compare presidential success to some baseline fail to find evidence that perceptions of skill have systematic effects" (2008, 197; see also Bond, Fleisher, and Krutz 1996, 127; Edwards 1989, 212). To some scholars, these results indicate that Neustadt's "president-

centered" perspective is incorrect (Bond and Fleisher 1990, 221-23). In fact, the aggregate results reinforce
Neustadt's recurring refrain that presidents are weak and that, when dealing with Congress, a president's power is "comparably limited" (Neustadt 1990, 184).

The misinterpretation of the findings

as they relate to PP

stems in part from scholars' difficulty in defining and operationalizing presidential influence
(Cameron 2000b; Dietz 2002, 105-6; Edwards 2000, 12; Shull and Shaw 1999). But it is also that case that scholars often misconstrue Neustadt's analytic perspective; his description of what presidents must do to influence policy making does not mean that he believes presidents are the dominant influence on that process. Neustadt writes from the president's perspective, but without adopting a president-centered explanation of power. Nonetheless, if Neustadt clearly recognizes that a president's influence in Congress is exercised mostly, as George Edwards (1989) puts it, "at the margins," his case studies in PP also suggest that, within this limited bound, presidents do strive to influence legislative outcomes. But how? Scholars often argue that a president's most direct means of influence is to directly lobby certain

members of Congress, often through quid pro quo exchanges, at critical junctures during the lawmaking sequence. Spatial models of legislative voting suggest that these lobbying efforts are most effective when presidents target the median, veto, and filibuster "pivots" within Congress. This logic finds empirical support in vote-switching studies that indicate that presidents do direct lobbying efforts at these pivotal voters, and with positive legislative results. Keith Krehbiel analyzes successive votes by legislators in the context of a presidential veto and finds "modest support for the sometimes doubted stylized fact of presidential power as persuasion" (1998,153-54). Similarly, David Brady and Craig Volden look at vote switching by members of Congress in successive Congresses on nearly identical legislation and also conclude that presidents do influence the votes of at least some legislators (1998, 125-36).
In his study of presidential lobbying on key votes on important domestic legislation during the 83rd (1953-54) through 108th (2003-04) Congresses, Matthew Beckman shows that in addition to these pivotal voters, presidents also lobby leaders in both congressional parties in order to control what legislative alternatives make it onto the congressional agenda (more on this later). These lobbying efforts are correlated with a greater likelihood that a president's legislative preferences will come to a vote (Beckmann 2008, n.d.). In one of the most concerted efforts to model how bargaining takes place at the individual level, Terry Sullivan examines presidential archives containing administrative headcounts to identify instances in which members of Congress switched positions during legislative debate, from initially opposing the president to supporting him in the final roll call (Sullivan 1988,1990,1991). Sullivan shows that in a bargaining game with incomplete information regarding the preferences of the president and members of Congress, there are a number of possible bargaining outcomes for a given distribution of legislative and presidential policy preferences. These outcomes depend in part on legislators' success in bartering their
potential support for the president's policy for additional concessions from the president. In threatening to withhold support, however, members of Congress run the risk that the president will call their bluff and turn elsewhere for the necessary votes. By capitalizing on members' uncertainty regarding whether

their support is necessary to form a winning coalition, Sullivan theorizes that presidents can reduce members of Congress's penchant for strategic bluffing and increase the likelihood of a legislative outcome closer to the president's preference. "Hence, the skill to bargain successfully becomes a foundation for presidential power even

within the context of electorally determined opportunities," Sullivan concludes (1991, 1188).

Most of these studies infer presidential influence, rather than measuring it directly (Bond, Fleisher, and Krutz 1996,128-29; see also Edwards 1991). Interestingly, however, although the vote "buying" approach is certainly consistent with Neustadt's bargaining model, none of his case studies in PP show presidents employing this tactic. The reason may be that Neustadt concentrates his analysis on the strategic level: "Strategically the question is not how he masters Congress in a peculiar instance, but what he does to boost his mastery in any instance" (Neustadt 1990, 4). For Neustadt, whether a

president's lobbying efforts bear fruit in any particular circumstance depends in large part on the broader pattern created by a president's prior actions when dealing with members of Congress (and "Washingtonians" more generally). These previous interactions determine a president's professional reputation--the "residual impressions of [a president's] tenacity and skill" that accumulate in Washingtonians' minds, helping to "heighten or diminish" a president's bargaining advantages. "Reputation, of itself, does not persuade, but it can make persuasions easier, or harder, or impossible" (Neustadt 1990, 54).

PC TheoryTrueAT Hirsch
Hirsh concedes political capital matters
Hirsh 13
Michael, chief correspondent, Theres No Such Thing as Political Capital, 2/7/13, http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/the re-sno-such-thing-as-political-capital-20130207

The point is not that political capital is a meaningless term . Often it is a synonym for mandate or momentum in the aftermath of a decisive electionand just about every politician ever elected has tried to claim more of a mandate than he actually has. Certainly, Obama can say that because he was elected and Romney wasnt, he has a better claim on the countrys mood and direction. Many pundits still defend political capital as a
useful metaphor at least. Its an unquantifiable but meaningful concept , says Norman Ornstein of
the American Enterprise Institute. You cant really look at a president and say hes got 37 ounces of political capital. But the fact is, its

a concept that matters , if you have popularity and some momentum on your

side.

Hirshs central point is that PC isnt objectively measurable, but it still exists and is key to immigration Obama has to make behind the scenes deals to succeed on his specific provisions
Bernstein 1-28 - Assistant Professor of Political Science at UTSA
Jonathan Bernstein, On immigration, Obama should opt for a persuasive vagueness, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post partisan/wp/2013/01/28/on-immigration-obama-should-opt-for-a-persuasive-vagueness/ Ezra Klein made an excellent point about Barack Obama and immigration reform today: Republicans

will fight most anything Obama proposesThis is a frustrating fact of life for the Obama administration
and perhaps even a sick commentary on how our political system works but it is, nevertheless, a fact: Their involvement polarizes issues. And its not unique to them: Presidential involvement in general polarizes issues. By staying out, at least for now, the Obama administration is making it easier for Republicans to stay in. The political scientist Richard Neustadt said that the

power of the presidency really just meant the power to persuade . But by that he didnt really persuade by bargaining by capitalizing on all the things presidents can do to convince others that they should do what the president wants them to do. In this instance, if Klein is correct and Im pretty sure he is the way for Obama to persuade is to be as vague about the new bipartisan Senate proposal as he can, at least in public. At the same time, the White House may need to push for specific provisions
mean winning debate-style arguments. Yes, that can happen, but usually presidents

behind the scenes . And the dance is probably more complicated than that, because its not just presidents who
polarize, after all. A full-throated

embrace of the bipartisan deal by the usual suspect liberal groups could easy scare off Republican support; on the other hand, if they oppose the deal, it could make it hard for
mainstream liberals to support it. Assuming that the administration both wants the bipartisan package to be the basis for a bill that passes but that the president also has preferences on details that are up for grabs he may have strong preferences on how liberal groups react. And yet the president cannot force them to do what he wants; he can only,

persuade them. In doing so, he may call upon whatever trust they have in their past history together, or he may be bargaining with them. After all, each group involved has other things they want from the Obama Administration. All of which is only to say that the correct steps for the
yes, president are usually difficult to find. The president needs the cooperation of all sorts of people (not just Members of Congress) who dont have to do what he wants; then again, no one else in the American political system

has

more potential ways to influence (persuade) others. And from the outside , not only is it sometimes hard to know what the president should be doing to persuade but its not even always
obvious who needs persuading (Members of Congress? Which ones? Interest groups? Again, which ones? Parts of the bureaucracy?).

PC TheoryTrueAT Klein
Klein is wrongempirics prove PC and deal making matters
Mandel 12
Seth, Lessons of Presidential Persuasion: Be the Commander-In-Chief [http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/03/23/presidential-persuasion-commander-in-chief-obama-reagan-clinton/] March 23 I finally got around to reading Ezra Kleins interesting take on what I consider to be a fascinating subject: the power

of presidents to persuade the public. Kleins piece, in the March 19 New Yorker, takes a dim view of the practical uses of presidential rhetoric, using mostly presidents Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush,
and Barack Obama as case studies. Reagan, Klein notes, was considered to be a great communicator (or, as he is remembered, the Great Communicator), yet his approval ratings were average and many of his primary policy prescriptions never caught on with the public. Overall, he writes, the same is true of Clinton, Bush, and Obama. Bush was unable to convince the country to accept social security reform, and Obama has been unable to sell additional fiscal stimulus and most notably his health care reform law, which remains broadly unpopular. The overestimation of the power of the bully pulpit, he finds, is more likely to harm a presidents domestic policy agenda than advance it. But I think the key word there is domestic. Switch the subject to foreign policy, and the power is somewhat restored. Bush may not have been able to sell Social Security reform, but it would be difficult to conjure a more memorable scene from Bushs eight years in office than hi s speech atop the fire truck at Ground Zero after the Sept. 11 terror attacks. It was and remainsboth moving and inspiring to hear the president emerge brilliantly from the shell of his tendency toward the folksy, and sometimes awkward, when adlibbing, at that scene. It all could have gone very differently, since the bullhorn he was using worked only intermittently, and the crowd began losing patience. Yet, as they shouted that they couldnt hear him, Bush remained calm, steady, and delivered a fine moment when he responded, I can hear you. I can hear you, the rest of the world hears you, and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon. Reagans most famous line, obviously, was Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall. It is what he is remembered for as wellnot just the words, but the sentiment, and the political risk involved. Very few conversations about Reagan center on what he said before or after his first-term tax deal with the Democrats. Its fitting, because though presidential elections usually turn on the economy, the chief executive has more influence on foreign affairs. This is no different for Obama. After Obama announced a troop surge in Afghanistan in December 2009, polls showed a 9-percent jump in Americans who thought staying in Afghanistan was the right course of action, and a 6-percent drop in those who opposed the war. Americans favored the speech itself by a 23-point margin. And the president saw a 7-point jump in public approval of his handling of the war. None of this is out of the ordinary. When I interviewed James Robbins about his book on Vietnam, This Time We Win, he argued that polls at the time showed Lyndon Johnson to have more support for the war effortespecially its escalationthan most people think in retrospect. According to opinion polls at the time taken directly after Tet and a few weeks after Tet, the American people wanted to escalate the war, Robbins told me. They understand that the enemy had suffered a terrible defeat, so there was an opportunity if we had taken concerted action to actually win this thing. Even on college campuses, he said, more people identified as hawks than doves: The notion that young people were long-haired dope smoking draft resisters in 1967-68 is not true. The Forrest Gump view of history is wrong. If you expand the category to national security in general, Clinton gets a boost as well . This one is more difficult to measure than support for a war, but leading up the Oklahoma City bombing, Clinton had been marginalized to such a degree by Newt Gingrichs masterful ability to control the narrative that Clinton offered his much mocked plea at a briefing: The president is still relevant here. The bombing happened the next day, and Clintons ability to project empathy and his portrayal of opposition to his presidency as right-wing anti-government excess partly to blame for any dark mood in which someone bombs a federal building completely changed the pace and tone of the coverage of his presidency. Speeches delivered in the service of selling a tax increase or even solving a debt-ceiling showdown are often treated as the president taking his eye off the ball. The president as commander-in-chief, however, is a role for which voters consistently express their support. I want to offer Klein one more note of optimism. He writes: Back-

room bargains and quiet negotiations do not, however, present an inspiring vision of the Presidency. And they fail, too. Boehner and Obama spent much of last summer sitting in a room together, but, ultimately,
the Speaker didnt make a private deal with the President for the same reason that Republican legislators dont swoon over a public speech by him: he is the leader of the Democratic Party, and if he wins they lose. This suggests that, as the two parties become more sharply divided, it may become increasingly difficult for a President to govern and theres little that he can do about it. I disagree. The details of the deal matter, not just the party lines about the dispute.

There is no way the backroom negotiations Clinton conducted with Gingrich over social security reform could have been possible if we had prime ministers, instead of presidents. The president possesses political capital Congress doesnt. History tells us there

are effective ways to use that capital . One lesson: quiet action on domestic policy, visible and audible
leadership on national security.

PC TheoryFinite
Capital is finite
Francis 9
Theo Francis, writer for Business Week, 3-19- 2009, Team Obama Runs the Offense http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/mar2009/db20090313_686911.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index++temp_news+%2B+analysis Economics aside, Obama's political strategy is becoming clear: Seize the opportunity that the crisis, and his high popularity, offers him, and

tackle multiple fronts both to accomplish as much as possible as quickly as possible, and to keep opponents off balance. "Their theory is that popularity is a very perishable commodity, and indeed it is," says Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics. "That is especially true for Presidential popularity in crisis modeuse it or lose it. It can't be conserved."

Political capital is not renewable missteps like the plan will undermine Obama
Ryan, 9 Former Director of the Sir Arthur Lewis Institute of Social and Economic Studies
(Selwyn, Obama and Political Capital, 1/18/2009, www.trinidadexpress.com/index.pl/article_opinion?id=161426968) Obama will, however, begin his stint with a vast accumulation of political capital, perhaps

more than that held by any other modern leader. Seventy-eight per cent of Americans polled believe that his inauguration is one of the most historic the country will witness. Political capital is, however, a lumpy and fast diminishing asset in today's world of instant communication, which once misspent, is rarely ever renewable. The world is full of political leaders like George Bush and Tony Blair who had visions, promised a lot, and probably meant well, but who did not know how to husband the political capital with which they were provided as they assumed office. They squandered it as quickly as they emptied the contents of the public vaults. Many will be watching to see how Obama manages his assets and liabilities register. Watching with hope would be the white young lady who waved a placard in Obama's
face inscribed with the plaintive words, "I Trust You."

PC TheoryAT No Spillover
Issues spillover horse-trading occurs on unrelated issues
Beckman 10 Professor of Political Science
Matthew N. Beckman, Professor of Political Science @ UC-Irvine, 2010, Pushing the Agenda: Presidential Leadership i n U.S. Lawmaking, 1953-2004, pg. 59 This key point about agenda-centered lobbying leads to the final insight: because the president seeks a "deal" that is worse for leading opponents than what they could get by challenging him, the

administration must compensate these leading opponents to offset the difference. This "horse-trading" can be on exogenous issues - for example, a different bill, an executive or judicial nomination, or some other executive-controlled offering - but often occurs within the confines of the same bill. Typically, the president's
part of the logroll is included as the bill's first title, leading opponents' part as its second.

AT PC TheoryFalseBeckman and Kumar

Political capital isnt key
-tons of other factors are comparatively more important

Beckmann and Kumar 11

Matt, Professor of Political Science, and Vimal, How presidents push, when presidents win: A model of positive presidential power in US lawmaking, Journal of Theoretical Politics 2011 23: 3 For political scientists, however, the resources allocated to formulating and implementing the White Houses lobbying offensive appear puzzling, if not altogether misguided. Far from highlighting each presidents capacity to

marshal legislative proposals through Congress, the prevailing wisdom now stresses contextual factors as predetermining his agendas fate on Capitol Hill. From the particular political time in which they happen to take ofce (Skowronek, 1993) to the state of the budget (Brady and Volden, 1998; Peterson, 1990), the partisan composition of Congress (Bond and Fleisher, 1990; Edwards, 1989) (see also Gilmour (1995), Groseclose and McCarty (2001), and Sinclair (2006)) to the preferences of specic pivotal voters (Brady and Volden, 1998; Krehbie, l998), current research suggests a presidents congressional fortunes are basically beyond his control. The implication is straightforward, as Bond and Fleisher indicate: presidential success is determined in large measure by the results of the last election. If the last election brings individuals to Congress whose local interests and preferences coincide with the presidents, then he will enjoy greater success. If, on the other hand, most members of Congress have preferences different from the presidents, then he will suffer more defeats, and no amount of bargaining and persuasion can do much to improve his success. (Bond and Fleisher, 1990: 13

AT PC TheoryFalseDickinson
Political capital not key to the agenda
-their evidence misuses the term -ideological and partisan leanings outweigh

Dickinson 9 Professor of Political Science

Matthew, professor of political science at Middlebury College and taught previously at Harvard University where he worked under the supervision of presidential scholar Richard Neustadt, 5-26-2009, Presidential Power: A NonPartisan Analysis of Presidential Politics, Sotomayor, Obama and Presidential Power, http://blogs.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/2009/05/26/sotamayor-obama-andpresidential-power/ As for Sotomayor, from here the path toward almost certain confirmation goes as follows: the Senate Judiciary Committee is slated to hold hearings sometime this summer (this involves both written depositions and of course open hearings), which should lead to formal Senate approval before Congress adjourns 1for its summer recess in early August. So Sotomayor will likely take her seat in time for the start of the new Court session on October 5. (I talk briefly about the likely politics of the nomination process below). What is of more interest to me, however, is what her selection reveals about the basis of presidential power. Political scientists, like baseball writers evaluating hitters, have devised numerous

means of measuring a presidents influence in Congress. I will devote a separate post to discussing these, but in brief, they often center on the creation of legislative box scores designed to measure how many times a presidents preferred piece of legislation, or nominee to the executive branch or the courts, is approved by Congress. That is, how many pieces of legislation that
the president supports actually pass Congress? How often do members of Congress vote with the pres idents preferences? How often is a presidents policy position supported by roll call outcomes? These measures,

however, are a misleading gauge of presidential power they are a better indicator of congressional power. This is because how members of Congress vote on a nominee or legislative item is rarely influenced by anything a president does. Although journalists (and political scientists) often focus on the legislative endgame to gauge presidential influence will the President swing enough votes to get his preferred legislation enacted? this mistakes an outcome with actual evidence of presidential influence. Once we control for other factors a member of Congress ideological and partisan leanings, the political leanings of her constituency, whether shes up for reelection or not we can usually predict how she will vote without needing to know much of anything about what the president wants. (I am ignoring the importance of a presidents veto power for the moment.) Despite the much publicized and celebrated instances of presidential arm-twisting during the legislative endgame, then, most legislative outcomes dont depend on presidential lobbying. But this is not to say that presidents lack
influence. Instead, the primary means by which presidents influence what Congress does is through their ability to determine the alternatives from which Congress must choose. That is, presidential power is largely an exercise in

agenda-setting not arm-twisting.

And we see this in the Sotomayer nomination. Barring a major scandal, she will almost certainly be confirmed to the Supreme Court whether Obama spends the confirmation hearings calling every Senator or instead spends the next few weeks ignoring the Senate debate in order to play Halo III on his Xbox.

Political capital isnt key to the agenda voter preferences are resilient and unrelated to presidential pushes
Dickinson 11 Professor of Political Science
Matthew, professor of political science at Middlebury College and taught previously at Harvard University where he worked under the supervision of presidential scholar Richard Neustadt, 3-21-2011, Friedman Weighs In On the Passionless President But Is He Right?, http://blogs.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/2011/03/21/friedman -weighs-in-on-the-passive-president-but-is-he-right/ Friedmans complaint regarding Obamas passive leadership approach is not original I noted in my previous posts that it has become a recurring leitmotif among pundits, particularly those, like Friedman, who write generally from the Left. However, the idea that presidents can sell their policy to Congress by leveraging public

opinion is one that has little-to-no empirical support among political scientists. Its not for lack of trying: a number of scholars have sought to establish a link between a presidents public standing and their effectiveness in getting legislation through Congress. More than three decades
ago Sam Kernell, in his book Going Public, made the most cogent theoretical case for the idea that presidents can rally public opinion on behalf of their legislative program. Alas, Kernell rested much of his argument on Ronald Reagans presidency particularly Reagans success in getting Congress, including a Democratically-controlled House, to pass his 1981 package of tax and spending cuts. Upon closer inspection, however, it turns out that Reagans success in getting that legislation passed

depended as much if not more on old-fashioned horse-trading with key members of Congress, rather than any speechmaking by the President. With hindsight, it appears that Kernell was much more effective at documenting changes in presidents communication strategies than he was in showing that those changes had any impact on their legislative success. Subsequent

research has found that presidents efforts to go public on behalf of their legislative program are only marginally successful and then under only the most stringent conditions. Indeed, most political scientists view the idea that presidents can go on national television to rally support for their legislation very much outdated (something Kernell acknowledges in the latest edition of
his classic text). In an era in which the media has increasingly fragmented into smaller and more opinionated news outlets (think of the change in your lifetime from the three major evening news broadcasts to the dozens of cable news programs), presidents are more likely to bypass national news media outlets altogether, and instead adopt a strategy of going local by targeting local newspapers and television stations. However, the initial studies of this change in tactics suggest it too

has proved to be of distinctly limited effectiveness. As a case in point, one need only recall George W.
Bushs ultimately fruitless effort to barnstorm through 60 cities on behalf of social security reform in 2005. In his memoirs, Bush recalls laying out his going local strategy with Republican congressional leaders. The response? If you lead, well b e behind youbut well be way behind you. And so they were. Despite giving speeches, convening town halls, and even holding an event with my favorite Social Security beneficiary, Mother Bushs legislation went nowhere in a Republican controlled Congress. Upon consideration, it is easy to see why, and to identify the weaknesses in Friedmans reasoning more generally. First, the going public/local thesis presumes that presidents can affect their popular

approval as measured, for example, by Gallup polls. But as Obama is discovering, this is not the case.
Many pundits were convinced that his presidency had reached a turning point when the lame-duck 111th Congress passed several pieces of legislation shortly after the 2010 midterms. In faact, as this chart shows, after a brief bump up in approval, his ratings have dropped down again closer to what they were prior to the midterms. As I noted in an earlier post, they arent likely to go much higher than this, barring a significant uptick in the economy, until the 2012 presidential campaign is well underway, and voters began evaluating him in comparison to a single Republican opponent. At that point I expect to see his approval ratings begin to climb. (Interestingly, approval numbers for Congress have also begun to recede Ill deal with that in a separate post.) Second, Friedman assumes those approval ratings are fungible, that is, that they can be

converted into a currency of exchange acceptable to members of Congress. From this perspective, a popular presidency has surplus cash in the bank with which to buy congressional support. But members of Congress dont really care what the presidents national poll numbers are they are only interested in what their smaller geographic-based constituency in their state or House district thinks about the presidents stance on any particular issue. And in most cases most of the time, most of the constituents arent paying attention, or have no strong opinion. And when constituents are paying attention, they are as likely to take their cues from their Representative or Senator as they are to listen to the President .
Keep in mind that members of Congress can go public as effectively with their constituents as can the president. It is small wonder, then, that political scientist Jeff Cohen finds that presidents efforts to go local that is, to target local media outlets as a way of ramping up support have only modest effects in terms of improving media coverage of the president, never mind raising his poll numbers. I understand that Friedman is not a political scientist; he is an opinion columnist whose job is to stake out a position to get people talking. But it is important, given his rather large readership, that someone call him out when his opinion appears to contradict what political scientists think they know. Im sure if passing energy and

were as simple as touring the country giving speeches and getting in Republicans face President Obama would already be doing that. As it stands, however, theres no reason why he should pay any attention to what Friedman writes on this score.
budget legislation

AT PC TheoryNot Finite
PC is renewable their ev is theoretical and not true in the case of Obama
Van Dusen 13
Lisa Van Dusen is a former international news editor, The truth about second-term politics, 2/10/13, Ottawa Citizen, http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/truth+about+second+term+politics/7945084/story.html

Political capital has long had a reputation in Washington as a non-renewable resource: You
can blow it all on one gigantic policy cake, goes the conventional wisdom, or in 100 policy cupcakes. But whenever and however you spend it, once its gone, its gone. When Barack Obama delivers his fifth State of the Union address Tuesday, hell have two uninvited guests in the visitors gallery. One will be that myth of political capital and the other will be th e unwritten lame-duck rule. The lame-duck rule is that every second-term president becomes a lame duck after 18 months or one year or the day after the midterms or the day after his second inaugural address, depending on whose lame-duck countdown clock you believe. Between the shrinking political capital account and the lame-duck countdown clock, by some estimates Obama ceased to be the fully functioning, politically capitalized president of the United States last Wednesday between 11:15 and 11:45 a.m. Meanwhile, in the real world, second-term presidents have won world wars, won the Cold War, balanced the budget and generally continued

to function while not only not entirely squandering their political capital but, in some cases, rebuilding it . In the real world, where Obama himself ostensibly spent all his political capital on health reform and was then re-elected handily, political capital is a much more fungible commodity .

There are presidents who confound the laws of political capital and lame duckness just because of who they are . In Ronald Reagans case, this ability to magically repel
conventional wisdom earned him the label Teflon president. Obama

has already defied conventional

wisdom and most unwritten laws of electoral politics, presidential campaigns, economic drag factors and identity politics, which makes the biggest second-term threat not political capital depreciation or lame duckdom, but hubris. Luckily, the real world has a way of stepping in at such moments and providing balance. The state of the union is, unequivocally, better than it was four years ago or even this time last year. The economy
notwithstanding the anti-growth blip of last years fourth-quarter GDP number and yet another looming self-imposed fiscal behaviour modification deadline of March 1sts sequestration cuts has gone from catastrophic to recovering-butfragile to nearly-recovering-but-still-susceptible. Consumer spending and business investment are up, and the general trends in manufacturing and exports are positive.

***Winners Win

Winners Win
Winners win.
Green 10 Professor of Political Science at Hofstra University
David Micheal Green, professor of political science at Hofstra University. 6/11/10, " The Do-Nothing 44th President. http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Do-Nothing-44th-Presid-by-David-Michael-Gree-100611-648.html Moreover, there is a continuously evolving and reciprocal relationship between presidential

boldness and achievement. In the same way that nothing breeds success like success, nothing sets the president up for achieving his or her next goal better than succeeding dramatically on the last go around. This is absolutely a matter of perception, and you can see it best in the way that Congress and especially the Washington press corps fawn over bold and intimidating presidents like Reagan and George W. Bush. The political teams surrounding these presidents understood the psychology of power all too well. They knew that by simultaneously creating a steamroller effect and feigning a clubby atmosphere for Congress and the press, they could leave such hapless hangers-on with only one remaining way to pretend to preserve their dignities. By jumping on board the freight train, they could be given the illusion of being next to power, of being part of the winning team. And so, with virtually the sole exception of the now retired Helen Thomas, this is precisely what
they did.

Winners win and spill over to other agenda items

Mitchell 10 - Asst Professor of International Law @ Columbia
Lincon, Assistant professor in practice at international Law, Columbia university [http://politics.ifoday.com/?tag=Mitchell] Lincoln Mitchell: Health Care, Financial Reform and Democratic Momentum/ April 28 A lot has happened since then. Today, while the Republicans are still hoping for big gains in November, the momentum has decidedly shifted. The election of Scott Brown has turned out not to be the knock out punch for the Obama administration which many conservatives had thought, or at least hoped, it would be. However, the election of Scott Brown was a defining moment for the Obama administration and the party of which he is the leader because it forced

the president and his party to choose between backing away and conceding that their agenda for change, as modest as it actually is, was too much for the American people, or redoubling their efforts and commitment to change. Obamas decision to choose the latter option may have surprised many, and flown in the
face of some of the advice he received, but it was the right decision. This decision immediately became relevant on the issue of health care as the administration, with encouragement from leadership in congress, decided to try to pass the bill in spite of no longer controlling, even nominally, 60 senate seats. While the bill itself should not be described as a

great piece of legislation, the fight was an important one; and Obamas victory transformed his presidency. It showed America that the President was willing to fight for something and that in addition to being a brilliant man and great speaker, he could play political hardball when necessary. Thus, while the passage of the health care bill has not transformed the Obama administration into the truly
progressive presidency for which many had hoped, it has breathed some life back into his presidency and party. Equally significantly Obama has tripped up the Republican Party. Had the health care bill failed, the Tea Partiers and other right wing activists could have had a substantial victory to their credit. This would have strengthened the narrative, and perhaps even the reality, that the Tea Party movement was something genuinely new with the potential to have a transformative effect on the Republican Party and American politics more generally. The failure of the Tea Party movement to stop the Obama health care reform has put an end to much of this conversation. Instead, the Tea Party movement is beginning to be understood as just another radical partisan movement with little transformative power other than of being an albatross around the neck of the Republican Party. The debate around the financial reform bill has also demonstrated that the Republican Party has been caught a little off guard by renewed Democratic vigor and that Republicans may become captives of their own irrational rhetoric. Republicans initially responded to the proposed bill by calling it another bailout. Given the nature of the bill, this rhetoric got little traction so the Republicans quickly abandoned it. The Republican Party, of course, cannot support a bill that goes so clearly against their principle of making rich people richer, but realize that taking a strong position against it will not play in the post health care political reality, so they face a real quandary. In the likely event that this bill passes, President Obama will be able to point to another major piece of domestic legislation almost immediately following the health care bill. The charges of socialism against Obama will not die down after this bill is passed; they may in fact get stronger. These cries, however, will become increasingly irrelevant. Some significant minority of the American people will continue to call Obama socialist almost no matter what, but this is beginning to look less like a problem for Obama and more like one for the Republicans, as they find themselves controlled by a radical and angry, right wing base. The Democratic Partys fortunes have taken a turn for the better in the last few months because, for what seems like the first time since Obama took office, the party has been aggressive, refused to back down in the face of Republican attacks and abandoned efforts to pass legislation

the Republicans can regain the momentum back from the Democrats if the Obama administration is not vigilant about setting the agenda, pushing hard for more legislation and not being intimidated by the Republicans.
with bipartisan support. However,

Winners win for Obama

Singer 9
Jonathan Singer, Editor of My Direct Democracy, March 3, 2009, http://www.mydd.com/story/2009/3/3/191825/0428) From the latest NBC News-Wall Street Journal survey: Despite the country's struggling economy and vocal opposition to some of his policies, President Obama's favorability rating is at an all-time high. Two-thirds feel hopeful about his leadership and six in 10 approve of the job he's doing in the White House. "What is amazing here is how much

political capital Obama has spent in the first six weeks," said Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart, who conducted this survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff. "And against that, he stands at the end of this six weeks with as much or more capital in the bank." Peter Hart gets at a key point. Some believe that political capital is finite, that it can be used up. To an extent that's true. But it's important to note, too, that political capital can be regenerated -- and, specifically, that when a President expends a great deal of capital on a measure that was difficult to enact and then succeeds, he can build up more capital. Indeed, that appears to be what is happening with Barack Obama, who went to the mat to pass
the stimulus package out of the gate, got it passed despite near-unanimous opposition of the Republicans on Capitol Hill, and is being rewarded by the American public as a result. Take a look at the numbers. President Obama now has a 68 percent favorable rating in the NBC-WSJ poll, his highest ever showing in the survey. Nearly half of those surveyed (47 percent) view him very positively. Obama's Democratic Party earns a respectable 49 percent favorable rating. The Republican Party, however, is in the toilet, with its worst ever showing in the history of the NBC-WSJ poll, 26 percent favorable. On the question of blame for the partisanship in Washington, 56 percent place the onus on the Bush administration and another 41 percent place it on Congressional Republicans. Yet just 24 percent blame Congressional Democrats, and a mere 11 percent blame the Obama administration. So at this point, with President Obama seemingly benefiting from his ambitious actions and the Republicans sinking further and further as a result of their knee-jerked opposition to that agenda, there appears to be no reason not to push forward on anything from universal healthcare to energy reform to ending the war in Iraq.

Winners WinControversial Issues

Action on controversial issues splits the GOP key to the agenda
Dickerson 13
John, Slates chief political correspondent, Go for the Throat!, 1/18/13, http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/01/barack_obama_s_second_inaugural_address_the_president_should_ declare_war.single.html On Monday, President Obama will preside over the grand reopening of his administration. It would be altogether fitting if he stepped to the microphone, looked down the mall, and let out a sigh: so many people expecting so much from a government that appears capable of so little. A second inaugural suggests new beginnings, but this one is being bookended by dead-end debates. Gridlock over the fiscal cliff preceded it and gridlock over the debt limit, sequester, and budget will follow. After the election, the same people are in power in all the branches of government and they don't get along. There's no

indication that the president's clashes with House Republicans will end soon. Inaugural speeches
are supposed to be huge and stirring. Presidents haul our heroes onstage, from George Washington to Martin Luther King Jr. George W. Bush brought the Liberty Bell. They use history to make greatness and achievements seem like something you can just take down from the shelf. Americans are not stuck in the rut of the day. But this might be too much for Obamas second inaugural address: After the last four years, how do you call the nation and its elected representatives to common action while standing on the steps of a building where collective action goes to die? That bipartisan bag of tricks

has been tried and it didnt work. People dont believe it. Congress' approval rating is 14 percent, the lowest in
history. In a December Gallup poll, 77 percent of those asked said the way Washington works is doing serious harm to the country. The challenge for President Obamas speech is the challenge of his second term: how to be great

when the environment stinks. Enhancing the presidents legacy requires something

more than simply the clever application of predictable stratagems . Washingtons partisan rancor, the size of the problems facing government, and the limited amount of time before Obama is a lame duck all point to a single conclusion: The president who came into office speaking in lofty terms about bipartisanship and cooperation can only cement his legacy if he destroys the GOP . If he wants to transform American politics, he must go for the throat .
President Obama could, of course, resign himself to tending to the achievements of his first term. He'd make sure health care reform is implemented, nurse the economy back to health, and put the military on a new footing after two wars. But he's more ambitious than that. He ran for president as a one-term senator with no executive experience. In his first term, he pushed for the biggest overhaul of health care possible because, as he told his aides, he wanted to make history. He may already have made it. There's no question that he is already a president of consequence. But there's no sign he's content to ride out the second half of the game in the Barcalounger. He is approaching gun control, climate change, and

immigration with wide and excited eyes. He's not going for caretaker. How should the president proceed then, if he wants to be bold? The Barack Obama of the first administration might have approached the task by finding some Republicans to deal with and then start agreeing to some of their demands in hope that he would win some of their votes. It's the traditional approach. Perhaps he could add a good deal more schmoozing with lawmakers, too. That's the old way. He has abandoned that. He doesn't think it will work and he doesn't have the time. As Obama explained in his
last press conference, he thinks the Republicans are dead set on opposing him. They cannot be unchained by schmoozing.

Even if Obama were wrong about Republican intransigence, other constraints will limit

the chance for cooperation . Republican lawmakers worried about primary challenges
in 2014 are

not going to be willing partners. He probably has at most 18 months before people start dropping the lame-duck label in close proximity to his name. Obamas only remaining option is to pulverize.
Whether he succeeds in passing legislation or not, given his ambitions, his goal should be to delegitimize his opponents.

Through a series of clarifying fights over controversial issues , he can force Republicans to either side with their coalition's most extreme elements or cause a rift in

the party that will leave it, at least temporarily, in disarray.

Controversial policies are still a winespecially for Obama

Heineman 10

Ben, Senior Fellow at two Harvard schools: the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and Harvard Law School's Program on Corporate Governanc [http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/03/nopresidential-greatness-without-spending-political-capital/37865/] No Presidential Greatness Without Spending Political Capital/ March 23

Only in recent months, when he was willing to make it his personal issue and to spend significantly from his store of political capital, was President Obama able to achieve victory in the bitter congressional battle over health care reform. Presidential greatness is combining policy and politics to win significant victories that have a major impact on the trajectory of national life. Such victories--which upset the status quo--only occur when a president takes political risks and is willing to incur short-term unpopularity with significant segments of the electorate. There have been two great Democrat presidents since FDR--Harry Truman and LBJ. Both came to office through the death of a president; both could have run for a second elected term; both declined to do so because they were extremely unpopular; but, part of their unpopularity was due to courageous decisions which required large expenditure of personal capital and which changed the course of history.

Winners WinHirsh
Winners win PC is a false concept
Hirsh 13
Michael, chief correspondent, Theres No Such Thing as Political Capital, 2/7/13, http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/the re-sno-such-thing-as-political-capital-20130207 But the abrupt emergence of the immigration and gun-control issues illustrates how

suddenly shifts in mood can occur and how political interests can align in new ways just as suddenly. Indeed, the pseudo-concept of political capital masks a larger truth about Washington that is kindergarten simple: You just dont know what you can do until you try. Or as Ornstein himself once wrote years ago, Winning wins . In theory, and in practice, depending on Obamas handling of any particular issue, even in a polarized time, he could still deliver on a lot of his second-term goals, depending on his skill and the breaks. Unforeseen catalysts can
appear, like Newtown. Epiphanies can dawn, such as when many Republican Party leaders suddenly woke up in panic to the huge disparity in the Hispanic vote. Some political scientists who study the elusive calculus of how to pass legislation and run successful presidencies say that political capital is, at best, an empty concept, and that almost

nothing in the academic literature successfully quantifies or even defines it. It can refer to a very
abstract thing, like a presidents popularity, but theres no mechanism there. That makes it kind of useless, says Richard Bensel, a government professor at Cornell University. Even Ornstein concedes that the calculus is far

more complex than the term suggests. Winning on one issue often changes the

calculation for the next issue ; there is never any known amount of capital. The idea here
is, if

an issue comes up where the conventional wisdom is that president is not going to get what he wants, and he gets it, then each time that happens, it changes the calculus of the other actors Ornstein says. If they think hes going to win, they may change positions to get on the winning side. Its a bandwagon effect .

Especially true in the current environment

Hirsh 2/7
Michael, chief correspondent, Theres No Such Thing as Political Capital, 2/7/13, http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/the re-sno-such-thing-as-political-capital-20130207 On Tuesday, in his State of the Union address, President Obama will do what every president does this time of year. For about 60 minutes, he will lay out a sprawling and ambitious wish list highlighted by gun control and immigration reform, climate change and debt reduction. In response, the pundits will do what they always do this time of year: They will talk about how unrealistic most of the proposals are, discussions often informed by sagacious reckonings of how much

political capital Obama possesses to push his program through. Most of this talk will have no

bearing on what actually happens over the next four years. Consider this: Three months ago, just before the November election, if someone had talked seriously about Obama having enough political capital to oversee passage of both immigration reform and gun-control legislation at the beginning of his second termeven after winning the election by 4 percentage points and 5 million votes (the actual final tally)this person would have been called crazy and stripped of his pundits license. (It doesnt exist, but it ought to.) In his first term, in a starkly polarized country, the president had b een so frustrated by GOP resistance that he finally issued a limited executive order last August permitting immigrants who entered the country illegally as children to work without fear of deportation for at least two years. Obama didnt dare to even bring up gun control, a Democratic third rail that has cost the party elections and that actually might have be en even less popular on the right than the presidents health care law. And yet, for reasons that have very little to do with Obamas personal presti ge or popularityvariously put in terms of a mandate or political capitalchances are fair that both will now happen. What changed? In the case of gun control, of course, it wasnt the election. It was the horror of the 20 first -graders who were slaughtered in Newtown, Conn., in mid-December. The sickening reality of little girls and boys riddled with bullets from a high-capacity assault weapon seemed to precipitate a sudden tipping point in the national conscience. One thing changed after another. Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association marginalized himself with poorly chosen comments soon after the massacre. The pro-gun lobby, once a phalanx of opposition, began to fissure into reasonables and crazies. Former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., who was shot in the head two years ago and is still struggling to speak and walk, started a PAC with her husband to appeal to the moderate middle of gun owners. Then she gave riveting and poignant testimony to the Senate, challenging lawmakers: Be bold. As a result, momentum has appeared to build around some kind of a plan to curtail sales of the most dangerous weapons and ammunition and the way people are permitted to buy them. Its impossible to say now whether such a bill will pass and, if it does, whether it will make anything more than cosmetic changes to gun

laws. But one thing is clear: The political tectonics have shifted dramatically in very little time. Whole new possibilities exist now that didnt a few weeks ago. Meanwhile, the Republican members of the Senates so-called Gang of Eight are pushing hard for a new spirit of compromise on immigration reform, a sharp change after an election year in which the GOP standardbearer declared he would make life so miserable for the 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. that they would self deport. But this turnaround has very little to do with Obamas personal influencehis political mandate, as it were. It has almost entirely to do with just two numbers: 71 and 27. Thats 71 percent for Obama, 27 percent for Mitt Romney, the breakdown of the Hispanic vote in the 2012 presidential election. Obama drove home his advantage by giving a speech on immigration reform on Jan. 29 at a Hispanic-dominated high school in Nevada, a swing state he won by a surprising 8 percentage points in November. But the movement on immigration has mainly come out of t he Republican Partys recent introspection, and the realization by its more thoughtful members, such as Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, that without such a shift the party may be facing demographic death in a country where the 2010 census showed, for the first time, that white births have fallen into the minority. Its got nothing to do with Obamas political ca pital or, indeed, Obama at all. The point is not that political capital is a meaningless term. Often it is a synonym for mandate or momentum in the aftermath of a decisive electionand just about every politician ever elected has tried to claim more of a mandate than he actually has. Certainly, Obama can say that because he was elected and Romney wasnt, he has a better claim on the countrys mood and direction. Many pundits still defend political capital as a useful metaphor at least. Its a n unquantifiable but meaningful concept, says Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute. You cant really look at a president and say hes got 37 ounces of political capital. But the fact is, its a concept that matters, if you have pop ularity and some momentum on your side. The real problem is that the idea of political capitalor mandates, or

so poorly defined that presidents and pundits often get it wrong . Presidents usually over-estimate it, says George Edwards, a presidential scholar at Texas A&M University. The best kind of political capitalsome sense of an electoral mandate to do somethingis very rare. It almost never happens. In 1964, maybe. And to some degree in 1980. For that reason, political capital is a concept that misleads far more than it enlightens. It is distortionary. It conveys the idea that we know more
momentumis than we really do about the ever-elusive concept of political power, and it discounts the way unforeseen events can suddenly change everything. Instead, it suggests, erroneously, that a political figure has a concrete amount of

political capital to invest, just as someone might have real investment capitalthat a particular leader can bank his gains, and the size of his account determines what he can do at any given moment in history. Naturally, any president has practical and electoral limits. Does he have a
majority in both chambers of Congress and a cohesive coalition behind him? Obama has neither at present. And unless a surge in the economyat the moment, still stuckor some other great victory gives him more momentum, it is inevitable that the closer Obama gets to the 2014 election, the less he will be able to get done. Going into the midterms, Republicans will increasingly avoid any concessions that make him (and the Democrats) stronger. But the abrupt emergence of the immigration and gun-control issues illustrates how suddenly shifts in mood can occur and how political interests can align in new ways just as suddenly. Indeed, the pseudo-concept of political capital masks a larger truth about Washington that is kindergarten simple: You just dont know what you can do until you try. Or as Ornstein himself once wrote years ago, Winning wins. In theory, and in practice, depending on Obamas handling of any particular issue, even in a polarized time, he could still deliver on a lot of his second-term goals, depending on his skill and the breaks. Unforeseen catalysts can appear, like Newtown. Epiphanies can dawn, such as when many Republican Party leaders suddenly woke up in panic to the huge disparity in the Hispanic vote. Some political scientists who study the elusive calculus of how to pass legislation and run successful presidencies say that political capital is, at best, an empty concept, and that almost nothing in the academic literature successfully quantifies or even defines it. It can refer to a very abstract thing, like a presidents popularity, but theres no mechanism there. That makes it kind of useless, says Richard Bensel, a government professor at Cornell University. Even Ornstein concedes that the calculus is far more complex than the term suggests. Winning on one issue often changes the calculation for the next issue; there is never any known amount of capital. The idea here is, if an issue comes up where the conventional wisdom is that president is not going to get what he wants, and he gets it, then each time that happens, it changes the calculus of the other actors Ornstein says. If they think hes going to win, they may change positions to get on the winning side. Its a bandwagon effect. ALL THE WAY WITH LBJ Sometimes, a clever

practitioner of power can get more done just because hes aggressive and knows the hallways of
Congress well. Texas A&Ms Edwards is right to say that the outcome of the 1964 election, Lyndon Johnsons landslide victory over Barry Goldwater, was one of the few that conveyed a mandate. But one of the main reasons for that mandate (in addition to Goldwaters ineptitude as a candidate) was President Johnsons masterful use of power leading up to that election , and his ability to get far more done than anyone thought possible, given his limited political capital. In the newest volume in his exhaustive study of LBJ, The Passage of Power, historian Robert Caro recalls Johnson getting cautionary advice after he assumed the presidency from the assassinated John F. Kennedy in late 1963. Dont focus on a long-stalled civil-rights bill, advisers told him, because it might jeopardize Southern lawmakers support for a tax cut and appropriations bills the president needed. One of the wise, practical people around the table [said that] the pre sidency has only a certain amount of coinage to expend, and you oughtnt to expend it on this, Caro writes. (Coinage, of course, was what political capital was called in those days.) Johnson replied, Well, what the hells the presidency for? Johnson didnt worry about

coinage, and he got the Civil Rights Act enacted, along with much else: Medicare, a tax cut, antipoverty programs. He appeared to understand not just the ways of Congress but also the way to maximize the momentum he possessed in the lingering mood of national grief and determination by picking the right issues, as Caro records. Momentum is not a mysterious mistress, LBJ said. It is a

controllable fact of political life. Johnson had the skill and wherewithal to realize that, at that moment of history, he
could have unlimited coinage if he handled the politics right. He did. (At least until Vietnam, that is.) And then there are the presidents who get the politics, and the issues, wrong. It was the last president before Obama who was just starting a second term, George W. Bush, who really revived the claim of political capital, which he was very fond of wielding. Then Bush promptly demonstrated that he didnt fully understand the concept either. At his first news conference after his 2004 victory, a confident-sounding Bush declared, I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. Thats my style. The 43rd president threw all of his political capital at an overriding passion: the partial privatization of Social Security. He mounted a full-bore public-relations campaign that included town-hall meetings across the country. Bush failed utterly, of course. But the problem was not that he didnt have enough political capital. Yes, he may have overestimated his standing. Bushs margin over John Kerry was thinhelped along by a bumbling Kerry campaign that was almost the mirror image of Romneys gaffe-filled failure this timebut that was not the real mistake. The problem was that whatever credibility or stature Bush thought he had earned as a newly reelected president did nothing to make Social Security privatization a better idea in most peoples eyes. Voters didnt trust the plan, and four years later, at the end of Bushs t erm, the stock-market collapse bore out the publics skepticism. Privatization just didnt have any momentum behind it, no matter who was pushing it or how much capital Bush spent to sell it. The mistake that Bush made with Social Security, says John Sides, an associate professor of political science at George Washington University and a well-followed political blogger, was that just because he won an election, he thought he had a green light. But there was no sense of any kind of public urgency on Social Security reform. Its like he went into the garage where various Republican policy ideas were hanging up and picked one. I dont think Obamas going to make that mistake. Bush decided he wanted to push a rock up a hill. He didnt understand how steep the hill was. I think Obama has more momentum on his side because of the Republican Partys concerns about the Latino vote and the shooting at Newtown. Obama may also get his way on the debt ceiling, not because of his reelection, Sides says, but because Republicans are beginning to doubt whet her taking a hard line on fiscal policy is a good idea, as the party suffers in the polls. THE REAL LIMITS ON POWER Presidents are limited in what

they can do by time and attention span, of course, just as much as they are by electoral balances in the House and Senate. But this, too, has nothing to do with political capital. Another well-worn meme of recent years was that Obama used up too much political capital passing the health care law in his first term. But the real problem was that the plan was unpopular, the economy was bad, and the president didnt realize that the national mood (yes, again, the national mood) was at a tipping point against big-government intervention, with the tea-party revolt about to burst on the scene. For
Americans in 2009 and 2010haunted by too many rounds of layoffs, appalled by the Wall Street bailout, aghast at the amount of federal spending that never seemed to find its way into their pocketsgovernment-imposed health care coverage was simply an intervention too far. So was the idea of another economic stimulus. Cue the tea party and what ensued: two titanic fights over the debt ceiling. Obama, like Bush, had settled on pushing an issue that was out of sync with the country s mood. Unlike Bush, Obama did ultimately get his idea passed. But the bigger political problem with health care reform was that it distracted the governments attention from other issues that people cared about more urgently, such as the need to jump-start the economy and financial reform. Various congressional staffers told me at the time that their bosses didnt really have the time to understand how the Wall Street lobby was riddling the Dodd-Frank financial-reform legislation with loopholes. Health care was sucking all the oxygen out of the room, the aides said. Weighing the imponderables of momentum, the often-mystical calculations about when the historic moment is ripe for an issue, will never be a science. It is mainly intuition, and its best practitioners have a long history in American politics. This is a tale told well in Steven Spielbergs hit movie Lincoln. Daniel Day-Lewiss Abraham Lincoln attempts a lot of behind-the-scenes vote-buying to win passage of the 13th Amendment, banning slavery, along with eloquent attempts to move peoples hea rts and minds. He appears to be using the political capital of his reelection and the turning of the tide in the Civil War. But its clear that a surge of conscience, a sense of the changing times, has as much to do with the final vote as all the backroom horse-trading. The reason I think the idea of political capital is kind of distorting is that it implies you have chits you can give out to people. It really oversimplifies why you elect politicians, or why they can do what Lincoln did, says Tommy Bruce, a former political consultant in Washington. Consider, as another example, the storied political career of President Franklin Roosevelt. Because the mood was ripe for dramatic change in the depths of the Great Depression, FDR was able to push an astonishing array of New Deal programs through a largely compliant Congress, assuming what some described as near-dictatorial powers. But in his second term, full of confidence because of a landslide victory in 1936 that brought in unprecedented Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, Roosevelt overreached with his infamous Court-packing proposal. All of a sudden, the political capital that experts thought was limitless disappeared. FDRs plan to expand the Supreme Court by putting in his judicial allies abruptly created an unanticipated wall of opposition from newly reunited Republicans and conservative Southern Democrats. FDR thus inadvertently handed back to Congress, especially to the Senate, the power and influence he had seized in his first term. Sure, Roosevelt had loads of popularity and momentum in 1937. He seemed to have a bank vault full of political capital. But, once again, a president simply chose to take on the wrong issue at the wrong time; this time, instead of most of the political interests in the country aligning his way, they opposed him. Roosevelt didnt fully recover until World War II, despite two more election victories. In terms of Obamas second-term agenda, what all

these shifting tides of momentum and political calculation mean is this: Anything goes.
Obama has no more elections to win, and he needs to worry only about the support he will have in the House and Senate after 2014. But if he picks issues that the countrys mood will supportsuch as, perhaps, immigration reform and gun control

there is no reason to think he cant win far more victories than any of the careful calculators of political capital now believe is possible, including battles over tax reform and deficit
reduction. Amid todays atmosphere of Republican self-doubt, a new, more mature Obama seems to be emerging, one who

has his agenda clearly in mind and will ride the mood of the country more adroitly.

If he can get some early

wins as he already has, apparently, on the fiscal cliff and the upper-income tax increasethat will create
momentum, and one win may well lead to others . Winning wins.

Winners WinDickerson
Action on controversial issues splits the GOP key to the agenda
Dickerson 13
John, Slates chief political correspondent, Go for the Throat!, 1/18/13, http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/01/barack_obama_s_second_inaugural_address_the_president_should_ declare_war.single.html On Monday, President Obama will preside over the grand reopening of his administration. It would be altogether fitting if he stepped to the microphone, looked down the mall, and let out a sigh: so many people expecting so much from a government that appears capable of so little. A second inaugural suggests new beginnings, but this one is being bookended by dead-end debates. Gridlock over the fiscal cliff preceded it and gridlock over the debt limit, sequester, and budget will follow. After the election, the same people are in power in all the branches of government and they don't get along. There's no

indication that the president's clashes with House Republicans will end soon. Inaugural speeches
are supposed to be huge and stirring. Presidents haul our heroes onstage, from George Washington to Martin Luther King Jr. George W. Bush brought the Liberty Bell. They use history to make greatness and achievements seem like something you can just take down from the shelf. Americans are not stuck in the rut of the day. But this might be too much for Obamas second inaugural address: After the last four years, how do you call the nation and its elected representatives to common action while standing on the steps of a building where collective action goes to die? That bipartisan bag of tricks

has been tried and it didnt work. People dont believe it. Congress' approval rating is 14 percent, the lowest in
history. In a December Gallup poll, 77 percent of those asked said the way Washington works is doing serious harm to t he country. The challenge for President Obamas speech is the challenge of his second term: how to be great

when the environment stinks. Enhancing the presidents legacy requires something

more than simply the clever application of predictable stratagems . Washingtons partisan rancor, the size of the problems facing government, and the limited amount of time before Obama is a lame duck all point to a single conclusion: The president who came into office speaking in lofty terms about bipartisanship and cooperation can only cement his legacy if he destroys the GOP . If he wants to transform American politics, he must go for the throat .
President Obama could, of course, resign himself to tending to the achievements of his first term. He'd make sure health care reform is implemented, nurse the economy back to health, and put the military on a new footing after two wars. But he's more ambitious than that. He ran for president as a one-term senator with no executive experience. In his first term, he pushed for the biggest overhaul of health care possible because, as he told his aides, he wanted to make history. He may already have made it. There's no question that he is already a president of consequence. But there's no sign he's content to ride out the second half of the game in the Barcalounger. He is approaching gun control, climate change, and

immigration with wide and excited eyes. He's not going for caretaker. How should the president proceed then, if he wants to be bold? The Barack Obama of the first administration might have approached the task by finding some Republicans to deal with and then start agreeing to some of their demands in hope that he would win some of their votes. It's the traditional approach. Perhaps he could add a good deal more schmoozing with lawmakers, too. That's the old way. He has abandoned that. He doesn't think it will work and he doesn't have the time. As Obama explained in his
last press conference, he thinks the Republicans are dead set on opposing him. They cannot be unchained by schmoozing.

Even if Obama were wrong about Republican intransigence, other constraints will limit

the chance for cooperation . Republican lawmakers worried about primary challenges
in 2014 are

not going to be willing partners. He probably has at most 18 months before people start dropping the lame-duck label in close proximity to his name. Obamas only remaining option is to pulverize.
Whether he succeeds in passing legislation or not, given his ambitions, his goal should be to delegitimize his opponents.

Through a series of clarifying fights over controversial issues , he can force Republicans to either side with their coalition's most extreme elements or cause a rift in

the party that will leave it, at least temporarily, in disarray.

Alternate ideas of agenda success ignore key facts

Dickerson 13

John, Slates chief political correspondent, They Hate Me, They Really Hate Me, 1/22/13, http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/01/conservatives_hate_john_dickerson_s_analysis_of_barack_obama_s _second_term.html When you are on the Fox News ticker for the wrong reasons, it's time to put things into context. On the eve of the president's inauguration, I wrote a piece about what President Obama needs to do to be a transformational rather than caretaker president. I was using a very specific definition of transformational presidencies based on my reading of a

theory of political science and the president's own words about transformational presidencies
from the 2008 campaign. It was also based on these givens: The

president is ambitious, has picked politically controversial goals, has little time to operate before he is dubbed a lame-duck president, and has written off working with Republicans. "Bloodier-minded when it comes to beating Republicans, is how Jodi Kantor put it in the New York Times. Given these facts, there is only one logical conclusion for a president who wants to transform American politics: He must take on Republicans aggressively. For me, this was a math problem with an unmistakable conclusion . Some
people thought I was giving the president my personal advice. No. My goal was to make a compelling argument based on the facts. I used words like "war" and pulverize, and some have responded with threats to me and my family. (G o for his throat! some have counseled, echoing the headline.) These words have also liberated some correspondents (USUALLY THE ONES THAT TYPE IN ALL CAPS!!!!) from reading the piece or reading it in the spirit in which it was written. But there were also almost 2,000 other words in the piece, which should put that provocative language in context. What's been

is the only plausible path for a bold, game-changing second term for a president who has positioned himself the way President Obama has. Indeed, the piece accurately anticipated the forceful line the president ultimately took in his
lost in the news ticker and Twitter threats is the argument of the piece: This inaugural address with his call for collective action and failure to reach out to Republicans. Brit Hume said Obamas speech confirms for all time the presidents essential liberalism. The New Republics Noam Scheiber precisely identified the speech not merely as liberal but an argument for liberalism. Some correspondents have asked why I didn't advocate that Obama embrace House GOP spending plans or some other immediate compromise, a more pleasant outcome than the prospect of even more conflict in Washington. There's

no evidence , however, that the president is in a

compromising mood. (Again, see second inaugural.) This piece was written from the viewpoint of the reality as it
stands, not a more pleasing future we would all prefer to inhabit. That reality (and the initial piece) includes an unpleasant fact to some Republicans: The GOP is in a state of disequilibrium. For evidence of that disarray, I rely on Rep. Tom Cole, Sen. Rand Paul, participants at the House GOP retreat, and Ramesh Ponnuru at the National Review. (As I mentioned in the piece, Democrats have their own tensions, too.)

Theoretically and historically true

Dickerson 13
John, Slates chief political correspondent, Go for the Throat!, 1/18/13, http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/01/barack_obama_s_second_inaugural_address_the_president_should_ declare_war.single.html This theory of political transformation rests on the weaponization (and slight bastardization) of the work by

Yale political scientist Stephen Skowronek. Skowronek has written extensively about what distinguishes transformational presidents from caretaker presidents. In order for a president to be transformational, the old order has to fall as the orthodoxies that kept it in power exhaust themselves. Obama's gambit in 2009 was to build a new post-partisan consensus. That didn't work, but by exploiting the weaknesses of todays Republican Party, Obama
has an opportunity to hasten the demise of the old order by increasing the political cost of having the GOP coalition defined by Second Amendment absolutists, climate science deniers, supporters of self-deportation and the pure no-tax wing. The president has the ambition and has picked a second-term agenda that can lead to clarifying fights. The next necessary condition for this theory to work
rests on the Republican response. Obama needs two things from the GOP: overreaction and charismatic dissenters. Theyre not going to give this to him willingly, of course, but mounting pressures in the party and the personal ambitions of individual players may offer it to him anyway. Indeed, Republicans are serving him some of this recipe already on gun control, immigration, and the broader issue of fiscal policy. On gun control, the National Rifle Association has overreached. Its Web video mentioning the president's children crossed a line.* The grou ps dissembling about the point of the video and its message compounds the error. (The video was also wrong). The NRA is whipping up its members, closing ranks, and lashing out. This solidifies its base, but is not a strategy for wooing those who are not already engaged in the gun rights debate. It only appeals to those who already think the worst of the president. Republicans who want to oppose the president on policy grounds now have to make a decision: Do they want to be associated with a group that opposes, in such impolitic ways, measures like universal background checks that 70 to 80 percent of the public supports? Polling also suggests that women are more open to gun control measures than men. The NRA, by close association, risks further defining the Republican Party as the party of angry, white Southern men. The president is also getting help from Republicans who are

calling out the most extreme members of the coalition. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie called the NRA video "reprehensible." Others who have national ambitions are going to have to follow suit. The president can rail about and call the GOP bad names, but that doesn't mean people are going to listen. He needs members inside the Republican tent to ratify his positionsor at least to stop marching in lockstep with the most controversial members of the GOP club. When Republicans with national ambitions make public splits with their party, this helps the president. (There is a corollary: The president cant lose the support of Democratic senators facing tough races in 2014. Opposition from within his own ranks undermines his attempt to paint the GOP as beyond the pale.) If the Republican Party finds itself destabilized right now, it is in part because the president has already implemented a version of this strategy. In the 2012 campaign, the president successfully transformed the most intense conservative positions into liabilities on immigration and the role of government. Mitt Romney won the GOP nomination on a platform of self-deportation for illegal immigrantsand the Obama team never let Hispanics forget it. The Obama campaign also branded Republicans with Romney's ill-chosen words about 47 percent of Americans as the party of uncaring millionaires. Now Republican presidential hopefuls like Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, and Bobby Jindal are trying to fix the party's image. There is a general scramble going on as the GOP looks for a formula to move from a party that relies on older white voters to one that can attract minorities and younger voters. Out of fear for the long-term prospects of the GOP, some Republicans may be willing to partner with the

president. That would actually mean progress on important issues facing the country, which would enhance Obamas legacy. If not, the president will stir up a fracas between those in the Republican Party who believe it must show evolution on issues like immigration, gun control, or climate change and those who accuse those people of betraying party principles. That fight will be loud and in the openand in the short term unproductive. The president can stir up these fights by poking
the fear among Republicans that the party is becoming defined by its most extreme elements, which will in turn provoke fear among the most faithful conservatives that weak-willed conservatives are bending to the popular mood. That will lead to more tin-eared, dooming declarations of absolutism like those made by conservatives who sought to define the difference between legitimate and illegitimate rapeand handed control of the Senate to Democrats along the way. For the public

watching from the sidelines, these intramural fights will look confused and disconnected from their daily lives. (Lip-smacking Democrats dont get too excited: This internal battle is the necessary precondition for a GOP rebirth, and the Democratic Party has its own tensions.) This approach is not a path of gentle
engagement. It

requires confrontation

and bright lines and tactics that are more aggressive than the president

demonstrated in the first term. He can't turn into a snarling hack. The posture is probably one similar to his official secondterm photograph: smiling, but with arms crossed.

AT Winners Win
Winners dont win even if they do in theory, Obama thinks fights drain PC
Eberly 13 - assistant professor in the Department of Political Science at St. Mary's College of Maryland
Todd, The presidential power trap, Baltimore Sun, Lexis Only by solving the problem of political capital is a president likely to avoid a power trap. Presidents in recent years from

have been unable to prevent their political capital eroding. When it did, their power

assertions often got them into further political trouble . Through leveraging public support, presidents have at times
been able to overcome contemporary leadership challenges by adopting as their own issues that the public already supports. Bill Clinton's centrist "triangulation" and George W. Bush's careful issue selection early in his presidency allowed them to secure important policy changes in Mr. Clinton's case, welfare reform and budget balance, in Mr. Bush's tax cuts and education reform that at the

short-term legislative strategies may win policy success for a president but do not serve as an antidote to declining political capital over time, as the difficult final years of both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush presidencies demonstrate. None of Barack Obama's recent predecessors solved the political capital problem or avoided the power trap. It is the central political challenge confronted by modern presidents and one that will likely weigh
time received popular approval. However,

heavily on the current president's mind today as he takes his second oath of office.

Plans not a winpushing random bills not on the agenda make Obama look weak
Galston 10
William, Senior Fellow, Governance Studies, Brookings, President Barack Obamas First Two Years: Policy Accomplishments, Political Difficulties Brookings Institute -- Nov 4] Second, the administration believed that success would breed successthat the momentum

from one legislative victory would spill over into the next. The reverse was closer to the truth: with each difficult vote, it became harder to persuade Democrats from swing districts and states to cast the next one. In the event, House members who feared that they would pay a heavy price if they
supported cap-and- trade legislation turned out to have a better grasp of political fundamentals than did administration strategists. The legislative process that produced the health care bill was especially damaging. It lasted

much too long and featured side-deals with interest groups and individual senators, made in full public view. Much of the public was dismayed by what it saw. Worse, the seemingly endless health care debate strengthened the view that the presidents agenda was poorly aligned with the economic concerns of the American people. Because the administration never persuaded the public that health reform was vital to our economic future, the entire effort came to be seen as diversionary, even anti-democratic. The health reform bill was surely a moral success; it may turn out to be a
policy success; but it is hard to avoid the conclusion that it wasand remainsa political liability.

Health care and energy prove winners dont win capital is finite
Lashof 10
Dan Lashof, director of the National Resource Defense Council's climate center, Ph.D. from the Energy and Resources Group at UCBerkeley, 7-28-2010, NRDC Switchboard Blog, "Coulda, Shoulda, Woulda: Lessons from Senate Climate Fail," http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/dlashof/coulda_shoulda_woulda_lessons.html Lesson 2: Political capital is not necessarily a renewable resource . Perhaps the most fateful decision the Obama administration made early on was to move healthcare reform before

energy and climate legislation. Im sure this seemed like a good idea at the time. Healthcare reform was popular, was seen as an issue that the public cared about on
a personal level, and was expected to unite Democrats from all regions. White House officials and Congressional leaders reassured environmentalists with their theory that success breeds success. A quick victory on healthcare reform would renew Obamas political capital, some of which had to be spent early on to push the economic stimulus bill through Congress with no Republican help. Healthcare reform was eventually enacted, but only after an exhausting battle that

eroded public support, drained political capital and created the Tea Party movement. Public support for healthcare reform is slowly rebounding as some of the early benefits kick in and people realize that the

forecasted Armageddon is not happening. But

this is occurring too slowly to rebuild Obamas political capital in time to help push climate legislation across the finish line.

Wins wont spilloverpolitical circumstances are different

Robinson 10
Gordon Robinson, a writer and commentator who has covered the Middle East for ABC News, CNN and Fox since the 1980s. He teaches Middle East Politics at the University of Vermont and has taught Islamic History at Emerson College. Obama returns to winning ways. Gulf News. December 29, 2010. If there is a single lesson for the president to take away from the last few weeks it is not to make the mistake of paying much attention to the praise: those in the media who are smitten by him today will go back to calling him incompetent and out of touch the moment something goes wrong, as it inevitably will. Many of Obama's wins over the last few weeks

were built on unique political dynamics unlikely to be recreated any time soon. Take, for
example, the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia (commonly known as New START'). Optimists have spent the last few days pointing to Obama's successful wooing of 13 Republicans, a total that put the treaty comfortably over the minimum needed for ratification. The fact that he achieved this despite opposition from most of the Senate's Republican leaders was certainly a virtuoso performance, but it would be a mistake to read it as a hint of better

things to come. Peeling off all of those Republicans required pleas for yes' votes from every single living former
Republican secretary of state, former president George W. Bush and most of the top officers in the military. Even then, the outcome remained in doubt until almost the last minute. As recently as two weeks ago the treaty was widely presumed to be dead. If this is what it takes to get a real bipartisan measure through the Senate do not look

for it to serve as a model for much of anything during the coming year. It is difficult, if not impossible, to imagine a similar set of circumstances coming together again any time soon.

Fights bleed momentum not generate capital

Politico 10
John and Carol, Obamas first year, Jan. 20, 2010 p. http://dyn.p olitico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=4DF829C9-18FE-70B2A8381A971FA3FFC9)

Obama believed that early success would be self-reinforcing, building a powerful momentum for bold government action. This belief was the essence of the White Houses theory of the big bang that success in passing a big stimulus package would lead to success in passing health care, which in turn would clear the
way for major cap-and-trade environmental legislation and re-regulation of the financial services sector all in the first year. This proved to be a radical misreading of the dynamics of power. The massive cost of the stimulus package and industry bailouts combined with the inconvenient fact that unemployment went up after their passage meant

that Obama spent the year bleeding momentum rather than steadily increasing public confidence in his larger governing vision. That vision was further obscured for many Americans by the smoke from the bitter and seemingly endless legislative battle on Capitol Hill over health care.

AT Winners WinAT Hirsh

Hirsh concedes unpopular policies kill momentum also pushes immigration off the agenda
-health care -time/attention trade off

Hirsh 13
Michael, chief correspondent, Theres No Such Thing as Political Capital, 2/7/13, http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/there-sno-such-thing-as-political-capital-20130207 Presidents are limited in what they can do by time and attention span, of course, just as much as they are by electoral balances in the House and Senate. But this, too, has nothing to do with political capital. Another well-worn

meme of recent years was that Obama used up too much political capital passing the health care law in his first term. But the real problem was that the plan was unpopular , the
economy was bad, and the president didnt realize that the national mood (yes, again, the national mood) was at a tipping point against big-government intervention, with the tea-party revolt about to burst on the scene. For Americans in 2009 and 2010haunted by too many rounds of layoffs, appalled by the Wall Street bailout, aghast at the amount of federal spending that never seemed to find its way into their pocketsgovernment-imposed health care coverage was simply an intervention too far. So was the idea of another economic stimulus. Cue the tea party and what ensued: two titanic

fights over the debt ceiling. Obama, like Bush, had settled on pushing an issue that was out

of sync with the countrys mood . Unlike Bush, Obama did ultimately get his idea passed. But the bigger political problem with health care reform was that it distracted the governments attention from other issues that people cared about more urgently, such as the need to jump-start the economy and
financial reform. Various congressional staffers told me at the ti me that their bosses didnt really have the time to understand how the Wall Street lobby was riddling the Dodd-Frank financial-reform legislation with loopholes. Health care was

sucking all the oxygen out of the room , the aides said.

Success depends on picking the right issues links prove the turn is wrong
Hirsh 13 their author
Michael Hirsh - chief correspondent for National Journal, previously senior editor and national economics correspondent for Newsweek, Theres No Such Thing as Political Capital February 7, 2013 http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/there-s-nosuch-thing-as-political-capital-20130207 And then there are the presidents who get the politics, and the issues, wrong. It was the last president before Obama who was just starting a second term, George W. Bush, who really revived the claim of political capital, which he was very fond of wielding. Then Bush promptly demonstrated that he didnt fully understand the concept either. At his first news conference after his 2004 victory, a confident-sounding Bush declared, I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. Thats my style. The 43rd president threw all of his political

capital at an overriding passion: the partial privatization of Social Security. He mounted a fullbore public-relations campaign that included town-hall meetings across the country. Bush failed utterly, of course. But the

may have overestimated his standing. Bushs margin over John Kerry was thinhelped along by a bumbling Kerry campaign that was almost the mirror image of Romneys gaffe-filled failure this timebut that was not the real mistake. The problem was that whatever credibility or stature Bush thought he had earned as a newly reelected president did nothing to make Social Security privatization a better idea in most peoples eyes. Voters didnt trust the plan, and four years later, at the end of Bushs term, the stock-market collapse bore out the publics skepticism. Privatization just didnt have any momentum behind it, no matter who was pushing it or how much capital Bush spent to sell it. The mistake that Bush made with Social Security, says John Sides, an associate professor of political
problem was not that he didnt have enough political capital. Yes, he science at George Washington University and a well-followed political blogger, was that just because he won an election, he thought he had a green light. But there was no sense of any kind of public urgency on Social

Security reform. Its like he went into the garage where various Republican policy ideas were hanging up and picked one. I dont think Obamas going to make that mistake. Bush decided he wanted to push a rock up a

hill . He didnt understand how steep the hill was. I think Obama has more momentum on hi s side because of the Republican Partys concerns about the Latino vote and the shooting at Newtown. Obama may also get his way on the debt ceiling, not because of his reelection, Sides says, but because Republicans are beginning to doubt whether taking a hard line on fiscal policy is a good idea, as the party suffers in the polls.