Tournament: Georgetown | Round: Quarters | Opponent: GBN DK | Judge: Sara Sanchez, Dana Randall, Andres Gannon
1nc -- da

Debt ceiling will pass – Obama political strength and Dem unity means the GOP will cave
Bolton, 9/14/13 (Alexander, The Hill, “Confident Democrats want separate showdowns on shutdown and debt limit” Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/322247-confident-democrats-want-separate-showdowns-on-shutdown-and-debt-limit#ixzz2g92IX3s7 

Democrats, however, want to force the GOP to debate these issues successively.
“We’re not negotiating on the debt ceiling. We think we have the high ground in both of those fights,” said a senior Senate Democratic aide.
The Senate Democratic strategy over the next several weeks will be to stand pat and refuse to make any significant concessions in exchange for funding the government or raising the debt ceiling.
“If push comes to shove on debt ceiling, I’m virtually certain they’ll blink,” said Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), the third-ranking member of the Senate Democratic leadership. “They know they shouldn’t be playing havoc with the markets.”
Schumer said Republicans are on stronger political ground if there’s a government shutdown, but warned “even on that one, they’re on weak ground because the public sort of is finally smelling that these guys are for obstructing.”
Increasing economic engagement splits Congressional Democrats and consumes political capital
Magnus, ‘9
John R. Magnus, trade lawyer in Washington, DC, is President of TradeWins LLC and Of Counsel
at Miller and Chevalier Chartered, ‘9
3. Votes: Will the new government allow any major trade-liberalizing items to come to a vote in the first two years? Conventional wisdom holds that trade votes are bad for the Democratic party -- they split the caucus, demoralize stakeholders, and generally spell trouble for the party’s political majority. Many regard allowing trade initiatives to reach the front of the legislative queue as a blunder of the early Clinton administration. A precious period of unified government was squandered when it could, the argument goes, have been used to enact important Democratic priorities. And then it might have lasted longer -- the 1994 Republican takeover could have been averted! Although questionable in several particulars, this narrative is present in the minds of many Democrats in and out of government today, and they are determined to manage the new period of unified government differently. There will be a strong temptation to use President Obama’s political capital exclusively for initiatives favored by a strong majority of Democrats, to keep trade-liberalizing measures (and related items like Trade Promotion Authority) off the voting agenda for months or even years, and to limit any congressional trade votes to matters like adjustment assistance and enforcement. But, of course, foreign policy concerns, and business community desires, will pull in the opposite direction. 

It disrupts Obama’s attempt to prioritize the debt ceiling by consuming political capital
Frumin, 9/21/13 – reporter for MSNBC (Aliyah, “Bright prospects on foreign agenda; domestic in chaos” http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/09/21/bright-prospects-for-obama-on-foreign-agenda-domestic-in-chaos/) 

Conservative strategist Keith Appell said having a full plate is just part of being president and his legacy is at risk because his number one priority of improving the economy has not been significantly addressed.
Fixing the economy, he said, could arguable be pegged to how much political capital he has on the issues Obama is currently facing (Syria, Iran, debt ceiling, gun control). “But certainly, if you’re talking about legacy, unless there is an overwhelming foreign policy situation like the Cold War, then it’s all about the economy.”
But Jeanne Zaino, a professor of political science at Iona College and of political campaign management at New York University said “Every time Obama tries to refocus on the economy, there’s these enormous crises that break out. You can just imagine how frustrating that can be and how it’s been difficult for him to prioritize.”
“It’s not only the amount he has on his plate. It’s that he doesn’t’ have the ability to get anything done without Congress,” she added.
That takes Obama off-message – it undermines his strategy of constant pressure on the GOP and makes a deal impossible
Milbank, 9/27/13 – Washington Post Opinion Writer (Dana, “Obama should pivot to Dubya’s playbook” Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-obama-should-try-pivoting-to-george-bushs-playbook/2013/09/27/c72469f0-278a-11e3-ad0d-b7c8d2a594b9_story.html)

If President Obama can stick to his guns, he will win his October standoff with Republicans.
That’s an awfully big “if.”
This president has been consistently inconsistent, predictably unpredictable and reliably erratic. Consider the events of Thursday morning:
Obama gave a rousing speech in suburban Washington, in defense of Obamacare, on the eve of its implementation. “We’re now only five days away from finishing the job,” he told the crowd.
But before he had even left the room, his administration let slip that it was delaying by a month the sign-up for the health-care exchanges for small businesses. It wasn’t a huge deal, but it was enough to trample on the message the president had just delivered.
Throughout his presidency, Obama has had great difficulty delivering a consistent message. Supporters plead for him to take a position — any position — and stick with it. His shifting policy on confronting Syria was the most prominent of his vacillations, but his allies have seen a similar approach to the Guantanamo Bay prison, counterterrorism and climate change. Even on issues such as gun control and immigration where his views have been consistent, Obama has been inconsistent in promoting his message. Allies are reluctant to take risky stands, because they fear that Obama will change his mind and leave them standing alone.
Now come the budget showdowns, which could define the rest of his presidency. Republican leaders are trying to shift the party’s emphasis from the fight over a government shutdown to the fight over the debt-limit increase, where they have more support. A new Bloomberg poll found that Americans, by a 2-to-1 margin, disagree with Obama’s view that Congress should raise the debt limit without any conditions.
But Obama has a path to victory. That poll also found that Americans think lawmakers should stop trying to repeal Obamacare. And that was before House Republicans dramatically overplayed their hand by suggesting that they’ll allow the nation to default if Obama doesn’t agree to their laundry list of demands, including suspending Obamacare, repealing banking reforms, building a new oil pipeline, easing environmental regulations, limiting malpractice lawsuits and restricting access to Medicare.
To beat the Republicans, Obama might follow the example of a Republican, George W. Bush. Whatever you think of what he did, he knew how to get it done: by simplifying his message and repeating it, ad nauseam, until he got the result he was after.
Obama instead tends to give a speech and move along to the next topic. This is why he is forever making “pivots” back to the economy, or to health care. But the way to pressure Congress is to be President One Note.
In the debt-limit fight, Obama already has his note: He will not negotiate over the full faith and credit of the United States. That’s as good a theme as any; it matters less what the message is than that he delivers it consistently.
The idea, White House officials explained to me, is to avoid getting into a back-and-forth over taxes, spending and entitlement programs. “We’re right on the merits, but I don’t think we want to argue on the merits,” one said. “Our argument is not that our argument is better than theirs; it’s that theirs is stupid.”
This is a clean message: Republicans are threatening to tank the economy — through a shutdown or, more likely, through a default on the debt — and Obama isn’t going to negotiate with these hostage-takers.
Happily for Obama, Republicans are helping him to make the case by being publicly belligerent. After this week’s 21-hour speech on the Senate floor by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), the publicity-seeking Texan and Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) objected to a bipartisan request to move a vote from Friday to Thursday to give House Republicans more time to craft legislation avoiding a shutdown. On the Senate floor, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) accused them of objecting because they had sent out e-mails encouraging their supporters to tune in to the vote on Friday. The Post’s Ed O’Keefe caught Cruz “appearing to snicker” as his colleague spoke — more smug teenager than legislator.
Even if his opponents are making things easier for him, Obama still needs to stick to his message. As in Syria, the president has drawn a “red line” by saying he won’t negotiate with those who would put the United States into default. If he retreats, he will embolden his opponents and demoralize his supporters.
Default will destroy the U.S. and global economy
Davidson, 9/10/13 – co-founder of NPR’s Planet Money (Adam, “Our Debt to Society” New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/magazine/our-debt-to-society.html?pagewanted=all)

If the debt ceiling isn’t lifted again this fall, some serious financial decisions will have to be made. Perhaps the government can skimp on its foreign aid or furlough all of NASA, but eventually the big-ticket items, like Social Security and Medicare, will have to be cut. At some point, the government won’t be able to pay interest on its bonds and will enter what’s known as sovereign default, the ultimate national financial disaster achieved by countries like Zimbabwe, Ecuador and Argentina (and now Greece). In the case of the United States, though, it won’t be an isolated national crisis. If the American government can’t stand behind the dollar, the world’s benchmark currency, then the global financial system will very likely enter a new era in which there is much less trade and much less economic growth. It would be, by most accounts, the largest self-imposed financial disaster in history.
Nearly everyone involved predicts that someone will blink before this disaster occurs. Yet a small number of House Republicans (one political analyst told me it’s no more than 20) appear willing to see what happens if the debt ceiling isn’t raised — at least for a bit. This could be used as leverage to force Democrats to drastically cut government spending and eliminate President Obama’s signature health-care-reform plan. In fact, Representative Tom Price, a Georgia Republican, told me that the whole problem could be avoided if the president agreed to drastically cut spending and lower taxes. Still, it is hard to put this act of game theory into historic context. Plenty of countries — and some cities, like Detroit — have defaulted on their financial obligations, but only because their governments ran out of money to pay their bills. No wealthy country has ever voluntarily decided — in the middle of an economic recovery, no less — to default. And there’s certainly no record of that happening to the country that controls the global reserve currency.
Like many, I assumed a self-imposed U.S. debt crisis might unfold like most involuntary ones. If the debt ceiling isn’t raised by X-Day, I figured, the world’s investors would begin to see America as an unstable investment and rush to sell their Treasury bonds. The U.S. government, desperate to hold on to investment, would then raise interest rates far higher, hurtling up rates on credit cards, student loans, mortgages and corporate borrowing — which would effectively put a clamp on all trade and spending. The U.S. economy would collapse far worse than anything we’ve seen in the past several years.
Nuclear war
Friedberg and Schoenfeld 8
Aaron, Prof. Politics. And IR @ Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School and Visiting Scholar @ Witherspoon Institute, and Gabriel, Senior Editor of Commentary and Wall Street Journal, “The Dangers of a Diminished America”, 10-28, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122455074012352571.html
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.

1nc – topicality
A. Interpretation - ‘Its’ is a possessive pronoun showing ownership
Glossary of English Grammar Terms, 2005  
(http://www.usingenglish.com/glossary/possessive-pronoun.html)

Mine, yours, his, hers, its, ours, theirs are the possessive pronouns used to substitute a noun and to show possession or ownership.
EG. This is your disk and that's mine. (Mine substitutes the word disk and shows that it belongs to me.)

B. Violation – the plan results in an increase in Cuba and the private sector’s economic engagement – not USFG economic engagement.  There’s a difference
Daga, 13 - director of research at Politicas Publicas para la Libertad, in Bolivia, and a visiting senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation (Sergio, “Economics of the 2013-2014 Debate Topic:
U.S. Economic Engagement Toward Cuba, Mexico or Venezuela”, National Center for Policy Analysis, 5/15, http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Message_to_Debaters_6-7-13.pdf)

Economic engagement between or among countries can take many forms, but this document will focus on government-to-government engagement through 1) international trade agreements designed to lower barriers to trade; and 2) government foreign aid; next, we will contrast government-to-government economic engagement with private economic engagement through 3) international investment, called foreign direct investment; and 4) remittances and migration by individuals. All of these areas are important with respect to the countries mentioned in the debate resolution; however, when discussing economic engagement by the U.S. federal government, some issues are more important with respect to some countries than to others.

C. Voting issue – 

1.  limits –offering for Cuba to engage allows for thousands of single commodity affs that would be topical—there are also infinite private actors that could export or import from Cuba

2. negative ground – the offer avoids core neg generics-- means we lose good links to diplomatic capital, politics, USFG action based CPs, and critiques

1nc – kritik (long)
Civil Society is founded upon a Master-to-Slave relationship that exploits and alienates the Black Body.
Wilderson 10 (Frank B., Professor of Drama @ UC Irvine- “Red, White, and Black: Cinema and the Structure of U.S. Antagonisms” pg. 9-11 SG) 

The polemic animating this research stems from (1) my reading of Native and Black American metacommentaries on Indian and Black subject positions written over the past twenty-three years and ( ) a sense of how much that work appears out of joint with intellectual protocols and political ethics which underwrite political praxis and socially engaged popular cinema in this epoch of multiculturalism and globalization. The sense of abandonment I experience when I read the metacommentaries on Red positionality (by theorists such as Leslie Silko, Ward Churchill, Taiaiake Alfred, Vine Deloria Jr., and Haunani-Kay Trask) and the metacommentaries on Black positionality (by theorists such as David Marriott, Saidiya Hartman, Ronald Judy, Hortense Spillers, Orlando Patterson, and Achille Mbembe) against the deluge of multicultural positivity is overwhelming. One suddenly realizes that, though the semantic field on which subjectivity is imagined has expanded phenomenally through the protocols of multiculturalism and globalization theory, Blackness and an unflinching articulation of Redness are more unimaginable and illegible within this expanded semantic field than they were during the height of the fbI’s repressive Counterintelligence Program (coIntelpro). On the semantic field on which the new protocols are possible, Indigenism can indeed become partially legible through a programmatics of structural adjustment (as fits our globalized era). In other words, for the Indians’ subject position to be legible, their positive registers of lost or threatened cultural identity must be foregrounded, when in point of fact the antagonistic register of dispossession that Indians “possess” is a position in relation to a socius structured by genocide. As Churchill points out, everyone from Armenians to Jews have been subjected to genocide, but the Indigenous position is one for which genocide is a constitutive element, not merely an historical event, without which Indians would not, paradoxically, “exist.”9 Regarding the Black position, some might ask why, after claims successfully made on the state by the Civil Rights Movement, do I insist on positing an operational analytic for cinema, film studies, and political theory that appears to be a dichotomous and essentialist pairing of Masters and Slaves? In other words, why should we think of today’s Blacks in the United States as Slaves and everyone else (with the exception of Indians) as Masters? One could answer these questions by demonstrating how nothing remotely approaching claims successfully made on the state has come to pass. In other words, the election of a Black president aside, police brutality, mass incarceration, segregated and substandard schools and housing, astronomical rates of hIv infection, and the threat of being turned away en masse at the polls still constitute the lived experience of Black life. But such empirically based rejoinders would lead us in the wrong direction; we would find ourselves on “solid” ground, which would only mystify, rather than clarify, the question. We would be forced to appeal to “facts,” the “historical record,” and empirical markers of stasis and change, all of which could be turned on their head with more of the same. Underlying such a downward spiral into sociology, political science, history, and public policy debates would be the very rubric that I am calling into question: the grammar of suffering known as exploitation and alienation, the assumptive logic whereby subjective dispossession is arrived at in the calculations between those who sell labor power and those who acquire it. The Black qua the worker. Orlando Patterson has already dispelled this faulty ontological grammar in Slavery and Social Death, where he demonstrates how and why work, or forced labor, is not a constituent element of slavery. Once the “solid” plank of “work” is removed from slavery, then the conceptually coherent notion of “claims against the state”—the proposition that the state and civil society are elastic enough to even contemplate the possibility of an emancipatory project for the Black position—disintegrates into thin air. The imaginary of the state and civil society is parasitic on the Middle Passage. Put another way, No slave, no world. And, in addition, as Patterson argues, no slave is in the world. If, as an ontological position, that is, as a grammar of suffering, the Slave is not a laborer but an anti-Human, a position against which Humanity establishes, maintains, and renews its coherence, its corporeal integrity; if the Slave is, to borrow from Patterson, generally dishonored, perpetually open to gratuitous violence, and void of kinship structure, that is, having no relations that need be recognized, a being outside of relationality, then our analysis cannot be approached through the rubric of gains or reversals in struggles with the state and civil society, not unless and until the interlocutor first explains how the Slave is of the world. The onus is not on one who posits the Master/Slave dichotomy but on the one who argues there is a distinction between Slaveness and Blackness. How, when, and where did such a split occur? The woman at the gates of Columbia University awaits an answer.
White supremacy is a global modality of genocidal violence – Slavery’s operational logic continues today. Reformist measures simply provide fuel for Whiteness.
Rodriguez ’11 (Dylan, PhD in Ethnic Studies Program of the University of California Berkeley and Associate Professor of Ethnic Studies at University of California Riverside, “The Black Presidential Non-Slave: Genocide and the Present Tense of Racial Slavery”, Political Power and Social Theory Vol. 22, pp. 38-43)

To crystallize what I hope to be the potentially useful implications of this provocation toward a retelling of the slavery-abolition story: if we follow the narrative and theoretical trajectories initiated here, it should take little stretch of the historical imagination, nor a radical distension of analytical framing, to suggest that the singular institutionalization of racist and peculiarly antiblack social/state violence in our living era - the US imprisonment regime and its conjoined policing and criminalization apparatuses - elaborates the social logics of genocidal racial slavery within the American nation-building project, especially in the age of Obama. The formation and astronomical growth of the prison industrial complex has become a commonly identified institutional marker of massively scaled racist state mobilization, and the fundamental violence of this apparatus is in the prison's translation of the 13th Amendment's racist animus. By "reforming" slavery and anti-slave violence, and directly transcribing both into criminal justice rituals, proceedings, and punishments, the 13th Amendment permanently inscribes slavery on "post-emancipation" US statecraft. The state remains a "slave state" to the extent that it erects an array of institutional apparatuses that are specifically conceived to reproduce or enhance the state's capacity to "create" (i.e., criminalize and convict) prison chattel and politically legitimate the processes of enslavement/imprisonment therein. The crucial starting point for our narrative purposes is that the emergence of the criminalization and carceral apparatus over the last forty years has not, and in the foreseeable future will not build its institutional protocols around the imprisonment of an economically productive or profitmaking prison labor force (Gilmore, 1999).16 So, if not for use as labor under the 13th Amendment's juridical mandate of "involuntary servitude," what is the animating structural-historical logic behind the formation of an imprisonment regime unprecedented in human history in scale and complexity, and which locks up well over a million Black people, significantly advancing numbers of "nonwhite" Latinos as, and in which the white population is vastly underrepresented in terms of both numbers imprisoned and likelihood to be prosecuted (and thus incarcerated) for similar alleged criminal offenses?17 In excess of its political economic, geographic, and juridical registers, the contemporary US prison regime must be centrally understood as constituting an epoch-defining statecraft of race: a historically specific conceptualization, planning, and institutional mobilization of state institutional capacities and state-influenced cultural structures to reproduce and/or reassemble the social relations of power, dominance, and violence that constitute the ontology (epistemic and conceptual framings) of racial meaning itself (da Silva, 2007; Goldberg, 1993). In this case, the racial ontology of the postslavery and post-civil rights prison is anchored in the crisis of social meaning wrought on white civil society by the 13th Amendment's apparent juridical elimination of the Black chattel slave being. Across historical periods, the social inhabitation of the white civil subject - - its self-recognition, institutionally affirmed (racial) sovereignty, and everyday social intercourse with other racial beings - is made legible through its positioning as the administrative authority and consenting audience for the nation- and civilization-building processes of multiple racial genocides. It is the bare fact of the white subject's access and entitlement to the generalized position of administering and consenting to racial genocide that matters most centrally here. Importantly, this white civil subject thrives on the assumption that s/he is not, and will never be the target of racial genocide.18 (Williams, 2010) .Those things obtained and secured through genocidal processes - land, political and military hegemony/dominance, expropriated labor - are in this sense secondary to the raw relation of violence that the white subject inhabits in relation to the racial objects (including people, ecologies, cultural forms, sacred materials, and other modalities of life and being) subjected to the irreparable violations of genocidal processes. It is this raw relation, in which white social existence materially and narratively consolidates itself within the normalized systemic logics of racial genocides, that forms the condition of possibility for the US social formation, from "abolition" onward. To push the argument further: the distended systems of racial genocides are not the massively deadly means toward some other (rational) historical ends, but are ends within themselves. Here we can decisively depart from the hegemonic juridical framings of "genocide" as dictated by the United Nations, and examine instead the logics of genocide that dynamically structure the different historical-social forms that have emerged from the classically identifiable genocidal systems of racial colonial conquest, indigenous physical and cultural extermination, and racial chattel slavery. To recall Trask and Marable, the historical logics of genocide permeate institutional assemblages that variously operationalize the historical forces of planned obsolescence, social neutralization, and "ceasing to exist." Centering a conception of racial genocide as a dynamic set of sociohistorical logics (rather than as contained, isolatable historical episodes) allows the slavery-to-prison continuity to be more clearly marked: the continuity is not one that hinges on the creation of late-20th and early-list century "slave labor," but rather on a re-institutionalization of anti-slave social violence. Within this historical schema, the post-1970s prison regime institutionalizes the raw relation of violence essential to white social being while mediating it so it appears as non-genocidal, non-violent, peacekeeping, and justice-forming. This is where we can also narrate the contemporary racial criminalization, policing, and incarcerating apparatuses as being historically tethered to the genocidal logics of the post-abolition, post-emancipation, and post-civil rights slave state. While it is necessary to continuously clarify and debate whether and how this statecraft of racial imprisonment is verifiably genocidal, there seems to be little reason to question that it is, at least, protogenocidal - displaying both the capacity and inclination for genocidal outcomes in its systemic logic and historical trajectory. This contextualization leads toward a somewhat different analytical framing of the "deadly symbiosis" that sociologist Loi'c Wacquant has outlined in his account of antiblack carceral-spatial systems. While it would be small-minded to suggest that the emergence of the late-20th century prison regime is an historical inevitability, we should at least understand that the structural bottom line of Black imprisonment over the last four decades - wherein the quantitative fact of a Black prison/jail majority has become taken-for-granted as a social fact - is a contemporary institutional manifestation of a genocidal racial substructure that has been reformed, and not fundamentally displaced, by the juridical and cultural implications of slavery's abolition. I have argued elsewhere for a conception of the US prison not as a selfcontained institution or isolated place, but rather as a material prototype of organized punishment and (social, civil, and biological) death (Rodriguez, 2006). To understand the US prison as a regime is to focus conceptually, theoretically, and politically on the prison as a pliable module or mobilized vessel through which technologies of racial domin8ance institutionalize their specific, localized practices of legitimated (state) violence. Emerging as the organic institutional continuity of racial slavery's genocidal violence, the US prison regime represents a form of human domination that extends beyond and outside the formal institutional and geographic domains of "the prison (the jail, etc.)." In this sense, the prison is the institutional signification of a larger regime of proto-genocidal violence that is politically legitimized by the state, generally valorized by the cultural common sense, and dynamically mobilized and institutionally consolidated across different historical moments: it is a form of social power that is indispensable to the contemporary (and postemancipation) social order and its changing structures of racial dominance, in a manner that elaborates the social logics of genocidal racial slavery. The binding presence of slavery within post-emancipation US state formation is precisely why the liberal multiculturalist narration of the Obama ascendancy finds itself compelled to posit an official rupture from the spectral and material presence of enslaved racial blackness. It is this symbolic rupturing - the presentation of a president who consummates the liberal dreams of Black citizenship. Black freedom, Black non-resentment, and Black patriotic subjectivity - that constructs the Black non-slave presidency as the flesh-and-blood severance of the US racial/racist state from its entanglement in the continuities of antiblack genocide. Against this multiculturalist narrative, our attention should be principally fixated on the bottom-line Blackness of the prison's genocidal logic, not the fungible Blackness of the presidency. CONCLUSION: FROM "POST-CIVIL RIGHTS" TO WHITE RECONSTRUCTION The Obama ascendancy is the signature moment of the post-1960s White Reconstruction, a period that has been characterized by the reformist elaboration of historically racist systems of social power to accommodate the political imperatives of American apartheid's downfall and the emergence of hegemonic (liberal-to-conservative) multiculturalisms. Byfocusing on how such reforms have neither eliminated nor fundamentally alleviated the social emergencies consistently produced by the historical logics of racial genocide, the notion of White Reconstruction departs from Marable's notion of the 1990s as the "twilight of the Second Reconstruction" (Marable. 2007. p. 216)19 and points toward another way of framing and narrating the period that has been more commonly referenced as the "post-civil rights" era. Rather than taking its primary point of historical departure to be the cresting of the Civil Rights Movement and its legacy of delimited (though no less significant) political-cultural achievements. White Reconstruction focuses on how this era is denned by an acute and sometimes aggressive reinvention and reorganization of the structural-institutional formations of racial dominance. Defined schematically, the recent half-century has encompassed a generalized reconstruction of "classically" white supremacist apparatuses of state-sanctioned and culturally legitimated racial violence. This general reconstruction has (1) strategically and unevenly dislodged various formal and de facto institutional white monopolies and diversified their personnel at various levels of access, from the entry-level to the administrative and executive levels (e.g., the sometimes aggressive diversity recruitment campaigns of research universities, urban police, and the military); while simultaneously (2) revamping, complicating, and enhancing the social relations of dominance, hierarchy, and violence mobilized by such institutions - relations that broadly reflect the long historical, substructural role of race in the production of the US national formation and socioeconomic order. In this sense, the notion of White Reconstruction brings central attention to how the historical logics of racial genocide may not only survive the apparent disruption of classical white monopolies on the administrative and institutional apparatuses that have long mobilized these violent social logics, but may indeed flourish through these reformist measures, as such logics are re-adapted into the protocols and discourses of these newly "diversified" racist and white supremacist apparatuses (e.g.. the apparatuses of the research university, police, and military have expanded their capacities to produce local and global relations of racial dominance, at the same time that they have constituted some of the central sites for diversity recruitment and struggles over equal access). It is, at the very least, a remarkable and dreadful moment in the historical time of White Reconstruction that a Black president has won office in an electoral landslide while well over a million Black people are incarcerated with the overwhelming consent of white/multiculturalist civil society.
The affirmative’s calls to “save the day” in Cuba through American engagement repeats the idea of the cultural deployment of military power throughout Latin America.
McPherson 09 (Alan, Associate professor of international and area studies and the Conoco Phillips Chair in Latin American Studies at the University of Oklahoma, April 2009, “Review of Cuba in the American Imagination: Metaphor and the Imperial Ethos by Louis A. Pérez,” JSTOR)DR. H

The author now argues in Cuba in the American Imagination that metaphors of Cuba legitimated U.S. power by articulating a moral imperative that compelled Americans to dominate the island for their self-interest while pretending to do so selflessly for Cuba's benefit. From the day Americans imagined Cuba "at our very door" or as a "ripe fruit" in the nineteenth century, through turning points such as the war against Spain (and Cuban sovereignty) and the Cuban Revolution, Americans thought of Cuba using naturalized images–Cuba as a woman, as a child–that fit into normative patterns that the American public and its policymakers read as a warrant for imperial behavior (pp. 28, 30).
The argument is not necessarily new. Perez himself has made it previously, and John Johnson in Latin America in Caricature presented several cartoons in support of it. But the astounding variety and specificity of the metaphors examined and the breadth of the evidence make this book a must-read. The author reproduces no less than 105 illustrations, almost all of them U.S. cartoons.
In them, as well as in Congressional speeches, editorials, histories, films, travel books, novels, poems, theatre, and commemorations, the metaphors were obvious. In the nineteenth century, the image of proximity–Cuba as "almost within sight"–indicated that the colony beckoned to be taken from Spain (p. 27). Right after 1898, Cuba as child either misbehaving in a classroom, learning to ride a bike, or navigating a raft telegraphed U.S. doubts about Cuban self-government. Metaphors of cleanliness, meanwhile, buttressed U.S. military and civilizational policies. Later, Cuba as owing gratitude to the U.S. "liberator" justified the Piatt Amendment and still today, the metaphor of "neighborhood" allowed U.S. observers either to express concern or to restore order if the island made too much "trouble" (p. 37).
Perez offers a few metaphors of his own–"laboratory" and "microcosm," for instance–to add how the U.S.-Cuba relationship, while unique, also exemplified the cultural deployment of U.S. power elsewhere (p. 1). He even claims that this metaphorical armada helped Americans define themselves as a nation–a pure, self-less, moral global power. 

This frontier mythology guarantees nuclear imperialism and violence.
Slotkin 85 (Richard, Olin Professor of American Studies @ Wesleyan, The Fatal Environment, p. 60-61)

This ideology of savage war has become an essential trope of our mythologization of history, a cliche of political discourse especially in wartime. In the 1890s imperialists like Theodore Roosevelt rationalized draconian military measures against the Filipinos by comparing them to Apaches. Samuel Eliot Morison, in his multivolume history of naval operations in the Second World War, recounts the posting of this slogan at fleet headquarters in the South Pacific: "KILL JAPS, KILL JAPS, KILL MORE JAPS!" Suspecting that peacetime readers may find the sentiment unacceptably extreme, Morison offers the following rationale; This may shock you, reader; but it is exactly how we felt. We were fighting no civilized, knightly war . . . We were back to primitive days of fighting Indians on the American frontier; no holds barred and no quarter. The Japs wanted it that way, thought they could thus terrify an "effete democracy"; and that is what they got, with the additional horrors of war that modem science can produce.17 It is possible that the last sentence is an oblique reference to the use of the atomic bomb at the war's end. But aside from that, Morison seems actually to overstate the extraordinary character of the counterviolence against the Japanese (we did, after all, grant quarter) in order to rationalize the strength of his sentiments. Note too the dramatization of the conflict as a vindication of our cultural masculinity against the accusations of "effeteness." The trope of savage war thus enriches the symbolic meaning of specific acts of war, transforming them into episodes of character building, moral vindication, and regeneration. At the same time it provides advance justification for a pressing of the war to the extreme point of extermination, "war without quarter": and it puts the moral responsibility for that outcome on the enemy, which is to say, on its predicted victims. As we analyze the structure and meaning of this mythology of violence, it is important that we keep in mind the distinction between the myth and the real-world situations and practices to which it refers. Mythology reproduces the world with its significances heightened beyond normal measure, so that the smallest actions are heavy with cosmic significances, and every conflict appears to press toward ultimate fatalities and final solutions. The American mythology of violence continually invokes the prospect of genocidal warfare and apocalyptic, world-destroying massacres; and there is enough violence in the history of the Indian wars, the slave trade, the labor/management strife of industrialization, the crimes and riots of our chaotic urbanization, and our wars against nationalist and Communist insurgencies in Asia and Latin America to justify many critics in the belief that America is an exceptionally violent society.

Discourse shapes reality – star this card. (read yellow).
Whisnant 12 Associate Professor of European History (Clayton, November 10, 2012, “Foucault and Discourse,” http://webs.wofford.edu/whisnantcj/his389/foucault_discourse.pdf)//DR. H

•Discourse creates a world. By shaping our perceptions of the world, pulling together chains of associations that produce a meaningful understanding, and then organizing the way we behave towards objects in the world and towards other people, one might say that discourse generates the world of our everyday life. After all, even though science teaches us that the “real world” is the material world made up of atoms and energy, in a real way the world for most of us is a world of colors, emotions, ideas, and life. It is a kind of virtual world generated by our minds, but not by us alone—we construct this world socially through a complex interaction between experience, upbringing, and education. Discourses, as chains of language that bind us social beings together, play a key role in the social construction of reality.
• Discourse generates knowledge and “truth.” Discourse constitutes not only the world that we live in, but also all forms of knowledge and “truth.” Knowledge for Foucault (as for most other structuralists and poststructuralists) was not something that existed independently of language. In other words, knowledge is not simply communicated through language; all knowledge is organized through the structures, interconnections, and associations that are built into language. Foucault would even go so far as to say that discourse generates truth—or what some have called truth-effects. Certain discourses in certain contexts have the power to convince people to accept statements as true. This power can have no relation to any objective correctness of the statement. The medical practice of leeching was accepted in the eighteenth century as helpful despite the harmful affects that we recognize today because it was embedded in a network of ancient medical discourses that many accepted as “true.” Likewise, many medical practices commonly accepted today might have seemed like madness or even barbaric because they had no discursive support.
• Discourse says something about the people who speak it. Discourse communicates knowledge not only about the intended meaning of the language, but also about the person speaking the discourse. By analyzing the discourse a speaker uses, one can often tell things about the speaker’s gender, sexuality, ethnicity, class position, and even more specifically the speaker’s implied relationship to the other people around him. Medical discourse, for example, gives doctors the authority to speak, thereby placing them in a position of power over their patients. Foucault was particularly interested in looking at modes of discourse that not everyone had a right to use, or that require specific locations to gain authority. 11
A sermon that would be right at home behind a church lectern might produce only an awkward silence if given at a party. And a certified lawyer acquires a certain right to speak legal discourse in a courtroom setting through a complex system of education, a series of exams, and network of state controls.
• Discourse and Power. This brings us to the fourth way that discourse operates, namely by being intimately involved with socially embedded networks of power. Because certain types of discourse enable specific types of individuals to “speak the truth,” or at the very least to be believed when speaking on specific subjects, discourses also give these individuals degrees of social, cultural, and even possibly political power. Doctors are generally believed when they talk about physical or mental illnesses, and this gives them an authority to recommend courses of action or patterns 11 Foucault, Archaeology of Knowledge, p. 50. of behavior. In many societies, and for long stretches of Western history, religious authorities wielded tremendous social and political power because they had the power to speak about the divine. This power was caught up with their specific position, but was also based on the fact that religious discourse suffused all of life, shaping social organization and influencing how people interpreted the world.

Our alternative is to vote negative to rethink both the geographical bounds of U.S. American history and culture and their chronology – only through this step can we begin to take steps towards resolving social death and malevolent forms of imperialism.
Luis-Brown 08 (David, 9/15/08, “Waves of Decolonization: Discourses of Race and Hemispheric Citizenship in Cuba, Mexico, and the United States,” Duke University Press, pg 1-4)DR. H

THE “WORLD ASPECT" OF THE “COLOR LINE” IN “TIME AND SPACE": DU BOlS’S CHALLENGE TO AMERICAN STUDIES
In The Souls of Black Folk (1903), W. E. B. Du Bois writes, “The problem of  the twentieth century is the problem of the color line,—the relation of the darker to the lighter races of men in Asia and Africa, in America and the  islands of the sea.”' The lesser-known second clause of Du Bois‘s most famous pronouncement pushes the color line beyond the United States, sketching out a global approach. What would the disciplines old American studies and American literature look like if scholars were to use the global Color line in order to transform their ?elds into comparative, transnational endeavors?  Du Bois offers one possible answer in “Of the Dawn of Freedom" in Souls, which begins with this Formulation of the problem of the color line.  Du Bois’.-1 assessment of the Freedmerfs Bureau’s efforts to enfranchise  African Americans following the Civil War concludes, “Despite compromise, war, and struggle, the Negro is not free” (S 239). Nominal Freedom, we learnt is not a solution but rather a chronic problem: “Thus Negro suffrage ended a civil war by beginning a race feud,” Du Bois writes (S 238).  By beginning this chapter with his theory of the color line, Du Bois transforms the meanings at what is usually regarded as it chapter in U.S. history: it now appears as part of a broader series of fortifications and adjustments of the global color line. Therefore the defeat of Reconstruction is not just a blow to U.S. democracy, but a loss felt by democratic movements across the world. Here Du Bois's technique is not to turn African Americans into figures of the universal but rather to magnify their signi?cance as a test of global democracy. Equally important, Du Bois's method is to take the conclusion of the Civil War period—the ostensible attainment of African American freedom in Reconstruction—as the beginning of inquiry, as itself a problem for both investigation and activism. If the discourse of freedom/emancipation is the North's proposed resolution for slavery, a "second slavery" of inequality emerges that Reconstruction attempts to resolve with a discourse of racial equality (S 220). In his own post-Reconstruction moment, Du Bois attempts to build on and refine that discourse of racial equality in Souls. He presents a two-pronged method of analysis, expanding outward from the United States along the cross-national "color line" and straddling the bounds of conventional historical periods in order to show that despite the fact that such periods appear to be finished, they are characterized by problems that extend into our present in altered form.
In order to understand the full implications of the color line as a methodology of periodization and transnational analysis, one needs to look beyond Souls, which mainly focuses on the United States along the cross-national "color line" and straddling the bounds of conventional historical periods in order to show that despite the fact that such periods appear to be finished, they are characterized by problems that extend into our present in altered form.
In order to understand the full implications of the color line as a methodology of periodization and transnational analysis, one needs to look beyond Souls, which mainly focuses on the United States, to his less-known texts. In an earlier speech, "The Present Outlook for the Dark Races of Mankind" (1900), in which Du Boise introduces the color line concept to the African American intellectuals gathered at the third annual meeting of the African American intellectuals gathered at the third annual meeting of the American Negro Academy, he states, "It is my purpose to consider with you the problem of the color line not simply as a national and personal question but rather in its larger world aspect in time and space." Time and space. Even in his earliest formulation of the color line, Du Bois emphasizes its connection not only with space, but also with time, confirming the two-pronged character of the color line as a methodology.
In this speech, the "world aspect" of the color line, somewhat implicit in "Of the Dawn of Freedom," comes to the fore, as Du Bois assesses the history of colonial conflict and racial strife in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Du Bois devotes special attention to U.S. imperial ambition in Latin America and the Pacific:
Most significant of all at this period is the fact that the colored population of our land is, through the new imperial policy, about to be doubled by our own ownership of Porto Rico, and Hawaii, our protectorate of Cuba, and conquest of the Philippines. This is for us and for the nation the greatest event since the Civil War and demands attention and action on our part. What is to be our attitude toward these new lands and toward the masses of dark men and women who inhabit them? Manifestly it must be an attitude of deepest sympathy and strongest alliance. ("PO" 53)
Du Bois argues that U.S. imperialist expansion is the "most significant" development along the global color line since the Civil War and demands attention and action on our part. What is to be our attitude toward these new lands and toward the masses of dark men and women who inhabit them? Manifestly it must be an attitude of deepest sympathy and strongest alliance. ("PO" 53)
Du Bois argues that U.S. imperialist expansion is the "most significant" development along the global color line since the Civil War, thereby linking domestic civil rights struggles to anti-imperialism. Furthermore, in what is his boldest claim, Du Bois argues that numerous "colored" populations subjected to the "new imperial policy" have become de facto members of the U.S., if not yet de jure citizens, and therefore African Americans should forge alliances with them. One result for intellectual inquiry is that if for many scholars U.S. history can be viewed as an exclusively national story, such is not the case for Du Bois. More specifically, Du Bois figures the extension of U.S. empire in the Spanish-American-Cuban War of 1898 as the defining event for African Americans. Here is a second result of Du Bois' emphasis on the importance of 1898: it calls on African Americans to forge a political identity that goes beyond their particular ethnic identity.
As Du Bois states to the audience of black intellectuals, "I freely acknowledge that in the red heat of a burning social problem like this, when each of us feels the bitter sting of proscription, it is a difficult thing to place one's self at that larger point of view and ask with the cold eye of the historian and social philosopher: What part is the color line destined to play in the twentieth century? And yet this is the task I have laid out for you this evening, and one which you must take up for yourselves; for, after all, the secret of social progress is wide and thorough understanding of the social forces which move and modify your age" ("PO" 47). Du Bois's challenge to the American Negro Academy—and, by extension, to today's American studies—is to adopt "that larger point of view" and pay attention to the plight of those "dark faces" who face U.S. imperialism.
More broadly, this "larger point of view" calls for a rethinking of both the geographical bounds of U.S. American history and culture and their chronology, linking and decentering the U.S.-based periods of slavery, Civil War, and Reconstruction with a broader formulation, the global color line, a chronotype, or figure of the interrelations of time and space, for histories of racism, imperialism, and decolonization. I would argue that the term decolonization captures Du Bois's focus on the dual temporal and spatial significance of thinking from the perspective of the color line. Here I understand decolonization to entail the intellectual activist project of assailing the antidemocratic policies of imperialism along the global color line and developing new and more egalitarian societies. The color line's "world aspect in time" emerges in the ways in which it reshapes our sense of history and the future by naming avant la lettre the longue durèe of decolonization, a term coined in 1932. The color line's "world aspect in ... space" is evident in the series of racial divisions that Du Bois explores. The notion of the color line presents conceptual difficulties because it traces and traverses national boundaries, but it also presents new opportunities because it suggests the need for linking domestic civil rights movements to struggles against imperialism.
1nc – cp
Text: The People’s Republic of China should increase its imports of Cuban sugarcane ethanol and maintain the option of exporting sugarcane ethanol to the United States.

China’s influence is growing in Cuba but US interference causes Chinese economic meltdown – also Cuba says no.
Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs 9/26, 2013, “Yang Yi: China Will Keep Advocating and Acting Fairly for Cuba,” http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/zxxx/t1082193.shtml)//DR. H

On 25 September 2013, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi met with Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla at United Nations Headquarters in New York.
Wang Yi said that China and Cuba are good friends, good comrades and good partners. The newly elected government in China will continue to strengthen the already-tested traditional friendship between the two countries. China will, as always, support the efforts of the Cuban people to safeguard national sovereignty and oppose foreign interference. China supports the path chosen by Cuba itself and will do the best to provide help for Cuba. China will continue to advocate and act fairly for Cuba and firmly support Cuba's legitimate interests and concerns.
Rodriguez said that Cuba-China relations have maintained a strong momentum of development in recent years. China's successful experience in economic and social development is an important reference for Cuba. Cuba upholds the one China policy and opposes the interference of any external forces in China's internal affairs. Cuba will continue to firmly support China's position on issues concerning China's interests.

Chinese decline causes great power war.
Chuang 01 (Major Liow Boon, Singapore Armed Forces, Pointer (The Journal of Singapore’s Armed Forces), “A Weak or Strong China: Which Is Better for the Asia-Pacific Region?” Volume 27, Number 1, January-March, http://www.mindef.gov.sg/safti/pointer/back/journals/2001/Vol27_1/7.htm)

'In the past, a weak China, beset by social disorder, inflation and civil war attracted foreign intervention by the great powers. The result was turbulence and instability inside China and at its borders'. China was invaded twice and suffered from several decades of civil wars and occupation by Japan.25 A loosening of China's political system has already been brought about by economic liberalization, more will follow as communications and education improve with economic growth. Indeed, lessons from Europe and the Soviet Union have taught that a rapid political liberalization unsupported by economic growth can easily lead to social disintegration, which if it divides China, will jeopardize the stability of the whole Asia-Pacific.26 Slow growth of the economy could increase the level of social discontent that would result in political instability. Chinese leaders will attempt to implement the structural reforms necessary to provide a sound framework for sustained future economic growth while minimising political unrest. China's leadership understand that for China to achieve great power status, economic power with a commensurate amount of military power will be the key.
It is commonly asserted that national leaders who are unable to overcome domestic difficulties sometimes pursue an aggressively extroverted foreign policy to distract their people from the problems at home. Samuel S. Kim seems to have this idea in mind when he argues that 'Today the main danger to the peace and stability of the Asia-Pacific region stems more from China's domestic weakness than from its external assertiveness a weak, reactive, insecure and fragmenting China is more unpredictable and dangerous than a strong, confident and cohesive China.'27
There are already signs of unrest and secessionist movements in China, and if China is weak economically and governed by a weak government that does not handle these problems well, an internal break-up could occur and it could precipitate the fall of the country. Controlling the widening income gap between city dwellers and peasants is one pressing problem the Chinese government has to tackle, and keeping the secessionist movement of Muslims in Xinjiang Province and the banned Falungong cult under control are some urgent tasks.

1nc – cuban econ adv
No internal link to hotspots—they have to first win that North Korea and Iran will first get nuclear weapons and start a war
Cuba’s economy is growing now
Havana Times 7/7 (7/7/13 “Cuban Gov. Presents “Favorable” Stats” http://www.havanatimes.org/?p=95985 7-7-13)

The economy showed an overall a “favorable performance”, said Yzquierdo. Almost all sectors recorded growth, “including trade, transport, communications and manufacturing,” he noted.¶ Yzquierdo said the Cuban trade balance was positive at the end of the first quarter and pointed to a similar trend for year-end. At the same time, he spoke of a “slowdown” in the global economic situation.¶ Cuba recently reduced its forecasts for annual growth in 2013 from the 3.6 percent initially estimated to somewhere between 2.5 and 3.0 percent. He emphasized that the evolution of gross domestic product (GDP) has been influenced by the crisis in the international arena.¶ In the first semester, the island’s economy grew 2.3 percent, according Yzquierdo, despite “external stress”, the “internal weaknesses” and the effects of Hurricane “Sandy”, which swept across the east of Cuba in October 2012.¶ “Sandy” affected 11 provinces and caused losses of almost 7 billion dollars, according to the minister.¶ The inaugural session of the eighth legislature of the National Assembly of People’s Power closes on, Sunday. Raul Castro is expected to pronounce in a speech to the parliament.¶ In a Communist Party Central Committee meeting last week, Castro came down hard on what he called “indiscipline and illegalities” in the State apparatus. He will most likely refer to the fight against corruption, one of the banner efforts of his administration.
No impact to Cuba’s economy – (chances are the card is terrible).
No hotspots impact.
Ghitis, 12 - an independent commentator on world affairs and a World Politics Review contributing editor (Frida, World Politics Review, “Latin America, the World's Democracy Lab” 7/5,
http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/12127/world-citizen-latin-america-the-worlds-democracy-lab)

Democracy in Latin America has created a new set of rules for what continue to be fierce political battles. The disputes that triggered armed conflict in the past now tend to spark bitter legislative maneuvers, even thinly disguised coups, punctuated with street protests that sometimes turn violent, but eventually die off. Latin America still contains the ingredients for violent social conflict, but the willingness to experiment within the elusive parameters of democracy has kept armed conflict to a minimum. It has meant that even when the system disappoints, there is always another democratic path to chart, another formula to concoct. To be sure, violence is far from defeated. Central American countries have some of the highest murder rates in the world as a result of drug trafficking. Mexico has seen some 50,000 die in the battle to defeat the narco-gangs. The decades-old insurgency in Colombia is not finished, and street protests occasionally turn deadly throughout the region. But it's a long way from the civil wars and the "dirty wars" that characterized the region in the second half of the 20th century. Then, the routine means of deciding the shape of the political and economic system was by taking up arms and killing those on the other side of the ideological divide. No more.
Impacts empirically denied – Cuba’s economy should’ve collapse by now since the embargo’s been in place for so long, also proves the embargo is an alt cause
No terror—US objectives—there’s a difference between refugee flows and
No terror impact.
Chapman 12 (Stephen, editorial writer for Chicago Tribune, “CHAPMAN: Nuclear terrorism unlikely,” May 22, http://www.oaoa.com/articles/chapman-87719-nuclear-terrorism.html)

A layperson may figure it’s only a matter of time before the unimaginable comes to pass. Harvard’s Graham Allison, in his book “Nuclear Terrorism,” concludes, “On the current course, nuclear terrorism is inevitable.” But remember: After Sept. 11, 2001, we all thought more attacks were a certainty. Yet al-Qaida and its ideological kin have proved unable to mount a second strike. Given their inability to do something simple — say, shoot up a shopping mall or set off a truck bomb — it’s reasonable to ask whether they have a chance at something much more ambitious. Far from being plausible, argued Ohio State University professor John Mueller in a presentation at the University of Chicago, “the likelihood that a terrorist group will come up with an atomic bomb seems to be vanishingly small.” The events required to make that happen comprise a multitude of Herculean tasks. First, a terrorist group has to get a bomb or fissile material, perhaps from Russia’s inventory of decommissioned warheads. If that were easy, one would have already gone missing. Besides, those devices are probably no longer a danger, since weapons that are not maintained quickly become what one expert calls “radioactive scrap metal.” If terrorists were able to steal a Pakistani bomb, they would still have to defeat the arming codes and other safeguards designed to prevent unauthorized use. As for Iran, no nuclear state has ever given a bomb to an ally — for reasons even the Iranians can grasp. Stealing some 100 pounds of bomb fuel would require help from rogue individuals inside some government who are prepared to jeopardize their own lives. Then comes the task of building a bomb. It’s not something you can gin up with spare parts and power tools in your garage. It requires millions of dollars, a safe haven and advanced equipment — plus people with specialized skills, lots of time and a willingness to die for the cause. Assuming the jihadists vault over those Himalayas, they would have to deliver the weapon onto American soil. Sure, drug smugglers bring in contraband all the time — but seeking their help would confront the plotters with possible exposure or extortion. This, like every other step in the entire process, means expanding the circle of people who know what’s going on, multiplying the chance someone will blab, back out or screw up. That has heartening implications. If al-Qaida embarks on the project, it has only a minuscule chance of seeing it bear fruit. Given the formidable odds, it probably won’t bother. None of this means we should stop trying to minimize the risk by securing nuclear stockpiles, monitoring terrorist communications and improving port screening. But it offers good reason to think that in this war, it appears, the worst eventuality is one that will never happen.

No US intervention—reluctance to get involved in recent Middle East conflicts like Libya and Syria disprove, also means their hotspots IL is empirically denied because we were able to focus on multiple hotspots at the same time
1nc – ethanol front line
No warming impacts.
Burnett, 12 – Sterling, Ph.D., Senior Fellow in Environment and Energy at the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), “Fraud and Heartland: A Scandal for Climate Alarmists, not Skeptics,” 2-22, http://environmentblog.ncpa.org/fraud-and-heartland-a-scandal-for-climate-alarmists-not-skeptics/. 

Sadly (for him), Peter Gleick, the researcher at issue, could have obtained a good deal of the information he sought through a request for Heartland’s 990, a tax document that non-profits have to provide to any who request it. Rather than going through legitimate channels to obtain what information he could or, better still, questioning the veracity of the initial document he received — and there were many reasons to question that document, among them the fact that it was delivered to him anonymously — using someone else’s name, a Heartland board member — he requested internal documents. Despite all the sound and fury surrounding this episode over the last week, really, nothing new was learned in the memos. As Time Magazine summed it up: “The alleged memos seem to confirm that the Heartland Institute is trying to push it’s highly skeptical view of climate science into the public sphere, which is only surprising if you’ve paid exactly zero attention to the climate debate over the past decade.” Gleick admits that his actions were wrong and apologized but said he did it out of “frustration.” One has to ask, frustration over what? Is he perhaps frustrated with the fact that he and his fellow climate alarmists have, as of yet, been unable to convince Americans that the scientific case for climate action is settled and stampede them into calling for policies that forcibly restrict energy use? Daily polls show more American’s are coming to doubt the argument that human actions are causing a warming that would result in catastrophic climate change. Or perhaps he is frustrated with the fact that an increasing number of scientists – scientists with as good or better credentials and reputations as those who argue that humans are causing warming — continue to highlight the weakness, discrepancies and contradictions that continue to plague global warming theory and demonstrate that the case in far from closed. Perhaps Glieck and his ilk are frustrated because they constantly bray that scientists and think tanks that show skepticism concerning one or another critical point of global warming theory are exceedingly well-funded; when the reality is, and Gleick knows it, these scientists and think tanks are very modestly funded when compared to the billions that are spent to on climate research, politics and on politically favored technologies by governments, billionaires and corporations who will benefit from climate policies, and the non-profit foundations and think tanks that want to use fear of global warming to reshape the Western economic system into what they believe would be a more humane, equitable (socialist), global version of society. A society where international bodies, with bureaucracies staffed by “experts” beyond the reach of crass democratic politics and mass opinion will steer the ship of global-state in the direction of the “true” public good. Time magazine notes that if anything, the Heartland memos debunk the idea of a well-funded “. . . vast right-wing conspiracy,” behind global warming skepticism. Who says the Progressive era has passed?
Plan can’t solve warming—global replacement of fossil fuels for transportation and electricity would take decades
No methane burps impact – empirics.
Before its News 10 – (Do The Math: The Myth of A Giant Methane Explosion, Leaked Methane Has Less Than 1 of Energy of Mt. St. Helens, 7/6/10
http://beforeitsnews.com/gulf-oil-spill/2010/07/do-the-math-the-myth-of-a-giant-methane-explosion-leaked-methane-has-less-than-1-of-energy-of-mt-st-helens-94082.html?currentSplittedPage=0)  czhang
About 38 billion cubic feet of methane would be needed to produce a one megaton blast. By comparison the eruption of Mount Saint Helens on May 18, 1980 released 24 megatons of explosive energy. It would require 923 billion cubic feet of methane to explode simultaneously to produce the same energy as the Mt. St. Helens eruption. The 1908 Tunguska event released the energy equivalent of 10 megatons (Mton) of TNT. About 15 billion cubic feet of methane has escaped over 68 days from BP's busted Macondo Well at the Deepwater Horizon site, which has either dissolved in the Gulf of Mexico or dispersed into the atmosphere. Now as to why an explosive event is so highly unlikely as to border on mythical even with 230 million cubic feet of methane a day gushing from the BP well along with 60,000 barrels of oil.
No food wars, and they don’t escalate
Salehyan 08 (Idean, Prof. Pol. Sci. @ North Texas, Journal of Peace Research, “From Climate Change to Conflict? No Consensus Yet”, 45:3, Sage, DOI: 10.1177/0022343308088812)

A few caveats are in order here. It is important to note, again, that the most severe effects of climate change are likely to be felt in the future, and the future is inherently uncertain.4 While fundamental shifts in the environment are not inconceivable, our best bet for predicting what is to come is to look at what has transpired in the past. Since it is frequently argued that climate change will lead to resource scarcities and exacerbate inequality, it is possible to draw upon past evidence regarding these factors to develop a sense of how conflicts might unfold given changes in the Earth’s atmosphere. Additionally, I do not take issue with the claim that climate change will present considerable challenges for human societies and ecosystems more generally. Humanitarian crises stemming, in part, from climate change have the potential to be severe, and steps must be taken quickly to attenuate such contingencies. Rather, my purpose here is to underscore the point that environmental processes, by themselves, cannot explain why, where, and when fighting will occur; rather, the interaction between environmental and political systems is critical for understanding organized armed violence. First, the deterministic view has poor predictive power as to where and when conflicts will break out. For every potential example of an environmental catastrophe or resource shortfall that leads to violence, there are many more counter-examples in which conflict never occurs. But popular accounts typically do not look at the dogs that do not bark. Darfur is frequently cited as a case where desertification led to food scarcity, water scarcity, and famine, in turn leading to civil war and ethnic cleansing.5 Yet, food scarcity and hunger are problems endemic to many countries – particularly in sub-Saharan Africa – but similar problems elsewhere have not led to large-scale violence. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, food shortages and malnutrition affect more than a third of the population in Malawi, Zambia, the Comoros, North Korea, and Tanzania,6 although none of these countries have experienced fullblown civil war and state failure. Hurricanes, coastal flooding, and droughts – which are all likely to intensify as the climate warms – are frequent occurrences which rarely lead to violence. The Asian Tsunami of 2004, although caused by an oceanic earthquake, led to severe loss of life and property, flooding, population displacement, and resource scarcity, but it did not trigger new wars in Southeast Asia. Large-scale migration has the potential to provoke conflict in receiving areas (see Reuveny, 2007; Salehyan and Gleditsch, 2006), yet most migration flows do not lead to conflict, and, in this regard, social integration and citizenship policies are particularly important (Gleditsch, Nordås and Salehyan, 2007). In short, resource scarcity, natural disasters, and long-term climatic shifts are ubiquitous, while armed conflict is rare; therefore, environmental conditions, by themselves, cannot predict violent outbreaks. Second, even if local skirmishes over access to resources arise, these do not always escalate to open warfare and state collapse. While interpersonal violence is more or less common and may intensify under resource pressures, sustained armed conflict on a massive scale is difficult to conduct. Meier, Bond and Bond (2007) show that, under certain circumstances, environmental conditions have led to cattle raiding among pastoralists in East Africa, but these conflicts rarely escalate to sustained violence. Martin (2005) presents evidence from Ethiopia that, while a large refugee influx and population pressures led to localized conflict over natural resources, effective resource management regimes were able to ameliorate these tensions. Both of these studies emphasize the role of local dispute-resolution regimes and institutions – not just the response of central governments – in preventing resource conflicts from spinning out of control. Martin’s analysis also points to the importance of international organizations, notably the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, in implementing effective policies governing refugee camps. Therefore, local hostilities need not escalate to serious armed conflict and can be managed if there is the political will to do so. 

No Internal link –

1. Not enough sugar and Castro says no
   Sanchez ‘11
   Adriana E. Sanchez, NotiEn, News Agency, 2011, “Biofuels Fighting for Space in Central America and Cuba,” http://repository.unm.edu/bitstream/handle/1928/12797/Biofuels20Fighting20for20Space20in20Central20America20and20Cuba.pdf?sequence=1

Similar to Central America, Cuba’s potential to become a leader in biofuel production is subject to speculation, and it will be strongly tied to the energy policy that the island adopts within the next few years. The Association for the Study of Cuban Economy (ASCE) says sugarcane could seemingly provide the raw material for biofuel production. But tight supplies might be a problem. The island nation is expected to produce only 1.2 million tons of raw sugar. This is a very small amount when compared to sugar production in the 1990s, which was estimated to reach 7 million to 8 million tons per year. With its current sugarcane output, Cuba could produce an estimated 3.2 billion gallons of ethanol per year, energy industry sources say. ¶ In an interview with NotiEn, Jorge Piñón, a well-known expert on Cuban energy policy, suggested that Cuba would have to stop its dependence on fossil fuels from foreign countries if it is to develop energy independence. "Cuba passed from papa Russia to papa Venezuela to solve its population’s energy demand," said Piñón. "Cuba must strive to start working on an energy policy that can help the country independent of who is in power." ¶ Piñón said ethanol production has not been more actively promoted because of the complicated relation that Cuba has had with sugarcane. "Fidel Castro puts his foot down every time there are talks about an increase in ethanol production; for him it is a political issue," said Piñón, a visiting research fellow at the Cuban Research Institute at Florida International University’s Latin American and Caribbean Center and an analyst for the Center for Hemispheric Policy at the University of Miami. 

2nc

2nc overview

5. Only rejection of the frontier mythology allows us to solve the case.
Coles 02 (Roberta, Associate Professor of Sociology at Marquette University,  Sociology of Religion, 63.4)

The discursive framework of Manifest Destiny, a 19th Century political doctrine, is aptly equipped for conflict. Indeed, many have argued that war is inherent in this doctrine. While not coined as a term until 1845, Manifest Destiny drew upon centuries old themes of American civil religion; it proffered America's superior and chosen nature and its duty to redeem the continent and perhaps the globe,1 as justification to expand America's geographical and political boundaries. Relying on these tenets, Presidents Polk and Tyler added more than 800 million acres of Mexican land to the United States in the mid-1800s through war and confiscation. Later in the century, again relying overtly on Manifest Destiny in the Spanish-American war, President William McKinley annexed in one status or another the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Hawaii, and part of Samoa. While some scholars argue that Manifest Destiny was supplanted by imperialism at the turn of the century, the distinctions between imperialism and Manifest Destiny are often nebulous.2 If Manifest Destiny is approached only as an overt political doctrine limited to land expansion, then it was nearing its demise after the turn of the Twentieth Century. As a term, it now connotes arrogance and racism and is rarely openly invoked. Nevertheless, if we recognize the mythic and religious nature of Manifest Destiny, delineating its civil religion components, as a number of scholars have done (Baritz 1985; Bostdorff 1994, for instance), rather than treating it as a political doctrine tied to a particular historical era or to a particular form of expansion, we find that Manifest Destiny has remained embedded in America's civil religion as a resilient and robust narrative useful for justifying war, intervening on behalf of a ubiquitous national interest, and restoring America's self-image of exceptionalism. The discourses of President George Bush as he prepared for and executed the 1991 Persian Gulf War and President Bill Clinton as he approached and implemented a military campaign in Kosovo were replete with the tenets of Manifest Destiny though neither ever invoked the term itself. 9

6. Prefer our disjunctive scenarios to their short-term conjunctive scenarios – most qualified analysis is on our side
Yudkowsky 06 – Eliezer Yudkowsky, 8/31/2006, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence Palo Alto, CA. “Cognitive biases potentially affecting judgment of global risks,” Forthcoming in Global Catastrophic Risks, eds. Nick Bostrom and Milan Cirkovic, singinst.org/upload/cognitive-biases.pdf.

The conjunction fallacy similarly applies to futurological forecasts. Two independent sets of professional analysts at the Second International Congress on Forecasting were asked to rate, respectively, the probability of "A complete suspension of diplomatic relations between the USA and the Soviet Union, sometime in 1983" or "A Russian invasion of Poland, and a complete suspension of diplomatic relations between the USA and the Soviet Union, sometime in 1983". The second set of analysts responded with significantly higher probabilities. (Tversky and Kahneman 1983.) In Johnson et. al. (1993), MBA students at Wharton were scheduled to travel to Bangkok as part of their degree program. Several groups of students were asked how much they - 6 - were willing to pay for terrorism insurance. One group of subjects was asked how much they were willing to pay for terrorism insurance covering the flight from Thailand to the US. A second group of subjects was asked how much they were willing to pay for terrorism insurance covering the round-trip flight. A third group was asked how much they were willing to pay for terrorism insurance that covered the complete trip to Thailand. These three groups responded with average willingness to pay of $17.19, $13.90, and $7.44 respectively. According to probability theory, adding additional detail onto a story must render the story less probable. It is less probable that Linda is a feminist bank teller than that she is a bank teller, since all feminist bank tellers are necessarily bank tellers. Yet human psychology seems to follow the rule that adding an additional detail can make the story more plausible. People might pay more for international diplomacy intended to prevent nanotechnological warfare by China, than for an engineering project to defend against nanotechnological attack from any source. The second threat scenario is less vivid and alarming, but the defense is more useful because it is more vague. More valuable still would be strategies which make humanity harder to extinguish without being specific to nanotechnologic threats - such as colonizing space, or see Yudkowsky (this volume) on AI. Security expert Bruce Schneier observed (both before and after the 2005 hurricane in New Orleans) that the U.S. government was guarding specific domestic targets against "movie-plot scenarios" of terrorism, at the cost of taking away resources from emergency-response capabilities that could respond to any disaster. (Schneier 2005.) Overly detailed reassurances can also create false perceptions of safety: "X is not an existential risk and you don't need to worry about it, because A, B, C, D, and E"; where the failure of any one of propositions A, B, C, D, or E potentially extinguishes the human species. "We don't need to worry about nanotechnologic war, because a UN commission will initially develop the technology and prevent its proliferation until such time as an active shield is developed, capable of defending against all accidental and malicious outbreaks that contemporary nanotechnology is capable of producing, and this condition will persist indefinitely." Vivid, specific scenarios can inflate our probability estimates of security, as well as misdirecting defensive investments into needlessly narrow or implausibly detailed risk scenarios. More generally, people tend to overestimate conjunctive probabilities and underestimate disjunctive probabilities. (Tversky and Kahneman 1974.) That is, people tend to overestimate the probability that, e.g., seven events of 90 probability will all occur. Conversely, people tend to underestimate the probability that at least one of seven events of 10 probability will occur. Someone judging whether to, e.g., incorporate a new startup, must evaluate the probability that many individual events will all go right (there will be sufficient funding, competent employees, customers will want the product) while also considering the likelihood that at least one critical failure will occur (the bank refuses - 7 - a loan, the biggest project fails, the lead scientist dies). This may help explain why only 44 of entrepreneurial ventures3 survive after 4 years. (Knaup 2005.) Dawes (1988) observes: 'In their summations lawyers avoid arguing from disjunctions ("either this or that or the other could have occurred, all of which would lead to the same conclusion") in favor of conjunctions. Rationally, of course, disjunctions are much more probable than are conjunctions.' The scenario of humanity going extinct in the next century is a disjunctive event. It could happen as a result of any of the existential risks discussed in this book - or some other cause which none of us foresaw. Yet for a futurist, disjunctions make for an awkward and unpoetic-sounding prophecy.

2nc framework

1. The affirmative’s interpretation of debate generates nationalistic ideologies which is at the root of war and removes meaning from life.
   Shaffer 7 (Butler teaches at the Southwestern University School of Law. B.S., Law, 1958, University of Nebraska, Lincoln; B.A., Political Science, 1959, and J.D., 1961, University of Chicago; Member, Colorado and Nebraska State Bars. “Identifying With the State” June 29th 2007. http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer159.html, MT)

One of the deadliest practices we engage in is that of identifying ourselves with a collective entity. Whether it be the state, a nationality, our race or gender, or any other abstraction, we introduce division – hence, conflict – into our lives as we separate ourselves from those who identify with other groupings. If one observes the state of our world today, this is the pattern that underlies our deadly and destructive social behavior. This mindset was no better articulated than when George W. Bush declared “you’re either with us, or against us.” Through years of careful conditioning, we learn to think of ourselves in terms of agencies and/or abstractions external to our independent being. Or, to express the point more clearly, we have learned to internalize these external forces; to conform our thinking and behavior to the purposes and interests of such entities. We adorn ourselves with flags, mouth shibboleths, and decorate our cars with bumper-stickers, in order to communicate to others our sense of “who we are.” In such ways does our being become indistinguishable from our chosen collective. In this way are institutions born. We discover a particular form of organization through which we are able to cooperate with others for our mutual benefit. Over time, the advantages derived from this system have a sufficient consistency to lead us to the conclusion that our well-being is dependent upon it. Those who manage the organization find it in their self-interests to propagate this belief so that we will become dependent upon its permanency. Like a sculptor working with clay, institutions take over the direction of our minds, twisting, squeezing, and pounding upon them until we have embraced a mindset conducive to their interests. Once this has been accomplished, we find it easy to subvert our will and sense of purpose to the collective. The organization ceases being a mere tool of mutual convenience, and becomes an end in itself. Our lives become “institutionalized,” and we regard it as fanciful to imagine ourselves living in any other way than as constituent parts of a machine that transcends our individual sense. Once we identify ourselves with the state, that collective entity does more than represent who we are; it is who we are. To the politicized mind, the idea that “we are the government” has real meaning, not in the sense of being able to control such an agency, but in the psychological sense. The successes and failures of the state become the subject’s successes and failures; insults or other attacks upon their abstract sense of being – such as the burning of “their” flag – become assaults upon their very personhood. Shortcomings on the part of the state become our failures of character. This is why so many Americans who have belatedly come to criticize the war against Iraq are inclined to treat it as only a “mistake” or the product of “mismanagement,” not as a moral wrong. Our egos can more easily admit to the making of a mistake than to moral transgressions. Such an attitude also helps to explain why, as Milton Mayer wrote in his revealing post-World War II book, They Thought They Were Free, most Germans were unable to admit that the Nazi regime had been tyrannical. It is this dynamic that makes it easy for political officials to generate wars, a process that reinforces the sense of identity and attachment people have for “their” state. It also helps to explain why most Americans – though tiring of the war against Iraq – refuse to condemn government leaders for the lies, forgeries, and deceit employed to get the war started: to acknowledge the dishonesty of the system through which they identify themselves is to admit to the dishonest base of their being. The truthfulness of the state’s rationale for war is irrelevant to most of its subjects. It is sufficient that they believe the abstraction with which their lives are intertwined will be benefited in some way by war. Against whom and upon what claim does not matter – except as a factor in assessing the likelihood of success. That most Americans have pipped nary a squeak of protest over Bush administration plans to attack Iran – with nuclear weapons if deemed useful to its ends – reflects the point I am making. Bush could undertake a full-fledged war against Lapland, and most Americans would trot out their flags and bumper-stickers of approval. The “rightness” or “wrongness” of any form of collective behavior becomes interpreted by the standard of whose actions are being considered. During World War II, for example, Japanese kamikaze pilots were regarded as crazed fanatics for crashing their planes into American battleships. At the same time, American war movies (see, e.g., Flying Tigers) extolled the heroism of American pilots who did the same thing. One sees this same double-standard in responding to “conspiracy theories.” “Do you think a conspiracy was behind the 9/11 attacks?” It certainly seems so to me, unless one is prepared to treat the disappearance of the World Trade Center buildings as the consequence of a couple pilots having bad navigational experiences! The question that should be asked is: whose conspiracy was it? To those whose identities coincide with the state, such a question is easily answered: others conspire, we do not. It is not the symbiotic relationship between war and the expansion of state power, nor the realization of corporate benefits that could not be obtained in a free market, that mobilize the machinery of war. Without most of us standing behind “our” system, and cheering on “our” troops, and defending “our” leaders, none of this would be possible. What would be your likely response if your neighbor prevailed upon you to join him in a violent attack upon a local convenience store, on the grounds that it hired “illegal aliens?” Your sense of identity would not be implicated in his efforts, and you would likely dismiss him as a lunatic. Only when our ego-identities become wrapped up with some institutional abstraction – such as the state – can we be persuaded to invest our lives and the lives of our children in the collective madness of state action. We do not have such attitudes toward organizations with which we have more transitory relationships. If we find an accounting error in our bank statement, we would not find satisfaction in the proposition “the First National Bank, right or wrong.” Neither would we be inclined to wear a T-shirt that read “Disneyland: love it or leave it.” One of the many adverse consequences of identifying with and attaching ourselves to collective abstractions is our loss of control over not only the meaning and direction in our lives, but of the manner in which we can be efficacious in our efforts to pursue the purposes that have become central to us. We become dependent upon the performance of “our” group; “our” reputation rises or falls on the basis of what institutional leaders do or fail to do. If “our” nation-state loses respect in the world – such as by the use of torture or killing innocent people - we consider ourselves no longer respectable, and scurry to find plausible excuses to redeem our egos. When these expectations are not met, we go in search of new leaders or organizational reforms we believe will restore our sense of purpose and pride that we have allowed abstract entities to personify for us. As the costs and failures of the state become increasingly evident, there is a growing tendency to blame this system. But to do so is to continue playing the same game into which we have allowed ourselves to become conditioned. One of the practices employed by the state to get us to mobilize our “dark side” energies in opposition to the endless recycling of enemies it has chosen for us, is that of psychological projection. Whether we care to acknowledge it or not – and most of us do not – each of us has an unconscious capacity for attitudes or conduct that our conscious minds reject. We fear that, sufficiently provoked, we might engage in violence – even deadly – against others; or that inducements might cause us to become dishonest. We might harbor racist or other bigoted sentiments, or consider ourselves lazy or irresponsible. Though we are unlikely to act upon such inner fears, their presence within us can generate discomforting self-directed feelings of guilt, anger, or unworthiness that we would like to eliminate. The most common way in which humanity has tried to bring about such an exorcism is by subconsciously projecting these traits onto others (i.e., “scapegoats”) and punishing them for what are really our own shortcomings. The state has trained us to behave this way, in order that we may be counted upon to invest our lives, resources, and other energies in pursuit of the enemy du jour. It is somewhat ironic, therefore, that most of us resort to the same practice in our criticism of political systems. After years of mouthing the high-school civics class mantra about the necessity for government – and the bigger the government the better – we begin to experience the unexpected consequences of politicization. Tax burdens continue to escalate; or the state takes our home to make way for a proposed shopping center; or ever-more details of our lives are micromanaged by ever-burgeoning state bureaucracies. Having grown weary of the costs – including the loss of control over our lives – we blame the state for what has befallen us. We condemn the Bush administration for the parade of lies that precipitated the war against Iraq, rather than indicting ourselves for ever believing anything the state tells us. We fault the politicians for the skyrocketing costs of governmental programs, conveniently ignoring our insistence upon this or that benefit whose costs we would prefer having others pay. The statists have helped us accept a world view that conflates our incompetence to manage our own lives with their omniscience to manage the lives of billions of people – along with the planet upon which we live! – and we are now experiencing the costs generated by our own gullibility. We have acted like country bumpkins at the state fair with the egg money who, having been fleeced by a bunch of carnival sharpies, look everywhere for someone to blame other than ourselves. We have been euchred out of our very lives because of our eagerness to believe that benefits can be enjoyed without incurring costs; that the freedom to control one’s life can be separated from the responsibilities for one’s actions; and that two plus two does not have to add up to four if a sizeable public opinion can be amassed against the proposition. By identifying ourselves with any abstraction (such as the state) we give up the integrated life, the sense of wholeness that can be found only within each of us. While the state has manipulated, cajoled, and threatened us to identify ourselves with it, the responsibility for our acceding to its pressures lies within each of us. The statists have – as was their vicious purpose – simply taken over the territory we have abandoned. Our politico-centric pain and suffering has been brought about by our having allowed external forces to move in and occupy the vacuum we created at the center of our being. The only way out of our dilemma involves a retracing of the route that brought us to where we are. We require nothing so much right now as the development of a sense of “who we are” that transcends our institutionalized identities, and returns us – without division and conflict – to a centered, self-directed integrity in our lives.

3. Discourse shapes reality – star this card. (read yellow).
Whisnant 12 Associate Professor of European History (Clayton, November 10, 2012, “Foucault and Discourse,” http://webs.wofford.edu/whisnantcj/his389/foucault_discourse.pdf)//DR. H

•Discourse creates a world. By shaping our perceptions of the world, pulling together chains of associations that produce a meaningful understanding, and then organizing the way we behave towards objects in the world and towards other people, one might say that discourse generates the world of our everyday life. After all, even though science teaches us that the “real world” is the material world made up of atoms and energy, in a real way the world for most of us is a world of colors, emotions, ideas, and life. It is a kind of virtual world generated by our minds, but not by us alone—we construct this world socially through a complex interaction between experience, upbringing, and education. Discourses, as chains of language that bind us social beings together, play a key role in the social construction of reality.
• Discourse generates knowledge and “truth.” Discourse constitutes not only the world that we live in, but also all forms of knowledge and “truth.” Knowledge for Foucault (as for most other structuralists and poststructuralists) was not something that existed independently of language. In other words, knowledge is not simply communicated through language; all knowledge is organized through the structures, interconnections, and associations that are built into language. Foucault would even go so far as to say that discourse generates truth—or what some have called truth-effects. Certain discourses in certain contexts have the power to convince people to accept statements as true. This power can have no relation to any objective correctness of the statement. The medical practice of leeching was accepted in the eighteenth century as helpful despite the harmful affects that we recognize today because it was embedded in a network of ancient medical discourses that many accepted as “true.” Likewise, many medical practices commonly accepted today might have seemed like madness or even barbaric because they had no discursive support.
• Discourse says something about the people who speak it. Discourse communicates knowledge not only about the intended meaning of the language, but also about the person speaking the discourse. By analyzing the discourse a speaker uses, one can often tell things about the speaker’s gender, sexuality, ethnicity, class position, and even more specifically the speaker’s implied relationship to the other people around him. Medical discourse, for example, gives doctors the authority to speak, thereby placing them in a position of power over their patients. Foucault was particularly interested in looking at modes of discourse that not everyone had a right to use, or that require specific locations to gain authority. 11
A sermon that would be right at home behind a church lectern might produce only an awkward silence if given at a party. And a certified lawyer acquires a certain right to speak legal discourse in a courtroom setting through a complex system of education, a series of exams, and network of state controls.
• Discourse and Power. This brings us to the fourth way that discourse operates, namely by being intimately involved with socially embedded networks of power. Because certain types of discourse enable specific types of individuals to “speak the truth,” or at the very least to be believed when speaking on specific subjects, discourses also give these individuals degrees of social, cultural, and even possibly political power. Doctors are generally believed when they talk about physical or mental illnesses, and this gives them an authority to recommend courses of action or patterns 11 Foucault, Archaeology of Knowledge, p. 50. of behavior. In many societies, and for long stretches of Western history, religious authorities wielded tremendous social and political power because they had the power to speak about the divine. This power was caught up with their specific position, but was also based on the fact that religious discourse suffused all of life, shaping social organization and influencing how people interpreted the world.

4. Discursive severance doesn’t solve – the damage has already been done.
Gorham, 99 (University of Wisconsin, Bradley, Howard Journal of Communications, Spring, ebsco)

Given this theoretical framework, the answer to the ‘‘So what ?’’ question goes something like this: Racial stereotypes in the media can influence our interpretations of media content in a way that supports dominant racial myths. By automatically priming racial stereotype-congruent interpretations of subsequent media texts, and by doing so repeatedly and consistently, stereotypes in the media can maintain unjust, harmful, and dominating understandings of race by influencing the way individuals interpret media texts. Such automatic priming can occur whether or not the individual involved necessarily endorses the stereotype, and although people can subsequently argue against the automatically primed constructs, in a sense the damage has already been done. The linguistic labels have been strengthened yet again, ready to move interpretation in the direction of dominant understandings whenever one’s guard is down. What to do ? Well, such a framework suggests that for those of us who have already been socialized into automatically engaging the racial stereotypes, we have to be ever vigilant to realize that this is going on and take the time and effort to consciously rework our interpretations of media content into an interpretation that is less stereotypical. This demands a critical and active reader of media texts. And since consistent and repeated exposure leads to automaticity, we can attempt to dilute our myth-congruent associations by consistently and repeatedly engaging in more critical media interpretations. At the same time, such a framework suggests that we should try to foster critical and active reading in the next generation of media consumers, so that they may be less likely to develop automatic stereotype-congruent interpretations. Such fostering of critical media reading skills needs to work hand in hand with ways of reducing the amount of stereotyping-congruent depictions in the media. This issue, of course, is a sticky wicket, as the demands of fostering a less racially stereotypical media can easily come up against First Amendment principles of free speech. Clearly some kind of compromise between these two socially desirable principles needs to be worked out. The theoretical framework outlined in this paper suggests that curbing the negative effects of stereotypical images in the media will be a difficult task but not an impossible one. It is clearly a difficult task since so many stereotypical images are present and so many of us may be automatically primed by them. Battling racism is a difficult enough challenge as it is without having to constantly battle the cognitive inner workings of our own brains. This is not an impossible task, however. By reducing the presence of stereotypical images and fostering critical media skills, we can begin to attack the infrastructure that supports the development of mythical thinking. And, more importantly, by realizing our own fallibility and our own susceptibility to stereotypical thinking, and by ‘‘catching’’ ourselves in the act of stereotypical thinking as often as possible, we can begin to build alternative cognitions that attack, rather than support, dominant conceptions of race. Thus, perhaps the question to ask concerning stereotypes in the media is no longer ‘‘So what ?’’ but rather ‘‘What’s next ?’’ 

1nr

4. Limits are key to education.
Bukatko and Daehler 12 – (Danuta Bukatko, Marvin W. Daehler, workers at Gengage learning center in Canada citing work done by Robbie Case- professor emeritus of education and a highly respected researcher in the field of child cognitive development director of the University of Toronto's Institute of Child Study, “Child Development:A Thematic Approach”, pg. 286)JM
*broader topics require increased processing of new information- that directly trades off with information retention

Other theorist in this field have advanced a limited-resource model of the cognitive system that emphasizes a finite amount of available genitive energy that can be deployed in numerous ways, but only with certain trade-offs.  Limited-resource models emphasize the allocation of energy for various cognitive activities rather than the mental structures themselves.  The basic assumption is that the pool of resources available for processing, retaining, and reporting information is finite (Bjorklund and Harnishfeger 1990).  In one such model, Robbie Case proposes an inverse relationship between the amount of space available for operating on information and that available for storage (Case, 1985; Case, Kurland and Goldberg, 1982).  Operations include processes such as identifying the stimuli and recognizing relations among them; storage refers to the retention of information for use at a later time.  If a substantial amount of mental effort is expended on operations, less space is available for storage or retention.  In the simple memory experiment we just examined, the effort used to identify the words and notice the categorical relationships among them will determine the space left over for storing those words.  If we are proficient at recognizing words and their relationships, storage space will be available.  If these tasks cost us substantial effort, however, our resources will be taxed and little will be left for the task of remembering.  As children grow older, they can mentally

Focusing on means not ends is a prerequisite to effective engagement policies
Resnick 1 (Evan, Assistant Professor and coordinator of the United States Programme at RSIS, “Defining Engagement,” Journal of International Affairs, 0022197X, Spring2001, Vol. 54, Issue 2, http://web.ebscohost.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/ehost/detail?sid=1b56e6b4-ade2-4052-9114-7d107fdbd01940sessionmgr12andvid=2andhid=24andbdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ3d3d#db=mthandAN=4437301)

Some scholars have excessively narrowed the definition of engagement by defining it according to the ends sought rather than the means employed. For example, Schweller and Wohlforth assert that if any distinction can be drawn between engagement and appeasement, "it is that the goal of engagement is not simply tension-reduction and the avoidance of war but also an attempt to socialize a dissatisfied power into acceptance of the established order."(n17) Such ends-based definitions hinder the study of engagement in two ways. First, because the act of policymaking consists of selecting from a variety of alternative means in the pursuit of a given end(s), it stands to reason that policy instruments are more effectively conceptualized in terms of means rather than ends. When defined as different means, policies can be more easily compared with one another across a whole spectrum of discrete ends, in order to gauge more accurately the circumstances under which each policy is relatively more or less effective.(n18)

Free Dictionary no date—“offer”, http://www.thefreedictionary.com/offer) EL
v.tr.

1. To present for acceptance or rejection; proffer: offered me a drink. 2. a. To put forward for consideration; propose: offer an opinion. b. To present in order to meet a need or satisfy a requirement: offered new statistics in order to facilitate the decision-making process. 3. a. To make available; afford: The situation offers us the opportunity to learn more. b. To present for sale. c. To provide; furnish: a hotel that offers conference facilities. 4. To propose as payment; bid. 5. To present as an act of worship: offer up prayers. 6. To exhibit readiness or desire (to do something); volunteer: offered to carry the packages. 7. To put up; mount: partisans who offered strong resistance to the invaders. 8. To threaten: offered to leave without them if they didn't hurry. 9. To produce or introduce on the stage: The repertory group is offering two new plays this season.

Huge number of NGOs prove
Department of State 12 (U.S. Department of State, “Fact Sheet: Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in the United States”, January 12, 2012, http://www.humanrights.gov/2012/01/12/fact-sheet-non-governmental-organizations-ngos-in-the-united-states/, DTB)

Approximately 1.5 million NGOs operate in the United States. These NGOs undertake a wide array of activities, including political advocacy on issues such as foreign policy, elections, the environment, healthcare, women’s rights, economic development, and many other issues. Many NGOs in the United States also operate in fields that are not related to politics. These include volunteer organizations rooted in shared religious faith, labor unions, groups that help vulnerable people such as the poor or mentally ill, and groups that seek to empower youth or marginalized populations. Indeed, NGOs exist to represent virtually every cause imaginable. Their sources of finance include donations from private individuals (American or foreign), private sector for-profit companies, philanthropic foundations, or grants from federal, state, or local government. Sources of finance may also include foreign governments. There is no prohibition in U.S. law on foreign funding of NGOs, whether that foreign funding comes from governments or non-government sources.

4). Cuba is the Republic of Cuba
CIA World Factbook, 13 (updated on 6/5/13, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cu.html)

Country name:
conventional long form: Republic of Cuba
conventional short form: Cuba
local long form: Republica de Cuba
local short form: Cuba
2. Substantially means real at present time – that justifies any AFF.
Words and Phrases 64 – (40 WandP 759) (this edition of WandP is out of print;  the page number no longer matches up to the current edition and I was unable to find the card in the new edition.  However, this card is also available on google books, Judicial and statutory definitions of words and phrases, Volume 8, p. 7329)

The words “outward, open, actual, visible, substantial, and exclusive,” in connection with a change of possession, mean substantially the same thing.  They mean not concealed; not hidden; exposed to view; free from concealment, dissimulation, reserve, or disguise; in full existence; denoting that which not merely can be, but is opposed to potential, apparent, constructive, and imaginary; veritable; genuine; certain; absolute; real at present time, as a matter of fact, not merely nominal; opposed to form; actually existing; true; not including admitting, or pertaining to any others; undivided; sole; opposed to inclusive. Bass v. Pease, 79 Ill. App. 308, 318.
associated with could mean anything
Free Dictionary no date—“as•so•ci•ate”, http://www.thefreedictionary.com/associated) EL
as•so•ci•ate (-ssh-t, -s-) v. as•so•ci•at•ed, as•so•ci•at•ing, as•so•ci•ates v.tr. 1. To join as a partner, ally, or friend. 2. To connect or join together; combine. 3. To connect in the mind or imagination: "I always somehow associate Chatterton with autumn" (John Keats). v.intr. 1. To join in or form a league, union, or association. See Synonyms at join. 2. To spend time socially; keep company: associates with her coworkers on weekends. n. (-t, -t) 1. A person united with another or others in an act, enterprise, or business; a partner or colleague. 2. A companion; a comrade. 3. One that habitually accompanies or is associated with another; an attendant circumstance. 4. A member of an institution or society who is granted only partial status or privileges. 5. often Associate An associate's degree. adj. (-t, -t) 1. Joined with another or others and having equal or nearly equal status: an associate editor. 2. Having partial status or privileges: an associate member of the club. 3. Following or accompanying; concomitant.
Toward means ‘in the direction of’
American Heritage, 9 (‘toward’, http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/toward)

to•ward    (tôrd, trd, t-wôrd) KEY
PREPOSITION:
also to•wards  (tôrdz, trdz, t-wôrdz) KEY
In the direction of: driving toward home.

Prefer limiting definitions of engagement – other attempts are so vague that it hinders effective policy analysis and makes any positive action topical
Resnik, 1 – Assistant Professor of Political Science at Yeshiva University (Evan, Journal of International Affairs, “Defining Engagement” v54, n2, political science complete)

DEFINING ENGAGEMENT TOO BROADLY
A second problem associated with various scholarly treatments of engagement is the tendency to define the concept too broadly to be of much help to the analyst. For instance, Cha's definition of engagement as any policy whose means are "non-coercive and non-punitive" is so vague that essentially any positive sanction could be considered engagement. The definition put forth by Alastair lain Johnston and Robert Ross in their edited volume, Engaging China, is equally nebulous. According to Johnston and Ross, engagement constitutes "the use of non-coercive methods to ameliorate the non-status quo elements of a rising power's behavior."(n14) Likewise, in his work, Rogue States and US Foreign Policy, Robert Litwak defines engagement as "positive sanctions."(n15) Moreover, in their edited volume, Honey and Vinegar: Incentives, Sanctions, and Foreign Policy, Richard Haass and Meghan O'Sullivan define engagement as "a foreign policy strategy that depends to a significant degree on positive incentives to achieve its objectives."(n16)
As policymakers possess a highly differentiated typology of alternative options in the realm of negative sanctions from which to choose--including covert action, deterrence, coercive diplomacy, containment, limited war and total war--it is only reasonable to expect that they should have a similar menu of options

 in the realm of positive sanctions than simply engagement. Equating engagement with positive sanctions risks lumping together a variety of discrete actions that could be analyzed by distinguishing among them and comparing them as separate policies.

Tournament: Georgetown | Round: 1 | Opponent: Wilson KK | Judge: Chloe Coughlin-Schulte
1nc ptx

Debt ceiling will pass – Obama political strength and Dem unity means the GOP will cave
Bolton, 9/14/13 (Alexander, The Hill, “Confident Democrats want separate showdowns on shutdown and debt limit” Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/322247-confident-democrats-want-separate-showdowns-on-shutdown-and-debt-limit#ixzz2g92IX3s7 

Democrats, however, want to force the GOP to debate these issues successively.
“We’re not negotiating on the debt ceiling. We think we have the high ground in both of those fights,” said a senior Senate Democratic aide.
The Senate Democratic strategy over the next several weeks will be to stand pat and refuse to make any significant concessions in exchange for funding the government or raising the debt ceiling.
“If push comes to shove on debt ceiling, I’m virtually certain they’ll blink,” said Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), the third-ranking member of the Senate Democratic leadership. “They know they shouldn’t be playing havoc with the markets.”
Schumer said Republicans are on stronger political ground if there’s a government shutdown, but warned “even on that one, they’re on weak ground because the public sort of is finally smelling that these guys are for obstructing.”
Increasing economic engagement splits Congressional Democrats and consumes political capital
Magnus, ‘9
John R. Magnus, trade lawyer in Washington, DC, is President of TradeWins LLC and Of Counsel
at Miller and Chevalier Chartered, ‘9
3. Votes: Will the new government allow any major trade-liberalizing items to come to a vote in the first two years? Conventional wisdom holds that trade votes are bad for the Democratic party -- they split the caucus, demoralize stakeholders, and generally spell trouble for the party’s political majority. Many regard allowing trade initiatives to reach the front of the legislative queue as a blunder of the early Clinton administration. A precious period of unified government was squandered when it could, the argument goes, have been used to enact important Democratic priorities. And then it might have lasted longer -- the 1994 Republican takeover could have been averted! Although questionable in several particulars, this narrative is present in the minds of many Democrats in and out of government today, and they are determined to manage the new period of unified government differently. There will be a strong temptation to use President Obama’s political capital exclusively for initiatives favored by a strong majority of Democrats, to keep trade-liberalizing measures (and related items like Trade Promotion Authority) off the voting agenda for months or even years, and to limit any congressional trade votes to matters like adjustment assistance and enforcement. But, of course, foreign policy concerns, and business community desires, will pull in the opposite direction. 

It disrupts Obama’s attempt to prioritize the debt ceiling by consuming political capital
Frumin, 9/21/13 – reporter for MSNBC (Aliyah, “Bright prospects on foreign agenda; domestic in chaos” http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/09/21/bright-prospects-for-obama-on-foreign-agenda-domestic-in-chaos/) 

Conservative strategist Keith Appell said having a full plate is just part of being president and his legacy is at risk because his number one priority of improving the economy has not been significantly addressed.
Fixing the economy, he said, could arguable be pegged to how much political capital he has on the issues Obama is currently facing (Syria, Iran, debt ceiling, gun control). “But certainly, if you’re talking about legacy, unless there is an overwhelming foreign policy situation like the Cold War, then it’s all about the economy.”
But Jeanne Zaino, a professor of political science at Iona College and of political campaign management at New York University said “Every time Obama tries to refocus on the economy, there’s these enormous crises that break out. You can just imagine how frustrating that can be and how it’s been difficult for him to prioritize.”
“It’s not only the amount he has on his plate. It’s that he doesn’t’ have the ability to get anything done without Congress,” she added.
That takes Obama off-message – it undermines his strategy of constant pressure on the GOP and makes a deal impossible
Milbank, 9/27/13 – Washington Post Opinion Writer (Dana, “Obama should pivot to Dubya’s playbook” Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-obama-should-try-pivoting-to-george-bushs-playbook/2013/09/27/c72469f0-278a-11e3-ad0d-b7c8d2a594b9_story.html)

If President Obama can stick to his guns, he will win his October standoff with Republicans.
That’s an awfully big “if.”
This president has been consistently inconsistent, predictably unpredictable and reliably erratic. Consider the events of Thursday morning:
Obama gave a rousing speech in suburban Washington, in defense of Obamacare, on the eve of its implementation. “We’re now only five days away from finishing the job,” he told the crowd.
But before he had even left the room, his administration let slip that it was delaying by a month the sign-up for the health-care exchanges for small businesses. It wasn’t a huge deal, but it was enough to trample on the message the president had just delivered.
Throughout his presidency, Obama has had great difficulty delivering a consistent message. Supporters plead for him to take a position — any position — and stick with it. His shifting policy on confronting Syria was the most prominent of his vacillations, but his allies have seen a similar approach to the Guantanamo Bay prison, counterterrorism and climate change. Even on issues such as gun control and immigration where his views have been consistent, Obama has been inconsistent in promoting his message. Allies are reluctant to take risky stands, because they fear that Obama will change his mind and leave them standing alone.
Now come the budget showdowns, which could define the rest of his presidency. Republican leaders are trying to shift the party’s emphasis from the fight over a government shutdown to the fight over the debt-limit increase, where they have more support. A new Bloomberg poll found that Americans, by a 2-to-1 margin, disagree with Obama’s view that Congress should raise the debt limit without any conditions.
But Obama has a path to victory. That poll also found that Americans think lawmakers should stop trying to repeal Obamacare. And that was before House Republicans dramatically overplayed their hand by suggesting that they’ll allow the nation to default if Obama doesn’t agree to their laundry list of demands, including suspending Obamacare, repealing banking reforms, building a new oil pipeline, easing environmental regulations, limiting malpractice lawsuits and restricting access to Medicare.
To beat the Republicans, Obama might follow the example of a Republican, George W. Bush. Whatever you think of what he did, he knew how to get it done: by simplifying his message and repeating it, ad nauseam, until he got the result he was after.
Obama instead tends to give a speech and move along to the next topic. This is why he is forever making “pivots” back to the economy, or to health care. But the way to pressure Congress is to be President One Note.
In the debt-limit fight, Obama already has his note: He will not negotiate over the full faith and credit of the United States. That’s as good a theme as any; it matters less what the message is than that he delivers it consistently.
The idea, White House officials explained to me, is to avoid getting into a back-and-forth over taxes, spending and entitlement programs. “We’re right on the merits, but I don’t think we want to argue on the merits,” one said. “Our argument is not that our argument is better than theirs; it’s that theirs is stupid.”
This is a clean message: Republicans are threatening to tank the economy — through a shutdown or, more likely, through a default on the debt — and Obama isn’t going to negotiate with these hostage-takers.
Happily for Obama, Republicans are helping him to make the case by being publicly belligerent. After this week’s 21-hour speech on the Senate floor by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), the publicity-seeking Texan and Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) objected to a bipartisan request to move a vote from Friday to Thursday to give House Republicans more time to craft legislation avoiding a shutdown. On the Senate floor, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) accused them of objecting because they had sent out e-mails encouraging their supporters to tune in to the vote on Friday. The Post’s Ed O’Keefe caught Cruz “appearing to snicker” as his colleague spoke — more smug teenager than legislator.
Even if his opponents are making things easier for him, Obama still needs to stick to his message. As in Syria, the president has drawn a “red line” by saying he won’t negotiate with those who would put the United States into default. If he retreats, he will embolden his opponents and demoralize his supporters.
Default will destroy the U.S. and global economy
Davidson, 9/10/13 – co-founder of NPR’s Planet Money (Adam, “Our Debt to Society” New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/magazine/our-debt-to-society.html?pagewanted=all)

If the debt ceiling isn’t lifted again this fall, some serious financial decisions will have to be made. Perhaps the government can skimp on its foreign aid or furlough all of NASA, but eventually the big-ticket items, like Social Security and Medicare, will have to be cut. At some point, the government won’t be able to pay interest on its bonds and will enter what’s known as sovereign default, the ultimate national financial disaster achieved by countries like Zimbabwe, Ecuador and Argentina (and now Greece). In the case of the United States, though, it won’t be an isolated national crisis. If the American government can’t stand behind the dollar, the world’s benchmark currency, then the global financial system will very likely enter a new era in which there is much less trade and much less economic growth. It would be, by most accounts, the largest self-imposed financial disaster in history.
Nearly everyone involved predicts that someone will blink before this disaster occurs. Yet a small number of House Republicans (one political analyst told me it’s no more than 20) appear willing to see what happens if the debt ceiling isn’t raised — at least for a bit. This could be used as leverage to force Democrats to drastically cut government spending and eliminate President Obama’s signature health-care-reform plan. In fact, Representative Tom Price, a Georgia Republican, told me that the whole problem could be avoided if the president agreed to drastically cut spending and lower taxes. Still, it is hard to put this act of game theory into historic context. Plenty of countries — and some cities, like Detroit — have defaulted on their financial obligations, but only because their governments ran out of money to pay their bills. No wealthy country has ever voluntarily decided — in the middle of an economic recovery, no less — to default. And there’s certainly no record of that happening to the country that controls the global reserve currency.
Like many, I assumed a self-imposed U.S. debt crisis might unfold like most involuntary ones. If the debt ceiling isn’t raised by X-Day, I figured, the world’s investors would begin to see America as an unstable investment and rush to sell their Treasury bonds. The U.S. government, desperate to hold on to investment, would then raise interest rates far higher, hurtling up rates on credit cards, student loans, mortgages and corporate borrowing — which would effectively put a clamp on all trade and spending. The U.S. economy would collapse far worse than anything we’ve seen in the past several years.
Nuclear war
Friedberg and Schoenfeld 8
Aaron, Prof. Politics. And IR @ Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School and Visiting Scholar @ Witherspoon Institute, and Gabriel, Senior Editor of Commentary and Wall Street Journal, “The Dangers of a Diminished America”, 10-28, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122455074012352571.html
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.
1nc k
The plan’s neoliberal policies is the root cause of economic crisis and guarantees inevitable systems collapse
Palley 10 – PhD in economics from Yale (Thomas, MA in IR from Yale, and a BA from Oxford, “AMERICA’S EXHAUSTED PARADIGM: MACROECONOMIC CAUSES OF THE FINANCIAL CRISIS AND GREAT RECESSION”, New School Economic Review, Volume 4(1), 2010: 15-43, ZBurdette)

This paper traces the roots of the current financial crisis to a faulty U.S. macroeconomic paradigm. One flaw in this paradigm was the neoliberal growth model adopted after 1980 that relied on debt and asset price inflation to drive demand in place of wage growth. A second flaw was the model of U.S. engagement with the global economy that created a triple economic hemorrhage of spending on imports, manufacturing job losses, and off-shoring of investment. Financial deregulation and financial excess are important parts of the story, but they are not the ultimate cause of the crisis. These developments contributed significantly to the housing bubble but they were a necessary part of the neoliberal model, their function being to fuel demand growth by making ever larger amounts of credit easily available. As the neoliberal model slowly cannibalized itself by undermining income distribution and accumulating debt, the economy needed larger speculative bubbles to grow. The flawed model of global engagement accelerated the cannibalization process, thereby creating need for a huge bubble that only housing could provide. However, when that bubble burst it pulled down the entire economy because of the bubble’s massive dependence on debt. The old postWorld War II growth model based on rising middle-class incomes has been dismantled, while the new neoliberal growth model has imploded. The United States needs a new economic paradigm and a new growth model, but as yet this challenge has received little attention from policymakers or economists.

Neoliberal engagement of Latin America results in loss of value to life, political oppression, military intervention, and environmental destruction – makes extinction inevitable
Makwana 06 – (Rajesh, STWR, 23rd November 06, http://www.stwr.org/globalization/neoliberalism-and-economic-globalization.html, ZBurdette)

Neoliberalism and Economic Globalization
The goal of neoliberal economic globalization is the removal of all barriers to commerce, and the privatization of all available resources and services. In this scenario, public life will be at the mercy of market forces, as the extracted profits benefit the few, writes Rajesh Makwana.
The thrust of international policy behind the phenomenon of economic globalization is neoliberal in nature. Being hugely profitable to corporations and the wealthy elite, neoliberal polices are propagated through the IMF, World Bank and WTO. Neoliberalism favours the free-market as the most efficient method of global resource allocation. Consequently it favours large-scale, corporate commerce and the privatization of resources.
There has been much international attention recently on neoliberalism. Its ideologies have been rejected by influential countries in Latin America and its moral basis is now widely questioned. Recent protests against the WTO, IMF and World Bank were essentially protests against the neoliberal policies that these organizations implement, particularly in low-income countries.
The neoliberal experiment has failed to combat extreme poverty, has exacerbated global inequality, and is hampering international aid and development efforts. This article presents an overview of neoliberalism and its effect on low income countries.
Introduction
After the Second World War, corporate enterprises helped to create a wealthy class in society which enjoyed excessive political influence on their government in the US and Europe. Neoliberalism surfaced as a reaction by these wealthy elites to counteract post-war policies that favoured the working class and strengthened the welfare state.
Neoliberal policies advocate market forces and commercial activity as the most efficient methods for producing and supplying goods and services. At the same time they shun the role of the state and discourage government intervention into economic, financial and even social affairs. The process of economic globalization is driven by this ideology; removing borders and barriers between nations so that market forces can drive the global economy. The policies were readily taken up by governments and still continue to pervade classical economic thought, allowing corporations and affluent countries to secure their financial advantage within the world economy.
The policies were most ardently enforced in the US and Europe in the1980s during the Regan–Thatcher–Kohl era. These leaders believed that expanding the free-market and private ownership would create greater economic efficiency and social well-being. The resulting deregulation, privatization and the removal of border restrictions provided fertile ground for corporate activity, and over the next 25 years corporations grew rapidly in size and influence. Corporations are now the most productive economic units in the world, more so than most countries. With their huge financial, economic and political leverage, they continue to further their neoliberal objectives.
There is a consensus between the financial elite, neoclassical economists and the political classes in most countries that neoliberal policies will create global prosperity. So entrenched is their position that this view determines the policies of the international agencies (IMF, World Bank and WTO), and through them dictates the functioning of the global economy. Despite reservations from within many UN agencies, neoliberal policies are accepted by most development agencies as the most likely means of reducing poverty and inequality in the poorest regions.
There is a huge discrepancy between the measurable result of economic globalization and its proposed benefits. Neoliberal policies have unarguably generated massive wealth for some people, but most crucially, they have been unable to benefit those living in extreme poverty who are most in need of financial aid. Excluding China, annual economic growth in developing countries between 1960 and 1980 was 3.2. This dropped drastically between 1980 and 2000 to a mere 0.7 . This second period is when neoliberalism was most prevalent in global economic policy. (Interestingly, China was not following the neoliberal model during these periods, and its economic growth per capita grew to over 8 between 1980 and 2000.)
Neoliberalism has also been unable to address growing levels of global inequality. Over the last 25 years, the income inequalities have increased dramatically, both within and between countries. Between 1980 and 1998, the income of richest 10 as share of poorest 10 became 19 more unequal; and the income of richest 1 as share of poorest 1 became 77 more unequal (again, not including China).
The shortcomings of neoliberal policy are also apparent in the well documented economic disasters suffered by countries in Latin America and South Asia in the 1990s. These countries were left with no choice but to follow the neoliberal model of privatization and deregulation, due to their financial problems and pressure from the IMF. Countries such as Venezuela, Cuba, Argentina and Bolivia have since rejected foreign corporate control and the advice of the IMF and World Bank. Instead they have favoured a redistribution of wealth, the re-nationalization of industry and have prioritized the provision of healthcare and education. They are also sharing resources such as oil and medical expertise throughout the region and with other countries around the world.
The dramatic economic and social improvement seen in these countries has not stopped them from being demonized by the US. Cuba is a well known example of this propaganda. Deemed to be a danger to ‘freedom and the American way of life’, Cuba has been subject to intense US political, economic and military pressure in order to tow the neoliberal line. Washington and the mainstream media in the US have recently embarked on a similar propaganda exercise aimed at Venezuela’s president Chavez.  This over-reaction by Washington to ‘economic nationalism’ is consistent with their foreign policy objectives which have not changed significantly for the past 150 years. Securing resources and economic dominance has been and continues to be the USA’s main economic objective.
According to Maria Páez Victor:
“Since 1846 the United States has carried out no fewer than 50 military invasions and destabilizing operations involving 12 different Latin American countries. Yet, none of these countries has ever had the capacity to threaten US security in any significant way.  The US intervened because of perceived threats to its economic control and expansion.  For this reason it has also supported some of the region’s most vicious dictators such as Batista, Somoza, Trujillo, and Pinochet.”
As a result of corporate and US influence, the key international bodies that developing countries are forced to turn to for assistance, such as the World Bank and IMF, are major exponents of the neoliberal agenda. The WTO openly asserts its intention to improve global business opportunities; the IMF is heavily influenced by the Wall Street and private financiers, and the World Bank ensures corporations benefit from development project contracts. They all gain considerably from the neo-liberal model.
So influential are corporations at this time that many of the worst violators of human rights have even entered a Global Compact with the United Nations, the world’s foremost humanitarian body. Due to this international convergence of economic ideology, it is no coincidence that the assumptions that are key to increasing corporate welfare and growth are the same assumptions that form the thrust of mainstream global economic policy.
However, there are huge differences between the neoliberal dogma that the US and EU dictate to the world and the policies that they themselves adopt. Whilst fiercely advocating the removal of barriers to trade, investment and employment, The US economy remains one of the most protected in the world. Industrialized nations only reached their state of economic development by fiercely protecting their industries from foreign markets and investment. For economic growth to benefit developing countries, the international community must be allowed to nurture their infant industries. Instead economically dominant countries are ‘kicking away the ladder’ to achieving development by imposing an ideology that suits their own economic needs.
The US and EU also provide huge subsidies to many sectors of industry. These devastate small industries in developing countries, particularly farmers who cannot compete with the price of subsidized goods in international markets. Despite their neoliberal rhetoric, most ‘capitalist’ countries have increased their levels of state intervention over the past 25 years, and the size of their government has increased. The requirement is to ‘do as I say, not as I do’.
Given the tiny proportion of individuals that benefit from neoliberal policies, the chasm between what is good for the economy and what serves the public good is growing fast. Decisions to follow these policies are out of the hands of the public, and the national sovereignty of many developing countries continues to be violated, preventing them from prioritizing urgent national needs.
Below we examine the false assumptions of neoliberal policies and their effect on the global economy.
Economic Growth
Economic growth, as measured in GDP, is the yardstick of economic globalization which is fiercely pursued by multinationals and countries alike. It is the commercial activity of the tiny portion of multinational corporations that drives economic growth in industrialized nations. Two hundred corporations account for a third of global economic growth. Corporate trade currently accounts for over 50 of global economic growth and as much as 75 of GDP in the EU. The proportion of trade to GDP continues to grow, highlighting the belief that economic growth is the only way to prosper a country and reduce poverty.
Logically, however, a model for continual financial growth is unsustainable. Corporations have to go to extraordinary lengths in order to reflect endless growth in their accounting books. As a result, finite resources are wasted and the environment is dangerously neglected. The equivalent of two football fields of natural forest is cleared each second by profit hungry corporations.
Economic growth is also used by the World Bank and government economists to measure progress in developing countries. But, whilst economic growth clearly does have benefits, the evidence strongly suggests that these benefits do not trickle down to the 986 million people living in extreme poverty, representing 18 percent of the world population (World Bank, 2007). Nor has economic growth addressed inequality and income distribution. In addition, accurate assessments of both poverty levels and the overall benefits of economic growth have proved impossible due to the inadequacy of the statistical measures employed.
The mandate for economic growth is the perfect platform for corporations which, as a result, have grown rapidly in their economic activity, profitability and political influence. Yet this very model is also the cause of the growing inequalities seen across the globe. The privatization of resources and profits by the few at the expense of the many, and the inability of the poorest people to afford market prices, are both likely causes.
Free Trade
Free trade is the foremost demand of neoliberal globalization. In its current form, it simply translates as greater access to emerging markets for corporations and their host nations. These demands are contrary to the original assumptions of free trade as affluent countries adopt and maintain protectionist measures. Protectionism allows a nation to strengthen its industries by levying taxes and quotas on imports, thus increasing their own industrial capacity, output and revenue. Subsidies in the US and EU allow corporations to keep their prices low, effectively pushing smaller producers in developing countries out of the market and impeding development.
With this self interest driving globalization, economically powerful nations have created a global trading regime with which they can determine the terms of trade.
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the US, Canada, and Mexico is an example of free-market fundamentalism that gives corporations legal rights at the expense of national sovereignty. Since its implementation it has caused job loss, undermined labour rights, privatized essential services, increased inequality and caused environmental destruction.
In Europe only 5 of EU citizens work in agriculture, generating just 1.6 of EU GDP compared to more than 50 of citizens in developing countries. However, the European Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) provides subsidies to EU farmers to the tune of £30 billion, 80 of which goes to only 20 of farmers to guarantee their viability, however inefficient this may be.
The General Agreement on Trade and Services (GATS) was agreed at the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1994. Its aim is to remove any restrictions and internal government regulations that are considered to be "barriers to trade". The agreement effectively abolishes a government’s sovereign right to regulate subsidies and provide essential national services on behalf of its citizens. The Trade Related agreement on International Property Rights (TRIPS) forces developing countries to extend property rights to seeds and plant varieties. Control over these resources and services are instead granted to corporate interests through the GATS and TRIPS framework.
These examples represent modern free trade which is clearly biased in its approach. It fosters corporate globalization at the expense of local economies, the environment, democracy and human rights. The primary beneficiaries of international trade are large, multinational corporations who fiercely lobby at all levels of national and global governance to further the free trade agenda.
Liberalization
The World Bank, IMF and WTO have been the main portals for implementing the neoliberal agenda on a global scale. Unlike the United Nations, these institutions are over-funded, continuously lobbied by corporations, and are politically and financially dominated by Washington, Wall Street, corporations and their agencies. As a result, the key governance structures of the global economy have been primed to serve the interests of this group, and market liberalization has been another of their key policies.
According to neoliberal ideology, in order for international trade to be ‘free’ all markets should be open to competition, and market forces should determine economic relationships. But the overall result of a completely open and free market is of course market dominance by corporate heavy-weights. The playing field is not even; all developing countries are at a great financial and economic disadvantage and simply cannot compete.
Liberalization, through Structural Adjustment Programs, forces poorer countries to open their markets to foreign products which largely destroys local industries. It creates dependency upon commodities which have artificially low prices as they are heavily subsidized by economically dominant nations. Financial liberalization removes barriers to currency speculation from abroad. The resulting rapid inflow and outflow of currencies is often responsible for acute financial and economic crisis in many developing countries. At the same time, foreign speculators and large financial firms make huge gains. Market liberalization poses a clear economic risk; hence the EU and US heavily protect their own markets.
A liberalized global market provides corporations with new resources to capitalize and new markets to exploit. Neoliberal dominance over global governance structures has enforced access to these markets. Under WTO agreements, a sovereign country cannot interfere with a corporation’s intentions to trade even if their operations go against domestic environmental and employment guidelines. Those governments that do stand up for their sovereign rights are frequently sued by corporations for loss of profit, and even loss of potential profit. Without this pressure they would have been able to stimulate domestic industry and self sufficiency, thereby reducing poverty. They would then be in a better position to compete in international markets.

Reject the AFF as a means to create space for alternatives to neoliberal engagement
Munck 03 – professor of Globalization and Social Exclusion (Ronaldo, Department of Sociology, Social Policy and Social Work Studies and Globalisation and Social Exclusion Unit, University of Liverpool, “Neoliberalism, necessitarianism and alternatives in Latin America: there is no alternative (TINA)?”, Third World Quarterly, Vol 24, No 3, pp 495–511, 2003, http://www-e.uni-magdeburg.de/evans/Journal20Library/Trade20and20Countries/Neoliberalism,20necessitarianism20and20alternatives20in20Latin20America.pdf, ZBurdette)

Taking as its point of departure the position that there are or must be alternatives to neoliberalism, this article explores the issue in relation to some examples from Latin America. The 2001–02 virtual collapse of the economy of Argentina and the recent victory of Workers Party candidate, Lula, in Brazil highlight, in very different ways, the need for a viable alternative democratic economic strategy for Latin America. Many progressive analysts seem to be paralysed by a false ‘necessitarianism’ which grants more coherence and solidity to the neoliberal project than it merits. Argentina puts paid to that illusion. Will the exciting experience of Porto Alegre’s ‘participatory budget’ in Brazil now be scaled up to the national level or does ‘globalisation’ block this option? Do the old questions of imperialism and dependency now come to the fore again after being left dormant under the spell of globalisation? We may not have all the answers yet but Latin America is back in the foreground of thinking and practice around alternative economic theories.
There is no alternative (TINA) was an oft-repeated expression of Margaret Thatcher’s, used to dismiss any plausible alternatives to her brand of hard-nosed neoliberalism. One imagines that her friend General Pinochet, with whom she shared tea during his enforced stay in London, would agree with her. What is more surprising is the influence the TINA philosophy has had on social science analysis of neoliberalism in Latin America since Pinochet. What I propose is a radically anti-necessitarian approach to neoliberalism, inspired by the work of Roberto Mangabeira Unger. Things are not always how they are because they have to be so. There is life beyond neoliberalism. There are alternatives taking shape all the time at all levels of society in Latin America. The so-called Washington Consensus is no longer so consensual even in Washington and there is growing recognition that globalisation requires global governance. We therefore need to return to the rise of neoliberalism and globalisation in a nonnecessitarian spirit and examine the whole horizon of possibilities that is now opening up in Latin America as elsewhere. If the virtual collapse of Argentina in 2001–02 shows that ‘actually existing’ neoliberalism simply does not work even on its own terms, the exciting but also challenging prospects now opening up in Brazil under Lula underline the urgency of developing a credible and viable alternative to its policies.

1nc – t
Economic engagement is long-term strategy for promoting structural linkage between two economies – the plan is neither.
Mastanduno, 1 – professor of Government at Dartmouth College (Michael, “Economic Engagement Strategies: Theory and Practice” http://web.archive.org/web/20120906033646/http://polisci.osu.edu/faculty/bpollins/book/Mastanduno.pdf

The basic causal logic of economic engagement, and the emphasis on domestic politics, can be traced to Hirschman. He viewed economic engagement as a long-term, transformative strategy. As one state gradually expands economic interaction with its target, the resulting (asymmetrical) interdependence creates vested interests within the target society and government. The beneficiaries of interdependence become addicted to it, and they protect their interests by pressuring the government to accommodate the source of interdependence. Economic engagement is a form of structural linkage; it is a means to get other states to want what you want, rather than to do what you want. The causal chain runs from economic interdependence through domestic political change to foreign policy accommodation.

That’s a voter for limits – broad interpretations of engagement include anything that effects the economy, which means everything
And, Good is not good enough – precise definition outweighs – don’t allow new 1AR answers to this card.
Resnick 01 – Dr. Evan Resnick, Ph.D. in Political Science from Columbia University, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Yeshiva University, “Defining Engagement”, Journal of International Affairs, Spring, 54(2), Ebsco

CONCLUSION
In matters of national security, establishing a clear definition of terms is a precondition for effective policymaking. Decisionmakers who invoke critical terms in an erratic, ad hoc fashion risk alienating their constituencies. They also risk exacerbating misperceptions and hostility among those the policies target. Scholars who commit the same error undercut their ability to conduct valuable empirical research. Hence, if scholars and policymakers fail rigorously to define "engagement," they undermine the ability to build an effective foreign policy.
1nc – cp
Text: The United States federal government should ratify the Transboundary Hydrocarbons Agreement. The United States federal government should fund construction of passive solar homes through the BECC if and only if the net revenues Mexico receives from the THA are used to finance the Mexican Development Fund.
CP solves the case and is key to democracy, US oil independence, and Mexico’s economy.
Alberro 05, José Luis, an arbitrator at the World Bank's International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) and the American Arbitration Association, April 2005, “A US-Mexico Partnership in Energy: A Policy Of Convenience,” Web Document)DR. H

Four years have come and gone in the Mexico-US relationship since the almost simultaneous inaugurations of Presidents Bush and Fox. The optimism bred by their first auspicious meetings has given way to aloofness and/or irritation in the post 9/11 era. Indeed, for some in the United States, Porfirio Díaz’s dictum should be turned on its head to state “poor United States, so far away from God and so close to Mexico.” The fact remains that geography is destiny. Moreover, in the post-9/11, post-PRI environment, Mexico and the United States have complementary needs that could become the foundation of a policy of convenience and be the basis for a commitment to further strengthen their long-term economic ties.
President Bush recently stated that his second administration will “pursue more energy … in our own hemisphere so that we're less dependent on energy from unstable parts of the world." Mexico has the largest conventional crude oil proved reserves in North America.
Two thirds into the Fox administration, it is clearer than ever that per capita GDP will not grow lastingly because structural changes have not been implemented. Stagnation translates into weak job creation and migration to the United States. Turning the Mexican economy around will require considerable will and political imagination to carry out profound institutional reforms, but it also calls for debottlenecking physical infrastructure, as well as human capital and technological development. Such expensive investments are a prerequisite for job creation and poverty alleviation and will not be carried out by the private sector on its own: the Mexican government needs to take the lead, while eliminating the obstacles to private investment. Given Mexico’s weak public revenues, financing such projects can only come from leveraging Mexico’s large hydrocarbon resource base.
Mexico and the United States can help each other while pursuing their own interests: a quid pro quo in which the United States helps finance the development of Mexico’s hydrocarbons reserves so that it can double its exports, has the dual effect of decreasing the United States’ dependence on Middle East oil and provide Mexico with additional revenues to fuel a productivity-based growth strategy. Faster economic growth could lead to job creation, poverty alleviation, slowing down undocumented migration, strengthening the middle class and consolidating democracy. 

Once before, the United States and Mexico’s complementary needs led to a marriage of convenience. By late 1994, Mexico found itself with more short-term debt coming due than it could repay and a currency it could not defend given that reserves were insufficient. The specter of a debt default similar to the one that had happened 22 years earlier became a concern for the Clinton administration. The “Tequila Crisis” could have spread to US financial markets, weakened as they were by the doubling of interest rates over the previous year. Self-interest created an opportunity for both countries to cooperate.
Along with international financial institutions, the Clinton administration assembled a rescue package backed by oil revenues worth 50 billions dollars that bolstered Mexican solvency. The Mexican government had to accept supervision of the disbursements and had to commit to make prudent use of the resources before it could use them. Mexico’s access to financial markets was reestablished preventing further blows to tight markets, all loans were repaid and both countries came out ahead.
A decade later, a new opportunity has emerged. Again, it entails having the US government play a key role in assembling a financing package backed by oil revenues. But, in this case, the resources would be used not for conjunctural purposes but to transform the very structure of the Mexican economy: invest in oil production to generate additional revenues to invest in a productivity based growth strategy that will benefit both countries. As before, the disbursement of those funds would have to be contingent on accepting supervision and a commitment to make prudent use of them. 

Democracy is key to solve nuclear war and extinction
Larry Diamond, Hoover Institution Senior Fellow, 95
Stanford Univ. Political Science and Sociology professor, former Baghdad CPA senior adviser,
"Promoting Democracy in the 1990s," http://wwics.si.edu/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/di/fr.htm

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. 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 weapons of mass destruction 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.

1nc – da
Grid upgrades now, but pacing is key
POWERGRID International, 12/17/12 – from the editors based on an interview with Andre Begosso, managing director in the Accenture management consulting practice and is focused on the resources operating group. He has more than seventeen years of experience in the utility and energy industries and advises clients in the alternative energy, power generation and oil and gas sectors (“2013 trends for the power industry” December, http://www.elp.com/blogs/eye-on-the-grid/2012/12/2013-trends-for-the-power-industry.html)

In the absence of some major advance in energy storage, Andre said, he expects that renewable energy installation will probably start to slow as its shortcomings become more apparent to utilities and power companies.¶ "I would not expect these trends to continue because of the tremendous limitation that renewable technologies have. You cannot break the laws of physics or the laws of chemistry. The wind doesn't blow all the time and it never will, and the sun doesn't always shine and it never will," he said.¶ Trend No. 4: Energy back on the agenda¶ In my last blog post , I speculated about what it might take to get energy policy back on the agenda. When I asked about this, Andre said energy already is back on the agenda.¶ "Over the next 3 years, over $220 billion in new infrastructure will be built. But the problem with infrastructure is Rome wasn't built in a day. It takes time," he said.¶ This new wave of infrastructure upgrades will require a level of patience and understanding on the part of ratepayers that Andre wonders whether the average person is capable of. During Hurricane Sandy, for example, Con Edison had one of the most sophisticated electric grids available — yet it still failed, and people wonder why.

Decentralized solar causes overproduction and trades off with grid stability
Jansson and Michelfelder, 8 - *Associate Professor at Rowan University in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering  AND assistant professor of finance at Rutgers University's School of Business (Peter and Richard, “Integrating Renewables into the U.S. Grid: Is It Sustainable?,” The Electricity Journal, July, science direct)

From utility economic and practical engineering perspectives, we have reached an impasse. Electric utilities are motivated by investors to provide real and growing returns on their capital investments and by state and national regulators to provide reliable electric power at the lowest costs to their consumers. Market-driven, independent power producers (IPPs) are motivated to develop projects that maximize shareholder value and minimize other investments that do not provide direct returns to their project investors. In today’s market-driven paradigm investing in major transmission facilities to increase reliability and new renewable generation technologies to achieve environmental responsibility goals will not provide high short-term ?nancial performance for any of the major players. Also, since the utilities can no longer control where customers may site new generation sources, new capacity additions (in either generation or transmission) will not necessarily increase grid reliability. Present evidence suggests that U.S. grid reliability in the early 21st century may actually be degrading (Anderson and Boulanger, 2004; NERC, 2004) with the areas most affected by massive outages being those states that have most aggressively embraced industry restructuring (Jansson and Michelfelder, 2005). As we move to more decentralized, market-driven, power generation systems based upon intermittent renewable energy sources the strain on existing utility infrastructure will mount unless wise public policy direction is provided.

Overloads the entire grid
Rutgers News 8 (“Sustainable Energy Must Be Integrated Into Existing Power Grid, Says Rutgers–Camden Finance Scholar,” 11/18, http://news.rutgers.edu/medrel/news-releases/2008/11/sustainable-energy-m-20081118/)

CAMDEN -- Engineers and entrepreneurs are rushing to explore alternative sources of efficient and renewable energy in New Jersey and elsewhere in the country. A Rutgers School of Business—Camden professor has strong words of caution as projects involving wind farms and photovoltaic cells proliferate.¶ With the electric-power industry poised for its most dramatic changes in decades, too little thought is being devoted to coordinating these piecemeal initiatives, warns Richard Michelfelder in a recent edition of The Electricity Journal, the leading policy journal for the electric industry.¶ The consequence, he fears, might well be a disastrous overload of the nation’s electrical grid.¶ An assistant professor of finance at the Rutgers School of Business—Camden and former president and CEO of Quantum Consulting Inc., a national public utilities consulting firm based in Berkeley, Cal., Michelfelder comes to his assessment after a quarter-century in the energy-technology industry.¶ “When you start adding random assets to the grid, you also add the possibility of disruptions in the coordination of the flow of electricity,” says Michelfelder.

Blackouts cause nuclear meltdowns
Cappiello ‘11 (Dina, reporter for the AP March 29, 2011 “AP IMPACT: Long Blackouts Pose Risk to US Reactors” The Post and Courier http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2011/mar/29/ap-impact-long-blackouts-pose-risk-us-reactors/?print)

Long before the nuclear emergency in Japan, U.S. regulators knew that a power failure lasting for days at an American nuclear plant, whatever the cause, could lead to a radioactive leak. Even so, they have only required the nation’s 104 nuclear reactors to develop plans for dealing with much shorter blackouts on the assumption that power would be restored quickly. In one nightmare simulation presented by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2009, it would take less than a day for radiation to escape from a reactor at a Pennsylvania nuclear power plant after an earthquake, flood or fire knocked out all electrical power and there was no way to keep the reactors cool after backup battery power ran out. That plant, the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station outside Lancaster, has reactors of the same older make and model as those releasing radiation at Japan’s Fukushima Dai-ichi plant, which is using other means to try to cool the reactors. And like Fukushima Dai-ichi, the Peach Bottom plant has enough battery power on site to power emergency cooling systems for eight hours. In Japan, that wasn’t enough time for power to be restored. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Nuclear Energy Institute trade association, three of the six reactors at the plant still can’t get power to operate the emergency cooling systems. Two were shut down at the time. In the sixth, the fuel was removed completely and put in the spent fuel pool when it was shut down for maintenance at the time of the disaster. A week after the March 11 earthquake, diesel generators started supplying power to two other two reactors, Units 5 and 6, the groups said. The risk of a blackout leading to core damage, while extremely remote, exists at all U.S. nuclear power plants, and some are more susceptible than others, according to an Associated Press investigation. While regulators say they have confidence that measures adopted in the U.S. will prevent or significantly delay a core from melting and threatening a radioactive release, the events in Japan raise questions about whether U.S. power plants are as prepared as they could and should be. A top Nuclear Regulatory Commission official said Tuesday that the agency will review station blackouts and whether the nation’s 104 nuclear reactors are capable of coping with them. As part of a review requested by President Barack Obama in the wake of the Japan crisis, the NRC will examine “what conditions and capabilities exist at all 104 reactors to see if we need to strengthen the regulatory requirement,” said Bill Borchardt, the agency’s executive director for operations. Borchardt said an obvious question that should be answered is whether nuclear plants need enhanced battery supplies, or ones that can last longer. “There is a robust capability that exists already, but given what happened in Japan there’s obviously a question that presents itself: Do we need to make it even more robust?” He said the NRC would do a site-by-site review of the nation’s nuclear reactors to assess the blackout risk. “We didn’t address a tsunami and an earthquake, but clearly we have known for some time that one of the weak links that makes accidents a little more likely is losing power,” said Alan Kolaczkowski, a retired nuclear engineer who worked on a federal risk analysis of Peach Bottom released in 1990 and is familiar with the updated risk analysis. Risk analyses conducted by the plants in 1991-94 and published by the commission in 2003 show that the chances of such an event striking a U.S. power plant are remote, even at the plant where the risk is the highest, the Beaver Valley Power Station in Pennsylvania. These long odds are among the reasons why the United States since the late 1980s has only required nuclear power plants to cope with blackouts for four or eight hours. That’s about how much time batteries would last. After that, it is assumed that power would be restored. And so far, that’s been the case. Equipment put in place after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks could buy more time. Otherwise, the reactor’s radioactive core could begin to melt unless alternative cooling methods were employed. In Japan, the utility has tried using portable generators and dumped tons of seawater, among other things, on the reactors in an attempt to keep them cool. A 2003 federal analysis looking at how to estimate the risk of containment failure said that should power be knocked out by an earthquake or tornado it “would be unlikely that power will be recovered in the time frame to prevent core meltdown.” In Japan, it was a one-two punch: first the earthquake, then the tsunami.

Extinction
Lendman ‘11 (Stephen, Research Associate of the Center for Research on Globalization, “Nuclear Meltdown in Japan,” http://www.opednews.com/articles/Nuclear-Meltdown-in-Japan-by-Stephen-Lendman-110313-843.html)

Fukushima Daiichi "nuclear power plant in Okuma, Japan, appears to have caused a reactor meltdown." Stratfor downplayed its seriousness, adding that such an event "does not necessarily mean a nuclear disaster," that already may have happened - the ultimate nightmare short of nuclear winter. According to Stratfor, "(A)s long as the reactor core, which is specifically designed to contain high levels of heat, pressure and radiation, remains intact, the melted fuel can be dealt with. If the (core's) breached but the containment facility built around (it) remains intact, the melted fuel can be....entombed within specialized concrete" as at Chernobyl in 1986. In fact, that disaster killed nearly one million people worldwide from nuclear radiation exposure. In their book titled, "Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment," Alexey Yablokov, Vassily Nesterenko and Alexey Nesterenko said: "For the past 23 years, it has been clear that there is a danger greater than nuclear weapons concealed within nuclear power. Emissions from this one reactor exceeded a hundred-fold the radioactive contamination of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki." "No citizen of any country can be assured that he or she can be protected from radioactive contamination. One nuclear reactor can pollute half the globe. Chernobyl fallout covers the entire Northern Hemisphere." Stratfor explained that if Fukushima's floor cracked, "it is highly likely that the melting fuel will burn through (its) containment system and enter the ground. This has never happened before," at least not reported. If now occurring, "containment goes from being merely dangerous, time consuming and expensive to nearly impossible," making the quake, aftershocks, and tsunamis seem mild by comparison. Potentially, millions of lives will be jeopardized.

And, local solar jacks up customer electricity prices
Burr, 12 – editor in chief of Public Utilities Fortnightly (Michael, “Rooftop Tsunami; Utilities sound the alarm as PV nears grid parity” PUBLIC UTILITIES FORTNIGHTLY, July, lexis)

From the utility's point of view, a growing wave of rooftop PV projects is starting to look ominous. And now, some utilities are taking action to shore up their defenses--advocating legislative and regulatory changes that pull back net metering policies and other solar incentives. Concerns focus in part on operational challenges from integrating dispersed generation that's variable, non-dispatchable, and sometimes beyond the utility's ability to control. But the biggest worry seems to involve the prospect of a fixed-costs dilemma, which I addressed in this column last issue. (see "Facing Facts," Fortnightly, June 2012). The shorthand is this: As PV gets cheaper, an increasing number of PV-owning customers will pay less than their fair share of utility system costs, leaving a shrinking number of non-solar customers to pick up the tab for keeping the lights on. Although PV's market penetration is tiny today, it's growing rapidly enough to raise real concerns for many utilities.¶ "Distributed generation is becoming one of the largest subsidies on our system," said Ron Litzinger, president of Southern California Edison, during a panel discussion at this year's Edison Electric Institute Annual Convention. "That subsidy tends to go from low-income to higher-income customers. We need to make sure all the costs of distributed generation are known before decisions are made.¶ "Left unchecked, we could see rates increase by 40 to 50 percent by 2020, which we know isn't sustainable."

This causes a depression
Entine, 9 – adjunct fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (Jon, “U.S. and Climate Change--Rescue of the Planet Postponed?”, 2/24,  http://aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.29333/pub_detail.asp)

The correlation between economic growth and energy costs is high and negative; when energy costs go up, productivity takes a nosedive. In these extraordinary times, arguably the top priority must be to ensure that a secular financial downturn doesn't turn into a worldwide structural depression. If that happens, both the economy and the environment will be losers.

Nuclear war
Cesare Merlini 11, nonresident senior fellow at the Center on the United States and Europe and chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Italian Institute for International Affairs, May 2011, “A Post-Secular World?”, Survival, Vol. 53, No. 2

Two neatly opposed scenarios for the future of the world order illustrate the range of possibilities, albeit at the risk of oversimplification. The first scenario entails the premature crumbling of the post-Westphalian system. One or more of the acute tensions apparent today evolves into an open and traditional conflict between states, perhaps even involving the use of nuclear weapons. The crisis might be triggered by a collapse of the global economic and financial system, the vulnerability of which we have just experienced, and the prospect of a second Great Depression, with consequences for peace and democracy similar to those of the first. Whatever the trigger, the unlimited exercise of national sovereignty, exclusive self-interest and rejection of outside interference would self-interest and rejection of outside interference would likely be amplified, emptying, perhaps entirely, the half-full glass of multilateralism, including the UN and the European Union. Many of the more likely conflicts, such as between Israel and Iran or India and Pakistan, have potential religious dimensions. Short of war, tensions such as those related to immigration might become unbearable. Familiar issues of creed and identity could be exacerbated. One way or another, the secular rational approach would be sidestepped by a return to theocratic absolutes, competing or converging with secular absolutes such as unbridled nationalism.

1nc util
1) Focus on extinction is ethical –
extinction would be enormously painful

2) Util is inevitable –
they just shift util to be about what group of people is worth the most, even if util is bad only they make it about something other than numbers which is worse

3) All lives infinitely valuable—only ethical option is maximizing number saved
Cummisky, 96  (David, professor of philosophy at Bates, Kantian Consequentialism, p. 131)

Finally, even if one grants that saving two persons with dignity cannot outweigh and compensate for killing one—because dignity cannot be added and summed this way—this point still does not justify deontological constraints.  On the extreme interpretation, why would not killing one person be a stronger obligation than saving two persons?  If I am concerned with the priceless dignity of each, it would seem that I may still save two; it is just that my reason cannot be that the two compensate for the loss of one.  Consider Hill’s example of a priceless object: If I can save two of three priceless statutes only by destroying one, then I cannot claim that saving two is not outweighed by the one that was not destroyed.  Indeed, even if dignity cannot be simply summed up, how is the extreme interpretation inconsistent with the idea that I should save as many priceless objects as possible?  Even if two do not simply outweigh and thus compensate for the loss of one, each is priceless; thus, I have good reason to save as many as I can.  In short, it is not clear how the extreme interpretation justifies the ordinary killing/letting-die distinction or even how it conflicts with the conclusion that the more persons with dignity who are saved, the better.

4) Ethics focus turns the K - Focus on guilt-based pancea politics leads to compassion fatigue that results in a net-decrease in ethical acts
Moeller, 99 Dr. Susan Moeller is the director of the International Center for Media and the Public Agenda (ICMPA), an academic center that forms a bridge between the College of Journalism and the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland, College Park. She is Professor of Media and International Affairs in the Philip Merrill College of Journalism at the University of Maryland and an affiliated faculty member at the School of Public Policy. “Compassion Fatigue : How the Media Sells Disease, Famine, War and Death” http://site.ebrary.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lib/umich/docDetail.action?docID=10054625 pg. 9-12 BJM
It all started with an advertising campaign. We have all been cued by that famous series of ads by Save the Children. You can help this child or you can turn the page. The first time a reader sees the advertisement he is arrested by guilt. He may come close to actually sending money to the organization. The second time the reader sees the ad he may linger over the photograph, read the short paragraphs of copy and only then turn the page. The third time the reader sees the ad he typically turns the page without hesitation. The fourth time the reader sees the ad he may pause again over the photo and text, not to wallow in guilt, but to acknowledge with cynicism how the advertisement is crafted to manipulate readers like him— even if it is in a “good” cause. As the Chicago Tribunes 1998 series investigating four international charities bluntly stated, “Child sponsorship is one of the most powerful and seductive philanthropic devices ever conceived.” 7 Most media consumers eventually get to the point where they turn the page. Because most of us do pass the advertisement by, its curse is on our heads. “Either you help or you turn away,” stated one ad. “Whether she lives or dies, depends on what you do next.” Turning away kills this child. We are responsible. “Because without your help, death will be this child’s only relief.” 8 In turning away we become culpable. But we can’t respond to every appeal. And so we’ve come to believe that we don’t care. If we turn the page originally because we don’t want to respond to what is in actuality a fund-raising appeal, although in the guise of a direct humanitarian plea, it becomes routine to thumb past the pages of news images showing wide-eyed children in distress. We’ve got compassion fatigue, we say, as if we have involuntarily contracted some kind of disease that we’re stuck with no matter what we might do. But it’s not just the tactics of the advocacy industry which are at fault in our succumbing to this affliction. After all, how often do we see one of their ads, anyway?…unless it’s Christmastime and we’re opening all our unsolicited mail. It’s the media that are at fault. How they typically cover crises helps us to feel overstimulated and bored all at once. Conventional wisdom says Americans have a short attention span. A parent would not accept that pronouncement on a child; she would step in to try to teach patience and the rewards of sticktoitiveness. But the media are not parents. In this case they are more like the neighborhood kid who is the bad influence on the block. Is your attention span short? Well then, let the media give you even more staccato bursts of news, hyped and wired to feed your addiction. It is not that there’s not good, comprehensive, responsible reporting out there. There is. “Sometimes,” said the late Jim Yuenger, former foreign editor with the Chicago Tribune, “you put the news in and people just aren’t going to read it and you have to say the hell with it.” 9 But that type of coverage is expensive as well as spaceand time-consuming. It rarely shows enough bang for the buck. So only a few elite media outlets emphasize such coverage, and even they frequently lapse into quick once-over reporting. “We give you the world,” yes, but in 15-second news briefs. The print and broadcast media are part of the entertainment industry— an industry that knows how to capture and hold the attention of its audience. “The more bizarre the story,” admitted UPI foreign editor Bob Martin, “the more it’s going to get played.” 10 With but a few exceptions, the media pay their way through selling advertising, not selling the news. So the operating principle behind much of the news business is to appeal to an audience— especially a large audience— with attractive demographics for advertisers. Those relatively few news outlets that consider international news to be of even remote interest to their target audiences try to make the world accessible. The point in covering international affairs is to make the world fascinating— or at least acceptably convenient: “News you can use.” “When we do the readership surveys, foreign news always scores high,” said Robert Kaiser, former managing editor of The Washington Post. “People say they’re interested and appreciate it, and I know they’re lying but I don’t mind. It’s fine. But I think it’s an opportunity for people to claim to be somewhat better citizens than they are.” 11 But in reality, they’re bored. When problems in the news can’t be easily or quickly solved— famine in Somalia, war in Bosnia, mass murder of the Kurds— attention wanders off to the next news fashion. “What’s hardest,” said Yuenger, “is to sustain interest in a story like Bosnia, which a lot of people just don’t want to hear about.” The media are alert to the first signs in their audience of the compassion fatigue “signal,” that sign that the short attention span of the public is up. “If we’ve just been in Africa for three months,” said CBS News foreign editor Allen Alter, “and somebody says, ‘You think that’s bad? You should see what’s down in Niger,’ well, it’s going to be hard for me to go back. Everybody’s Africa’d out for the moment.” As Milan Kundera wrote in The Book of Laughter and Forgetting, “The bloody massacre in Bangladesh quickly covered over the memory of the Russian invasion of Czechoslovakia, the assassination of Allende  drowned out the groans of Bangladesh, the war in the Sinai Desert made people forget Allende, the Cambodian massacre made people forget Sinai and so on and so forth, until ultimately everyone lets everything be forgotten.” 12 The causes of compassion fatigue are multiple. Sometimes there are just too many catastrophes happening at once. “I think it was the editor Harold Evans,” said Bill Small, former president of NBC News and UPI, “who noted that a single copy of the London Sunday Times covers more happenings than an Englishman just a few hundred years ago could be expected to be exposed to in his entire lifetime.” 13 In 1991, for instance, it was hard not to be overwhelmed by the plethora of disasters. So compassion fatigue may simply work to pre-empt attention of “competing” events. Americans seem to have an appetite for only one crisis at a time. The phenomenon is so well-known that even political cartoonists make jokes about it, such as the frame drawn by Jeff Danziger of a newsroom with one old hack saying to someone on the phone: “Tajikistan? Sorry, we’ve already got an ethnic war story,” and another old warhorse saying on another phone: “Sudan? Sorry we’ve already got a famine story.” 14 Even during “slower” disaster seasons, there is always a long laundry list of countries and peoples in upheaval. Many and perhaps most of the problems are not of the quick-fix variety— the send-in-the-blankets-and-vaccination-suppliesand-all-will-be-well emergencies. Most global problems are entrenched and longlasting, rarely yielding to easy solutions available to individuals or even NGO and governmental authorities. “The same theme just dulls the psyche. For the reader, for the reporter writing it, for the editor reading it,” said Bernard Gwertzman, former foreign editor at The New York Times. 15 Tom Kent, international editor at the Associated Press, noted the same problem in covering ongoing crises. “Basically, in our coverage we cover things until there’s not much new to say. And then we back off daily coverage and come back a week or a month later, but not day-to-day.” He could tell, he said, when the sameness of the situation was drugging an audience into somnolence. We can certainly get a sense for the degree that people care about a story in the public. For example, when Bosnia started, people were calling up all the time for addresses of relief organizations and how we can help and all that. We did lists, and then requests dropped off. And in the first part of the Somalia story we heard “How can we help?” “How can we get money to these people?” We sent out the lists, then those calls dropped off Either the people who wanted to contribute had all the information they needed, or there just wasn’t  anybody else who was interested. In Rwanda, we got practically no inquiries about how to help, although our stories certainly suggested there’s as much misery in Rwanda as anywhere else. 16 Sometimes to Americans, international problems just seem too permanent to yield to resolution. Sometimes even when problems flare out into crisis— by which point it is too late for the patch-’em-up response— the public is justified in believing that outside intervention will do little good…so what’s the use in caring? It’s difficult for the media and their audience to sustain concern about individual crises over a period of months and maybe even years. Other more decisive— and short-term— events intervene, usurping attention, and meanwhile, little seems to change in the original scenario. There is a reciprocal circularity in the treatment of low-intensity crises: the droning “same-as-it-ever-was” coverage in the media causes the public to lose interest, and the media’s perception that their audience has lost interest causes them to downscale their coverage, which causes the public to believe that the crisis is either over or is a lesser emergency and so on and so on. Another, especially pernicious form of compassion fatigue can set in when a crisis seems too remote, not sufficiently connected to Americans’ lives. Unless Americans are involved, unless a crisis comes close to home— either literally or figuratively— unless compelling images are available, preferably on TV, crises don’t get attention, either from the media or their audience. Some of the public may turn the television off when they see sad reports from around the world, but unless the news is covered by the media, no one has an opportunity to decide whether to watch or not. “Thanks to the news media,” noted Newsweek, “the face of grieving Kurdish refugees replaced the beaming smiles of victorious GIs.” Publicity, Newsweek argued, “galvanized the public and forced the president’s hand.” In just two weeks, the Bush administration sent $188 million in relief to the Kurds. 17 It’s a bit like that tree falling in the middle of the forest. If it falls and no one hears, it’s like it never happened. The tree may lie on the forest floor for years, finally to rot away, without anyone ever realizing it once stood tall.

5) Consequences outweigh—fierce dogmatism makes them complicit with the evil they criticize
Isaac 02 – Professor of political science at Indiana-Bloomington, Director of the Center for the Study of Democracy and Public Life, PhD from Yale (Jeffery C., Dissent Magazine, Vol. 49, Iss. 2, “Ends, Means, and Politics,” p. Proquest)

As a result, the most important political questions are simply not asked. It is assumed that U.S. military intervention is an act of "aggression," but no consideration is given to the aggression to which intervention is a response. The status quo ante in Afghanistan is not, as peace activists would have it, peace, but rather terrorist violence abetted by a regime--the Taliban--that rose to power through brutality and repression. This requires us to ask a question that most "peace" activists would prefer not to ask: What should be done to respond to the violence of a Saddam Hussein, or a Milosevic, or a Taliban regime? What means are likely to stop violence and bring criminals to justice? Calls for diplomacy and international law are well intended and important; they implicate a decent and civilized ethic of global order. But they are also vague and empty, because they are not accompanied by any account of how diplomacy or international law can work effectively to address the problem at hand. The campus left offers no such account. To do so would require it to contemplate tragic choices in which moral goodness is of limited utility. Here what matters is not purity of intention but the intelligent exercise of power.
Power is not a dirty word or an unfortunate feature of the world. It is the core of politics. Power is the ability to effect outcomes in the world. Politics, in large part, involves contests over the distribution and use of power. To accomplish anything in the political world, one must attend to the means that are necessary to bring it about. And to develop such means is to develop, and to exercise, power. To say this is not to say that power is beyond morality. It is to say that power is not reducible to morality. As writers such as Niccolo Machiavelli, Max Weber, Reinhold Niebuhr, and Hannah Arendt have taught, an unyielding concern with moral goodness undercuts political responsibility. The concern may be morally laudable, reflecting a kind of personal integrity, but it suffers from three fatal flaws: (1) It fails to see that the purity of one's intention does not ensure the achievement of what one intends. Abjuring violence or refusing to make common cause with morally compromised parties may seem like the right thing; but if such tactics entail impotence, then it is hard to view them as serving any moral good beyond the clean conscience of their supporters; (2) it fails to see that in a world of real violence and injustice, moral purity is not simply a form of powerlessness; it is often a form of complicity in injustice. This is why, from the standpoint of politics--as opposed to religion--pacifism is always a potentially immoral stand. In categorically repudiating violence, it refuses in principle to oppose certain violent injustices with any effect; and (3) it fails to see that politics is as much about unintended consequences as it is about intentions; it is the effects of action, rather than the motives of action, that is most significant. Just as the alignment with "good" may engender impotence, it is often the pursuit of "good" that generates evil. This is the lesson of communism in the twentieth century: it is not enough that one's goals be sincere or idealistic; it is equally important, always, to ask about the effects of pursuing these goals and to judge these effects in pragmatic and historically contextualized ways. Moral absolutism inhibits this judgment. It alienates those who are not true believers. It promotes arrogance. And it undermines political effectiveness.

6) Large impacts always outweigh smaller ones – they are using cognitive biases to trick you into being immoral – don’t fall for it
YUDKOWSKY 2006 (Eliezer, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence, “Cognitive biases potentially affecting judgment of global risks,” forthcoming in Global Catastrophic Risks, August 31)*we don’t endorse gendered language used by Eliezer Yudkowsky

Three groups of subjects considered three versions of the above question, asking them how high a tax increase they would accept to save 2,000, 20,000, or 200,000 birds. The response - known as Stated Willingness-To-Pay, or SWTP - had a mean of $80 for the 2,000-bird group, $78 for 20,000 birds, and $88 for 200,000 birds. (Desvousges et. al. 1993.) This phenomenon is known as scope insensitivity or scope neglect. Similar studies have shown that Toronto residents would pay little more to clean up all polluted lakes in Ontario than polluted lakes in a particular region of Ontario (Kahneman 1986); and that residents of four western US states would pay only 28 more to protect all 57 wilderness areas in those states than to protect a single area (McFadden and Leonard, 1995). The most widely accepted explanation for scope neglect appeals to the affect heuristic. Kahneman et. al. (1999) write: "The story constructed by Desvouges et. al. probably evokes for many readers a mental representation of a prototypical incident, perhaps an image of an exhausted bird, its feathers soaked in black oil, unable to escape. The hypothesis of valuation by prototype asserts that the affective value of this image will dominate expressions of the attitute to the problem - including the willingness to pay for a solution. Valuation by prototype implies extension neglect." Two other hypotheses accounting for scope neglect include purchase of moral satisfaction (Kahneman and Knetsch, 1992) and good cause dump (Harrison 1992). Purchase of moral satisfaction suggests that people spend enough money to create a 'warm glow' in themselves, and the amount required is a property of the person's psychology, having nothing to do with birds. Good cause dump suggests that people have some amount of money they are willing to pay for "the environment", and any question about environmental goods elicits this amount. Scope neglect has been shown to apply to human lives. Carson and Mitchell (1995) report that increasing the alleged risk associated with chlorinated drinking water from 0.004 to 2.43 annual deaths per 1,000 (a factor of 600) increased SWTP from $3.78 to $15.23 (a factor of 4). Baron and Greene (1996) found no effect from varying lives saved by a factor of ten. Fetherstonhaugh et. al. (1997), in a paper entitled "Insensitivity to the Value of Human Life: A Study of Psychophysical Numbing", found evidence that our perception of human deaths, and valuation of human lives, obeys Weber's Law - meaning that we use a logarithmic scale. And indeed, studies of scope neglect in which the quantitative variations are huge enough to elicit any sensitivity at all, show small linear increases in Willingness-To-Pay corresponding to exponential increases in scope. Kahneman et. al. (1999) interpret this as an additive effect of scope affect and prototype affect - the prototype image elicits most of the emotion, and the scope elicits a smaller amount of emotion which is added (not multiplied) with the first amount. Albert Szent-Györgyi said: "I am deeply moved if I see one man suffering and would risk my life for him. Then I talk impersonally about the possible pulverization of our big cities, with a hundred million dead. I am unable to multiply one man's suffering by a hundred million." Human emotions take place within an analog brain. The human brain cannot release enough neurotransmitters to feel emotion a thousand times as strong as the grief of one funeral. A prospective risk going from 10,000,000 deaths to 100,000,000 deaths does not multiply by ten the strength of our determination to stop it. It adds one more zero on paper for our eyes to glaze over, an effect so small that one must usually jump several orders of magnitude to detect the difference experimentally.

7) Extinction is unique because those suffering also are affected along with future generations –
none of their authors assume our impacts

at: environmental justice

Environmental Justice framing of the social inequity means it fails and alienates other populations
Litman and Brenman 12 Todd Litman, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Marc Brenman, Social Justice Consultancy and Senior Policy Advisor to The City Project, “A New Social Equity Agenda For Sustainable Transportation”, http://www.vtpi.org/equityagenda.pdf, 8 March 2012 SV
In practice, transportation social equity issues are often addressed using an environmental justice lens, which tends to focus on illegal and measurable harms to certain vulnerable minority groups, as defined in the following box. Political debates, transport agencies, professional organizations (such as TRB), advocacy groups and courts all tend to use this perspective when evaluating social equity issues (Bullard and Johnson 1997; Forkenbrock and Sheeley 2004). This approach is understandable. It addresses what can be considered the worst categories of social inequities (measurable discrimination against vulnerable minorities), and it helps define a reasonable scope of issues that planning organizations can address. For example, to satisfy social equity requirements a planning agency should identify any vulnerable minorities and any impacts that a project will impose on them, and then work with that group to mitigate these impacts. Similarly, social equity advocacy organizations have a reasonably definable constituency with definable concerns and intervention methods, including legal action. However, this approach also has significant limitations: • It is ineffective at representing the interests of unorganized and geographically dispersed groups. For example, transit riders and bicyclists are often more politically organized and influential than the much larger group of people who walk. Minority and low-income people tend to be more influential they live close together than if they are dispersed Mobility for teenagers and young adults is generally overlooked as a social equity issue. It relies on often ambiguous classifications, such as race and age,

 as surrogates for functional status such as poverty and physical disability. Although African Americans tend to have high poverty rates, it is wrong to assume that all African Americans are poor, and unfair to overlook white population poverty. Similarly, although seniors tend to have high disability rates, it is wrong to assume that all seniors are disabled, and unfair to overlook the needs of younger disabled people. This can alienate people who feel that their interests are undervalued, such as low-income people who lack minority status. • It tends to consider social equity issues in isolation, and so favors special mitigation actions rather than more integrated solutions that may help achieve more total benefits. For example, it is more likely to support special subsidies or transit services intended to help specific groups than to support broader policy and planning reforms that create more diverse transport systems and more accessible land use, which provide economic, environmental and social equity benefits. • It tends to overlook issues important to physically, economically and socially disadvantaged groups not specifically defined as discrimination, such as planning decision impacts on health, affordability, and community livability (Bell and Cohen 2009; CNT 2008; Litman 2007) Environmental justice, as it is currently applied, can therefore be considered a subset of total social equity issues. Environmental justice might be considered to reflect the most extreme and therefore most important issues, but this approach often excludes other impacts and groups. 

2nc
Quit messin’ --- Must defend solely simulation of 1AC
Esberg and Sagan 12 Jane Esberg is special assistant to the director at New York University's Center on. International Cooperation. She was the winner of 2009 Firestone Medal. Scott Sagan is a professor of political science and director of Stanford's Center for International Security and Cooperation, “NEGOTIATING NONPROLIFERATION: Scholarship, Pedagogy, and Nuclear Weapons Policy,” 2/17 The Nonproliferation Review, 19:1, 95-108

These government or quasi-government think tank simulations often provide very similar lessons for high-level players as are learned by students in educational simulations. Government participants learn about the importance of understanding foreign perspectives, the need to practice internal coordination, and the necessity to compromise and coordinate with other governments in negotiations and crises. During the Cold War, political scientist Robert Mandel noted how crisis exercises and war games forced government officials to overcome ‘‘bureaucratic myopia,’’ moving beyond their normal organizational roles and thinking more creatively about how others might react in a crisis or conflict.6 The skills of imagination and the subsequent ability to predict foreign interests and reactions remain critical for real-world foreign policy makers. For example, simulations of the Iranian nuclear crisis*held in 2009 and 2010 at the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center and at Harvard University’s Belfer Center, and involving former US senior officials and regional experts*highlighted the dangers of misunderstanding foreign governments’ preferences and misinterpreting their subsequent behavior. In both simulations, the primary criticism of the US negotiating team lay in a failure to predict accurately how other states, both allies and adversaries, would behave in response to US policy initiatives.7
By university age, students often have a pre-defined view of international affairs, and the literature on simulations in education has long emphasized how such exercises force students to challenge their assumptions about how other governments behave and how their own government works.8 Since simulations became more common as a teaching tool in the late 1950s, educational literature has expounded on their benefits, from encouraging engagement by breaking from the typical lecture format, to improving communication skills, to promoting teamwork.9 More broadly, simulations can deepen understanding by asking students to link fact and theory, providing a context for facts while bringing theory into the realm of practice.10 These exercises are particularly valuable in teaching international affairs for many of the same reasons they are useful for policy makers: they force participants to ‘‘grapple with the issues arising from a world in flux.’’11 Simulations have been used successfully to teach students about such disparate topics as European politics, the Kashmir crisis, and US response to the mass killings in Darfur.12 Role-playing exercises certainly encourage students to learn political and technical facts* but they learn them in a more active style. Rather than sitting in a classroom and merely receiving knowledge, students actively research ‘‘their’’ government’s positions and actively argue, brief, and negotiate with others.13 Facts can change quickly; simulations teach students how to contextualize and act on information.14

at: c/i
The plan only effects one sector of the economy – economic engagement must affect the broad economy – that’s key to limits otherwise the aff could increase aid for any single good imaginable to any of the 3 countries.
Davidsson 3 – Elias Davidsson, Human Rights Researcher and Activist, Reporter for the Arab American News, Contributing Editor for Global Research, “The Mechanism of Economic Sanctions: Changing Perceptions and Euphemisms”, November, www.aldeilis.net/english/attachments/2877_econsanc-debate.pdf?

“Economic sanctions”, a mode of coercion in international relations resuscitated in recent years, has prompted renewed and lively scholarly interest in the subject. Why have such measures become so popular? One answer is that they “constitute a means of exerting international influence that is more powerful than diplomatic mediation but lies below the threshold of military intervention”1. Another answer is that “they engage comparatively less internal political resistance than other candidate strategies .... They do not generate sombre processions of body bags bringing home the mortal remains of the sons and daughters of constituents”2, in other words, they cost little to the side imposing the sanctions. The notable predilection by the United States for economic sanctions 3, suggests that such a tool is particularly useful for economically powerful states that are themselves relatively immune to such measures. This tool of collective economic coercion, with antecedents such as siege warfare and blockade going back to biblical time 4, was used during most of the 20th Century, particularly in war situations. Although the United Nations Charter, drafted during the later stages of World War II, includes provisions for the imposition of economic sanctions (Article 41), the Security Council - empowered to resort to this tool - only used it twice between 1945 and 1990, against Rhodesia in 1966 and South Africa in 1977. In our discussion we designate economic sanctions as “coordinated restrictions on trade and/or financial transactions intended to impair economic life within a given territory”5. To the extent that measures intend to impair “economic life within a given territory” through restrictions on trade and/or finance, they constitute, for our purposes, economic sanctions. Selective or individualized measures, such as restrictions on specific goods (arms, luxury items, some forms of travel), are therefore not considered as economic sanctions. Symbolic economic deprivations, such as partial withholding of aid, do not amount to economic sanctions if their intended effect is primarily to convey displeasure, rather than to affect the economy.
CP popular with Republicans—it will be passed easily
Esenaro, 13 (Alberto Esenaro, 4/7/13, “QUICK WHITE HOUSE RESPONSE COULD MEAN A FOOT IN THE DOOR IN MEXICO’S HYDROCARBONS SECTOR”, http://mexicanlawblog.com/quick-white-house-response-could-mean-a-foot-in-the-door-in-mexicos-hydrocarbons-sector/)//EM
In April of 2012, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made an agreement with former president Felipe Calderón allowing joint oil exploration in the Gulf of Mexico, which would give the U.S. access to Mexico’s well-known oil riches. Interestingly, while the deal was approved with lightning speed in the Mexican Senate (where opposition to privatization is quite strong), the current Obama administration in the United States has delayed finalizing the off-shore drilling deal. According to Republican lawmakers and industry experts, a quick response is essential and foot-dragging could have disastrous consequences for Americans interested in accessing Mexican oil. The reason why consequences could be disastrous according to industry experts is that Mexico could very easily change its mind and call off the deal: public opinion on any foreign investment in the country’s hydrocarbons sector generally tends to be negative and politicians could very well submit to the will of the populace. Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.) spoke to The Hill recently after a House Foreign Relations committee hearing. Speaking about energy deals with Mexico, he said: “It’s time for the administration to act. All they have to do is send the enacting legislation over here and let us act on it, because we’re sitting on ‘go.’”

Magnitude has to be taken in account before risk – it’s not a zero percent risk if it could kill on a large scale
Shrader 1985 – Professor of Philosophy at the University of Florida, former Professor at UC, Santa Barbara, held an NSF Scholar's Award in History and Philosophy of Science, a Woodrow Wilson Fellowship and an NSF Fellowship (Kristin Shrader-Frechette, Journal of Business Ethics 4, 431-445, “Technological Risk and Small Probabilities”)

Perhaps the strongest reason for believing that the value of risk avoidance ought not to be defined purely in terms of probability is that such a definition ignores the importance of consequences. An extremely low probability of killing one person, for example, might be negligible. It is not clear, however, that if the consequences differed, then the risk would still be negligible. If this same low probability were that 150 000 persons might be killed, then the risk might not be said to be insignificant. This is why the probability-threshold position runs into such difficulties when used to evaluate risks such as those from commercial, nuclear-reactor accidents. Granted, the per-year, per-reactor probability of a nuclear core melt might be only 6 X 10"5, an extremely low probability.^i But if such an accident, according to the US Brookhaven Report, could kill 145 000 people, cause $17 billion in property damage alone, and render an area the size of Pennsylvania uninhabitable,'^ then such a risk is hardly negligible. Perhaps, as Derek Parfit argues, a large number of fatalities "cancels out the smallness of the chance" and, for this reason, "it is not plausible to claim that a very tiny chance is no chance at all."63

3. Turn: consciousness makes calculation inevitable, rejecting it enhances the worst aspects of calculation
Derrida, 92 (Jaques, “The Force of Law: The ‘Mystical Foundation of Authority’”, Deconstruction and the Possibility of Justice, ed: Cornell, Rosenfeld, and Carlson, p. 28-29)

That justice exceeds law and calculation, that the unpresentable exceeds the determinable cannot and should not serve as an alibi for staying out of juridico-political battles, within an institution or state or between institutions or states and others.  Left to itself, the incalculable and giving idea of justice is always very close to the bad, even to the worst for it can always be reapportioned by the most perverse calculation.  It’s always possible.  And so incalculable justice requires us to calculate.  And first, closest to what we associate with justice, namely law, the juridicial field that one cannot isolate within sure frontiers, but also in all the fields from which we cannot separate it, which intervene in it and are no longer simply fields: ethics, politics, economics, psycho-sociology, philosophy, literature, etc.  Not only must we calculate, negotiate the relation between the calculable and incalculable, and negotiate without the sort of tule that wouldn’t have to reinvented there where we are cast, there where we find ourselves; but we must take it as far as possible, beyond the place where we find ourselves and beyond the already identifiable zones of morality or politics or law, beyond the distinction between national and international, public and private, and so on.  This requirement doesn’t properly belong to either justice or law.  It only belongs to either of those two domains by exceeding each one in the direction of the other.  Politicization, for example, is interminable even if it cannot and should not ever be total.  To keep this from being a truism or a triviality, we must recognize in it the following consequence: each advancement in politicization obliges one to reconsider, and so reinterpret, the very foundations of law such as they had been previously calculated or delimited.  This was true for example in the Declaration of the Rights of Man, in the abolition of slavery, in all emanicipatory battles that remain and will have to remain in progress, everywhere in the world, for men and for women.

2. Every barrier imaginable.
Wood et. al., 1ac author, 12, fellow @ Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Department of International Affairs, Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México Senior Advisor, Mexico Institute Renewable Energy Initiative(Duncan Wood, July 2012, “Solar Energy Potential in Mexico’s Northern Border States”, http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Border_Solar_Romero_0.pdf) 

Barriers to Solar Development in Mexico Institutional There are no specific targets for increased solar capacity by the government. Although there are significant subsidies for conventional energy, the tax incentives for investment in solar energy are not sufficient to promote market growth. In addition, environmental externalities are not considered in the economic analysis of energy projects. Financial In general knowledge, there is little understanding of the life cycle of a solar project. It is not clear how a project can be developed, for it does not follow any established local pattern of construction or investment. The development steps are taken according to the situations that the project is currently in; steps, that have specific financial parameters. From the beginning to the conclusion of a project, it is uncertain how much it will cost. Flow analyses are not exact, adding to this, that the number and capacity of government and private financing programs are very limited. There are no mechanisms for “soft” loans or feed in tariffs to promote the use of solar systems in Mexico despite their successful application in other nations. Technical According to several installers consulted within ANES; in autonomous off-the-grid PV systems, lack of maintenance has caused failures to the PV systems after just a few years of operation. There is a need to train technicians to install and maintain systems and provide greater customer satisfaction, furthering development of the market. Finally, low level legislation (operating procedures) is needed to have minimum standards of quality and performance of photovoltaic products and solar projects. An important barrier to the development of the solar industry in Mexico with regards to manufacturing solar panels is that solar panel manufacturers in Mexico currently have to source most of their inputs from abroad. According to the manufacturers, the Mexican industry does not have the sufficient know-how or technology to meet the specific quality requirements and characteristics used in solar panel manufacturing. Some of the unmet requirements include low panel efficiency outputs, low cover glass quality with low useful life expectancy, and inadequate design and dimensions of the panel frames. Social The lack of knowledge and information about PV Solar Energy in Mexico means that many rural consumers do not understand its potential benefits. With respect to energy consumption and costs, households rarely take a long- term perspective and consequently fail to identify the potential savings small- scale solar system would in some cases provide. Moreover, the rural community remembers the failures of the Solidaridad program, which was developed by the administration of former Mexican president Carlos Salinas de Gortari in the late 1980s. The program’s objective was poverty alleviation, and one of the proposals was to install PV Solar Panels in rural communities. The program failed, partially because the solar systems were using car batteries that died just after a few months and were rarely replaced. Still remembered by the rural population, this experience left many rural residents with the impression that PV and other solar solutions are useless and with a strong preference for a grid connection. Political Unfortunately, decision makers are often uninformed about solar energy as well. This has greater consequences because policymakers have made decisions and declarations that have restricted the development and growth of solar energy in the country and given it a negative public image. For instance, when the electric taxi fleet for Mexico City was first announced, the government stated that the energy for recharging the cars would come from solar panels installed in the recharging stations, clearly an overstatement since the stations have an area of only 100 m2. As a result of public policy blunders and a lack of effective educational campaigns, most of the population is not aware that, when properly applied, solar systems can generate substantial financial and energy savings. 

Politics
2nc econ overview
DA outweighs and turns the case –
1). magnitude—
economic decline causes all global hotspots to escalate—Iran, North Korea, Russia, China—increases the incentive to challenge competitors with nuclear weapons—that’s Friedberg and Schoenfeld
2). timeframe—
debt ceiling is the only instantaneous impact b/c it’s based off of the action of US default—prefer it over their long systemic internal link chains

probability is irrelevant—default is a yes/no question
Turns case
1). prevents implementation—
government shutdown means that they can’t fund/initiate new programs

2). economic growth solves their war scenarios—
trade ties and interdependence eliminates rational incentives for war

Econ decline turns clean tech
Richard 8 (Michael Graham, Environmental Activist and Contributor @ HuffPost, "4 Reasons Why Recession is BAD for the Environment," http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-graham-richard/4-reasons-why-recession-i_b_133564.html)

As a counter-point to Lloyd's tongue-in-cheek post about 10 Ways the Recession Can Help the Environment, here are some eco-reasons why we should wish a speedy recovery (we won't get into non-green reasons here): Firstly, when squeezed, companies will reduce their investments into research and development and green programs. These are usually not short-term profit centers, so that is what's axed first. Some progress has been made in the past few years, it would be sad to lose ground now. Secondly, average people, when money is tight, will look for less expensive products (duh). Right now, that usually means that greener products won't make it. Maybe someday if we start taxing "bads" instead of "goods" (pollution, carbon, toxins instead of labor, income, capital gains) the least expensive products will also be the greenest, but right now that's not the case. Thirdly, there's less money going into the stock markets and bank loans are harder to get, which means that many small firms and startups working on the breakthrough green technologies of tomorrow can have trouble getting funds or can even go bankrupt, especially if their clients or backers decide to make cuts. Fourthly, during economic crises, voters want the government to appear to be doing something about the economy (even if it's government that screwed things up in the first place). They'll accept all kinds of measures and laws, including those that aren't good for the environment. Massive corn subsidies anyone? Don't even think about progress on global warming...

Global economic collapse increases poverty
Klare 9 Michael T. Author and Professor of Peace and World-Security Studies at Hampshire College,  March 19, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-t-klare/the-second-shockwave_b_176358.html

While the economic contraction is apparently slowing in the advanced industrial countries and may reach bottom in the not-too-distant future, it's only beginning to gain momentum in the developing world, which was spared the earliest effects of the global meltdown. Because the crisis was largely precipitated by a collapse of the housing market in the United States and the resulting disintegration of financial products derived from the "securitization" of questionable mortgages, most developing nations were unaffected by the early stages of the meltdown, for the simple reason that they possessed few such assets. But now, as the wealthier nations cease investing in the developing world or acquiring its exports, the crisis is hitting them with a vengeance. On top of this, conditions are deteriorating at a time when severe drought is affecting many key food-producing regions and poor farmers lack the wherewithal to buy seeds, fertilizers, and fuel. The likely result: A looming food crisis in many areas hit hardest by the global economic meltdown. Until now, concern over the human impact of the global crisis has largely been focused -- understandably so -- on unemployment and economic hardship in the United States, Europe, and former Soviet Union. Many stories have appeared on the devastating impact of plant closings, bankruptcies, and home foreclosures on families and communities in these parts of the world. Much less coverage has been devoted to the meltdown's impact on people in the developing world. As the crisis spreads to the poorer countries, however, it's likely that people in these areas will experience hardships every bit as severe as those in the wealthier countries -- and, in many cases, far worse. The greatest worry is that most of the gains achieved in eradicating poverty over the last decade or so will be wiped out, forcing tens or hundreds of millions of people from the working class and the lower rungs of the middle class back into the penury from which they escaped. Equally worrisome is the risk of food scarcity in these areas, resulting in widespread malnutrition, hunger, and starvation. All this is sure to produce vast human misery, sickness, and death, but could also result in social and political unrest of various sorts, including riot, rebellion, and ethnic strife. The president, Congress, or the mainstream media are not, for the most part, discussing these perils. As before, public interest remains focused on the ways in which the crisis is affecting the United States and the other major industrial powers. But the World Bank, the Food and Agriculture Organization, and U.S. intelligence officials, in three recent reports, are paying increased attention to the prospect of a second economic shockwave, this time affecting the developing world.Sinking Back Into Penury In late February, the World Bank staff prepared a background paper for the Group of 20 (G-20) finance ministers meeting held near London on March 13 and 14. Entitled "Swimming Against the Tide: How Developing Countries Are Coping with the Global Crisis," it provides a preliminary assessment of the meltdown's impact on low-income countries (LICs). The picture, though still hazy, is one of deepening gloom. Most LICs were shielded from the initial impact of the sudden blockage in private capital flows because they have such limited access to such markets. "But while slower to emerge," the report notes, "the impact of the crisis on LICs has been no less significant as the effects have spread through other channels." For example, "many LIC governments rely on disproportionately on revenue from commodity exports, the prices of which have declined sharply along with global demand." Likewise, foreign direct investment is falling, particularly in the natural resource sectors. On top of this, remittances from immigrants in the wealthier countries to their families back home have dropped, erasing an important source of income to poor communities. Add all this up, and it's likely that "the slowdown in growth will likely deepen the deprivation of the existing poor." In many LICs, moreover, "large numbers of people are clustered just above the poverty line and are therefore particularly vulnerable to economic volatility and temporary slowdowns." As the intensity of the crisis grows, more and more of these people will lose their jobs or their other sources of income (such as those all-important remittances) and so be pushed from above the poverty line to beneath it. The resulting outcome: "The economic crisis is projected to increase poverty by around 46 million people in 2009."

2nc uniqueness wall

A clean debt ceiling bill will pass, 2 reasons –
a. The Democratic party is unified, and Obama is rallying them and exploiting GOP divisions – that’s 1nc Bolton.  The plan undermines Dem unity by rallying anti-trade and labor groups and splits the party – that’s Magnus

b. Obama is controlling the messaging – our 1nc Milbank evidence says Obama needs to be President One Note.  As long as Obama stays focused and on topic, his pressure will cause the GOP to cave.  The plan disrupts this strategy by drawing Obama into a new fight – all the time he spends talking about the plan is time he can’t spend on the debt ceiling

Obama is winning the messaging war - the GOP is on the defensive and will cave
Balz, 9/26/13 (Dan, Washington Post, “Looking to block Obamacare, GOP is party in search of a strategy” http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/looking-to-block-obamacare-gop-is-party-in-search-of-a-strategy/2013/09/26/5685281a-26f4-11e3-b75d-5b7f66349852_story.html)

Obama also was defiant in reasserting that he will not negotiate over raising the federal debt ceiling, as he had told Boehner in a recent telephone call. He said he would not give in to “blackmail” on issues that he said have nothing to do with the budget. “I will not negotiate on anything when it comes to the full faith and credit of the United States of America,” he said to applause. “We’re not going to submit to this kind of total irresponsibility.”
The risks to the Republicans have been clear since they started down the path to defund Obamacare as part of a bill to keep the government funded. They lack the votes in the Senate to defund the act and in any case Obama would never sign anything like it. That is why there was so much consternation in the ranks when House Republicans set their strategy.
It appeared for a time on Wednesday that they might yield to the obvious and that they were setting their sights on a battle over the debt ceiling. That came after Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) completed a 21-hour talk session on the Senate floor.
Then on Thursday morning, Boehner signaled a double-barreled approach: continuing the fight over the bill to keep the government funded and to defund Obamacare while moving forward on a debt ceiling measure that included various other proposals, such as delaying Obamacare, putting tax reform on a fast track and building the Keystone XL oil pipeline.
Moving quickly on the debt ceiling was aimed in part at creating wiggle room for the final stages of the battle over funding the government or, failing that, entering a partial shutdown. What was clear was that House leaders continue to try to calibrate how much leeway they have, given the insistence and persistence of the most conservative elements of their conference.
Republicans point to some public polling as evidence that they can prevail in a showdown with Obama over the debt ceiling. A Bloomberg News poll showed that about six in 10 Americans believe that because Congress lacks discipline, it’s better to include spending cuts on a bill to raise the borrowing limit, rather than simply pass a clean version of the measure.
Republicans interpret that finding and conclude that Obama will be viewed as the unreasonable partner if there is a default. Perhaps. Last time, both sides ended up with debris on them when the public turned on Washington’s dysfunctional climate. That might be the best Republicans can hope for — but are they willing to take the government over a cliff to test it?
Republicans clearly lack the votes to win the first battle that will play out through the weekend. Whether they have the will and the unity to take the debt ceiling issue to the brink remains unclear. Right now they are scrambling by the hour, with no clear road map to guide them.

Messaging matters – party concerns with reputation mean a deal is highly likely, although not guaranteed – our evidence is substantially more qualified
Binder, 9/25/13 - professor of political science at George Washington University and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution (Sarah, “Why the debt limit doomsayers might be wrong” Washington Post,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2013/09/25/why-the-debt-limit-doomsayers-might-be-wrong/

Brian Beutler at Salon has taken the “debt limit freakout caucus” to task.  But I think there’s more to be said about “zones of agreement” and whether they are necessary for making legislative deals.  Klein is of course correct about the wide gulf between the parties:  Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal’s standard measures of partisan polarization (which capture lawmakers’ policy views and partisan strategy) show no overlap between the political parties.  Still, I think we risk overestimating the odds of breaching the debt ceiling if we focus on zones of policy agreement. An alternative view of deal-making does not eliminate uncertainty about whether the parties will reach an agreement to raise the debt limit.  But it does suggest that the prospects for a deal might be stronger than we might otherwise expect based on policy grounds alone.
Some thoughts, culled from ongoing project with Frances Lee:
First, policy and politics are always intertwined.  This means that deal making is not merely a matter of finding the ideological sweet spot between competing coalitions.  Instead, common ground is typically a joint function of policy views and political calculation.  Such calculations are multifaceted.  Lawmakers must justify any deals to active supporters back home, knowing that their constituents are unlikely to know what is possible or not in Congress.  Lawmakers also worry about their reputations: They will not necessarily vote for a deal that they support on policy grounds if the vote could harm their public image.  And vice versa: Lawmakers might support a deal that they object to on policy grounds if their support would be helpful to their image.  Party reputations also influence the chances of a deal, particularly if individual lawmakers stand to benefit electorally from a favorable party image that might result from reaching agreement.  With policy and politics so tightly intertwined, parties can reach a deal even without an overlapping set of policy views.  A zone of agreement might be neither necessary nor sufficient for generating a legislative agreement.
Second, I think it’s important to keep in mind that the jurisdiction of Congress is essentially universal.  As former Rep. Barney Frank has said, “anything can be the basis for a deal.”  If competing coalitions have different priorities, adding each element to a deal provides different lawmakers with alternative reasons to support a deal.  Granted, the White House’s stated unwillingness to negotiate over the debt limit complicates a strategy that capitalizes on crafting a deal from parties’ divergent priorities. Even so, the March deal on raising the debt limit is suggestive: Republicans agreed to suspend the debt limit so long as the Senate passed a budget.  Coupling different priorities became the basis for a deal– even in the absence of shared policy ground.
Third, even a party’s decision about whether to negotiate is driven by politics.  Party leaders inevitably ask: Which party will suffer more politically if a deal is not done?  Anticipation of losing the public blame game can drive partisans to the table, even when they disagree about policy.  Senate GOP disagreement over whether to risk shutting down the government over funding for Obamacare is a good example.  Deals become possible even in the absence of a zone of agreement if the political costs of saying no are too steep.  Whether House GOP leaders can convince sufficient numbers of their rank and file to support a clean CR on those grounds remains to be seen, but is likely.

Their evidence is a snapshot of current politics – it doesn’t take into account the tactics of reputational pressure
Binder, 9/25/13 - professor of political science at George Washington University and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution (Sarah, “Why the debt limit doomsayers might be wrong” Washington Post,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2013/09/25/why-the-debt-limit-doomsayers-might-be-wrong/

Finally, I think it’s helpful to keep in mind that deal-making in Congress is inherently dynamic.  Spatial models in political science typically offer a snapshot of legislative decision making, in part because we assume that lawmakers’ policy preferences are fixed.  But once we focus on both policy and political bases for a deal, the process seems remarkably fluid.  How party leaders and their rank and file come to judge the political costs of failure (here, shutting down government or defaulting on the nation’s debt)  ultimately shapes the chances for a deal.  To be sure, such calculations do not inexorably lead to legislative deals, as the uncertain fate of immigration reform suggests. Still, the politics of blame might prove more important than shared policy ground in guiding the parties to a debt ceiling agreement this fall.

The GOP is highly likely to cave and enough votes exist now for a clean debt ceiling
Beutler, 9/24/13 - Salon's political writer (Brian, “Ted Cruz’s complaints are meaningless” Salon, http://www.salon.com/2013/09/24/ted_cruzs_complaints_are_meaningless/)

Several commentators have watched the defund campaign go flaccid and responded by reissuing breathless exhortations that the risk of a debt default next month is much more severe than the risk of a shutdown ever was.
Here’s Steve Benen, Ezra Klein and Jonathan Chait, just today.
But it seems to me the past week’s events set up the following equation — cave on defunding Obamacare + ??? = win the debt limit fight — and it’s up to one of these guys to solve for ???
They all proceed from the same basic premise — the GOP’s demands are so extreme, and the Democrats’ commitment not to negotiating so ironclad, that Congress simply can’t increase the debt limit without one party folding. Parties don’t like to fold, ergo the risk of default is high.
I think this logic is flawed for a few reasons. Parties fold all the time. The GOP’s demands are actually wishes couched as demands. Their insistence on concessions from President Obama isn’t actually as black and white as the doomsayers portray it.
But on top of these misapprehensions, the debt limit freakout caucus also misrepresents a straightforward argument that the fight will be resolved fairly harmlessly as a lazily reductive assumption.
Chait says, “The debt-ceiling showdowns of 2011 and last spring both resolved themselves without triggering an economic meltdown, and so most people have come to assume the same will happen again this fall.”
This is a caricature, which allows doomsayers to grapple with a few basic facts. I and many others are pretty sanguine about this debt limit fight not because everything worked out OK earlier this year and in 2011, but because 1) everyone has said the debt limit will be increased; 2) the votes are there to increase the debt limit; 3) there are multiple procedural avenues that lead to votes on a debt limit increase; 4) at least two of them lead there without Republicans extracting concessions from President Obama.
House Republicans have a whole laundry list of non-starter debt limit “demands,” the most high-profile of which is a rider that would “delay” (as opposed to “defund”) Obamacare. Assuming John Boehner can pass that bill with GOP votes, it’ll come to the Senate, which is currently giving the public an object lesson in how Democrats can strip all of these riders on their own, while Republicans pretend they fought to the bitter end to extort the president. Don’t believe me? See the McConnell quote at the top of this article and replace the word “defund-” with “delay-.”
John Boehner doesn’t want to default on the national debt. He’s said he’s not willing to allow it. And lucky for him, there are enough votes in the House to pass the clean (or nearly entirely clean) debt limit bill that comes back from the Senate.

shutdown thumper

The CR will pass and the fight will be deferred to the debt ceiling
Brown, 9/27/13 ¬ - politics reporter for Politico (Carrie, “How it ends” Politico, http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/house-republicans-government-shutdown-how-it-ends-97442.html?hp=l6)

The GOP suffers from PTSD when it comes to government shutdowns. It took the political hit for the last one, in 1995-96, and many members worry about history repeating itself.
That’s why Republicans could decide to accept a clean funding bill, keep the government open and move on — demanding to curtail, delay or defund Obamacare in exchange for raising the debt limit next month.
The House Republican leadership’s opening move last week suggests this scenario is quite possible.
They initially floated a plan to pass a government funding bill that would’ve allowed the Senate to strip out the language defunding Obamacare without ever having to send it back to the House for final approval. It was a tacit admission that the Republican leaders wanted to give House members a chance to reject the health care law without the risk of a government shutdown. But the rank and file, well aware that it was a procedural maneuver, refused to go along.
For the tea party wing of the Republican Party to back down now, Boehner would need convince members that the debt limit fight won’t leave them similarly empty-handed. And if Republicans accept a clean CR now, they would likely be forced to pass a full fiscal year 2014 spending plan in mid-November.
Republicans think the debt limit provides better leverage for extracting concessions. For starters, it polls better than shutting down the government over Obamacare.

The GOP will cave on the CR – the real fight will be on the debt ceiling
Stein, 9/25/13 – politics reporter for the Huffington Post (Sam, Huffington Post, “House Republicans Unlikely To Touch Obamacare In Next Government Funding Offer” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/25/obamacare-2013_n_3991186.html)

Now comes the waiting.
With the Senate set to dispatch an always-futile effort to pass government funding legislation that defunds the president's health care law, lawmakers in both chambers of Congress are already considering the options before them.
Lawmakers moved hastily to talks on Wednesday -- just hours after Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) ended a 21-hour-plus speech meant to encourage lawmakers to support the defunding effort -- with attention focused on two offices.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) hold most of the power in the remaining few days of a government shutdown showdown before the government runs out of money to operate at the end of September. Republican aides in both chambers feel that Boehner's hand has been strengthened by Cruz's inability to move the debate in the Senate. But they caution that Reid could still gum up any House plans by keeping Senate Democrats united.
That's why four separate senior aides from both chambers say they would be very surprised if Boehner turned around and tried to craft another short-term continuing resolution that sought major changes to the president's health care law.
On Tuesday night, reports emerged that House Republicans were considering adding a one-year delay to the law's individual mandate in their next legislative offer. But sources on the Hill quickly put a stop to the suggestions.
One top GOP aide said putting that provision into the next draft of a continuing resolution (CR) to fund the government was not "at all likely," in part because the party has already decided to make a delay to the mandate a part of their proposal for lifting the debt ceiling in mid-October.
A Senate Republican aide echoed that theory. When asked whether the party would touch Obamacare during the next CR debate, the aide responded, "I seriously doubt it."
Part of the problem is simple math. If Republicans were to turn around and try to tinker with the health care law as part of a continuing resolution deal, it would be defeated in the Senate. One top Democratic aide in that chamber called a mandate-delay "dead on arrival." Even if it got through the Senate, an Obama administration official confirmed that there was zero chance the president would support such a measure.
So how does Boehner deal with this reality as well as the vocal community of House conservatives who demand that he stand firm on defunding or derailing Obamacare? One possibility, speculated on by multiple Hill sources, is that he quickly unveils a debt limit bill to placate that faction of his caucus; or even holds a vote on such a bill next week. After that, he could pass a "clean" continuing resolution.

AT: Obama won’t negotiate

Our disad doesn’t require him to negotiate – the point is that he needs to stand firm and use his political capital to maintain unity with Democrats.  The perception of unity and focus will be enough for the GOP to cave – that’s Milbank.

Obama’s ‘no negotiation’ strategy is the correct approach, but it’s nuanced – there eventually will be negotiations, but standing firm against holding the debt ceiling hostage has to be red line
Irwin, 9/27/13 – Washington Post columnist (Neil, “Here’s what Obama was really saying about the debt ceiling” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/27/heres-what-obama-was-really-saying-about-the-debt-ceiling/)

We probably shouldn't take the president's claim that he will not negotiate on the debt ceiling at all at face value. There have regularly been negotiations in the past between Congress and the White House over concessions that will accompany a debt ceiling increase. As Glenn Kessler notes, that has even included non-budget-related items.
But the president is arguing something a little more subtle: That he will not engage in debt ceiling negotiations with a gun to his head. If Republicans were to acknowledge up front that they will move legislation to raise the debt ceiling in plenty of time to prevent a new financial crisis, but that they need a few concessions here and there to make the vote palatable, the president would almost certainly play ball.
What he is signaling he won't do is engage in a negotiation where the other side has a combination of utterly unrealistic expectations (undoing the president's greatest legislative victory, less than a year after he won reelection) and a threat to risk global financial chaos to get it (by allowing a default).
Think of it as a negotiation in a different context, over selling a house. Obama has a house for sale, and his asking price is $300,000. He is facing an opponent (the hardline wing of the House Republican party) who is offering $1,000 and threatening to blow up the house if there is no deal.
Obama isn't saying he won't negotiate. He's saying he'll only negotiate once the offering price is something plausible, say $200,000, and the threat to blow up the house is off the table.
And capital is key to that effort – it’s not about bargaining – it’s about focus – the plan’s expenditure of capital prevents Obama from maintaining a consistent message on the debt ceiling
Moore, 9/10/13 - Guardian's US finance and economics editor. (Heidi, “Syria: the great distraction” The Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/10/obama-syria-what-about-sequester)

The country will crash into the debt ceiling in mid-October, which would be an economic disaster, especially with a government shutdown looming at the same time. These are deadlines that Congress already learned two years ago not to toy with, but memories appear to be preciously short.
The Federal Reserve needs a new chief in three months, someone who will help the country confront its raging unemployment crisis that has left 12 million people without jobs. The president has promised to choose a warm body within the next three weeks, despite the fact that his top pick, Larry Summers, would likely spark an ugly confirmation battle – the "fight of the century," according to some – with a Congress already unwilling to do the President's bidding.
Congress was supposed to pass a farm bill this summer, but declined to do so even though the task is already two years late. As a result, the country has no farm bill, leaving agricultural subsidies up in the air, farmers uncertain about what their financial picture looks like, and a potential food crisis on the horizon.
The two main housing agencies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, have been in limbo for four years and are desperately in need of reform that should start this fall, but there is scant attention to the problem.
These are the problems going unattended by the Obama administration while his aides and cabinet members have been wasting the nation's time making the rounds on television and Capitol Hill stumping for a profoundly unpopular war. The fact that all this chest-beating was for naught, and an easy solution seems on the horizon, belies the single-minded intensity that the Obama White House brought to its insistence on bombing Syria.
More than one wag has suggested, with the utmost reason, that if Obama had brought this kind of passion to domestic initiatives, the country would be in better condition right now. As it is, public policy is embarrassingly in shambles at home while the administration throws all of its resources and political capital behind a widely hated plan to get involved in a civil war overseas.
The upshot for the president may be that it's easier to wage war with a foreign power than go head-to-head with the US Congress, even as America suffers from neglect.
This is the paradox that President Obama is facing this fall, as he appears to turn his back on a number of crucial and urgent domestic initiatives in order to spend all of his meager political capital on striking Syria.
Syria does present a significant humanitarian crisis, which has been true for the past two years that the Obama administration has completely ignored the atrocities of Bashar al-Assad.
Two years is also roughly the same amount of time that key domestic initiatives have also gone ignored as Obama and Congress engage in petty battles for dominance and leave the country to run itself on a starvation diet imposed by sequestration cuts. Leon Panetta tells the story of how he tried to lobby against sequestration only to be told:
Leon, you don't understand. The Congress is resigned to failure.
Similarly, those on Wall Street, the Federal Reserve, those working at government agencies, and voters themselves have become all too practiced at ignoring the determined incompetence of those in Washington.
Political capital – the ability to horse-trade and win political favors from a receptive audience – is a finite resource in Washington. Pursuing misguided policies takes up time, but it also eats up credibility in asking for the next favor. It's fair to say that congressional Republicans, particularly in the House, have no love for Obama and are likely to oppose anything he supports. That's exactly the reason the White House should stop proposing policies as if it is scattering buckshot and focus with intensity on the domestic tasks it wants to accomplish, one at a time.

link debate
US investment in Mexico controversial
McAllister, 13 – journalist for Reuters (Edward, “For Obama and Pena Nieto, a delicate 'first dance' around energy”, Reuters, 5-2-13, http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/02/us-energy-usa-mexico-idUSBRE9410GN20130502)//KG
(Reuters) - When the conversation between President Barack Obama and his newly elected Mexican counterpart Enrique Pena Nieto turns to the controversial topic of energy during their meeting this week, both are apt to step carefully.  The two countries have abruptly changed positions over the past decade: Mexico, once the growing energy power, is struggling to maintain production; the United States, once a guaranteed importer, is enjoying a lucrative energy boom.  However, the thorny issues of foreign investment in Mexico's oil production sector or swapping different types of crude oil between the two nations will likely only be brought up in private, if at all.  Although Mexico's aging refineries could operate more efficiently using some of the light crude emerging from U.S. oilfields, state oil and gas monopoly Pemex has long avoided incremental imports in order to maintain its reliance on the heavier crude produced domestically.  Meanwhile, U.S. pipeline exports of natural gas to Mexico have surged, and could double within a few years as new projects link Latin America's second-largest economy with major U.S. producing regions, despite concerns in the United States that exports could push prices higher at home.  Less divisive topics, such as climate change and how to improve cross-border energy efficiency, are expected to be discussed, Sergio Alcocer, Mexico's deputy foreign minister responsible for the United States, told Reuters.  "This is more like the first dance of the season," said Bill O'Grady, chief markets strategist at Confluence Investment Management. "You get to see each other, get to know each other. But Mexico is still trying to figure out how to reform its own state oil company."  SOME KIND OF A SWAP?  Mexican oil and gas output remains flat while national demand increases, creating a dilemma for Pena Nieto, whose opponents vigorously oppose foreign investment in the country's energy sector.  Although Mexican crude is a staple for Gulf Coast refineries, crude oil imports from Mexico have dropped a third over the past decade, sinking below 1 million barrels per day last year for the first time since 1994, according to government data.  Mexico has duly shifted its focus. A month ago Pemex touted a new two-year deal to boost crude exports to China by 30,000 bpd.  Talk of some kind of oil "swap" has also circulated, based on the idea that U.S. producers could get a better price for their light-sweet crude in Mexico while Texas and Louisiana refineries built to run on heavy-sour grades could get more of that type of oil from Mexico, albeit at lesser rates than in the past.  There is little indication yet that Pemex is angling for U.S. shale oil, or that U.S. companies are pressing to sell it.  GAS BONANZA  As lawmakers engage in an increasingly fierce debate in Washington over whether natural gas exports would drive up fuel prices at home, foreign companies are racing to export more to Mexico, where demand is growing fast.  U.S. natural gas exports to Mexico rose by 24 percent in 2012 to all-time highs, according to U.S. government data.  The capacity to export will double by the end of 2014 as Mexican power plants hook up to pipelines running from the giant Eagle Ford play in Texas and further afield.  Companies like Sempra Energy, Japan's Mitsui and Kinder Morgan are all planning to build new pipelines in Mexico, potentially reducing its dependence on imported LNG from overseas.  Alejandro Martinez, the top natural gas executive at Pemex, said exports of U.S. gas to Mexico and Mexican oil to the United States present "a natural exchange" for the two countries.  "I think we have to have a much greater integration," he said in an interview with Reuters this week.  INVESTMENT ESSENTIAL  Whether Obama and Nieto will discuss the more delicate matter of Mexico's allowing foreign investment in its struggling oil sector is unclear. Development of the country's large shale formations is still on hold as it considers its options.  Mexico has the fourth-largest shale gas resources in the world after the United States, China and Argentina, according to a U.S. government report on global shale deposits in 2011, though it remains to be seen how they will be developed.  Pena Nieto has pledged to open up Mexican oil production and exploration to more outside investment in order to ramp up growth.  "When push comes to shove, it's U.S. companies that have the technology and experience to help Mexico develop its deepwater and onshore unconventional resources," said Ed Morse, managing director of commodity research at Citi Group.  Traditionalists who view Pemex as a symbol of Mexican self-sufficiency strongly oppose the prospect. Jorge Buendia, political analyst and director of polling firm Buendia and Laredo, said Mexico was therefore likely to avoid open talk of oil and gas with the United States for now, though "back-room" discussions would no doubt take place.  Raising the subject frankly would lay the new president open to accusations that he was selling Mexico out to those looking "to steal" its oil, and imply that the industry was falling behind, Buendia added.  "The current situation doesn't lend itself at all to bringing this subject up in public."  

Intense partisanship between house and senate tube Obama’s political capital – empirics prove controversy
Leone 12 (Steve, Associate Editor of Renewable Energy World, "Part 2: Political Reality and the Way Forward for Renewable Energy," 4/3/12, http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2012/04/part-2-political-reality-and-the-way-forward-for-renewable-energy)

New Hampshire, U.S.A. -- Political heavyweights know this about their rough-and-tumble game – you project victory long before the results are in. And when you think you've won, you never give your opponent an opening. In Washington, it’s hard enough to craft legislation even in relatively amicable times. In the tense atmosphere on the Hill today, meaningful legislation takes a ringside seat, and the game becomes theater. That’s where we are now. In one corner is the House budget, essentially the Republican Party’s line in the sand that’s been drawn over the size of the federal government. A key component of this is the federal government’s more limited role in supporting a clean energy future. In the other corner is the White House and the Democrat-controlled Senate, which has vowed to stonewall any legislation that it says caters to the super-wealthy and the entrenched fossil fuels industry. Like two tired boxers in the ring, they’re content to leave it in the hands of the judges — in this case the voters, who will in many ways determine the force with which our federal government pursues a national policy built on clean energy. But the real prospects for any meaningful legislation is likely to come after the election, when the rhetoric cools and when political capital comes due. Until then, most industry observers don’t expect much chance of any real federal renewable energy legislation passing through a divided Congress. That means no Clean Energy Standard, no revival of the 1603 Treasury grant program, no extension of the Production Tax Credit until the end of the year at the earliest. There are just too few vehicles that can be used to pass any of the measures, and too little trust between key negotiators to find find common ground. One of the last best hopes — the transportation bill — included an amendment that addressed some of these concerns. Ultimately, the amendment went nowhere, and the renewable industry was left looking months down the road to when something could get resolved. The question now is will it be too late. For 1603 to be brought back to life, it would require a major shift in thinking, especially in the House. The PTC has a better shot, but international players in the wind industry are already indicating that they’ll get out of the market if the credit tied to energy produced expires. Will they wait around until the end of the year to see if it can be revived? It’s increasingly looking like the answer may be no.

Even if shielding blame used to be true, Obama is a Velcro – he’ll get blamed for unpopular policies
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

If Ronald Reagan was the classic Teflon president, Barack Obama 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 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.

Tournament: Georgetown | Round: 6 | Opponent: Riverhill SS | Judge: Andrew Arsht
1nc
1nc – k
Protest within the academy support dominant ideologies because they are co-opted as self-congratulatory proof of the liberal tolerance of the existing order. The co-optation of safe protest also legitimates the violent elimination of more threatening protest.  
Lockard and Schalit, 04 (Issue #65, (ASU Professor, Journal Editor) Joe and Joel, Protest Culture, Neo-liberalism, and Contingent Human Rights, January). 

If protest culture represents the expression of intellectual and political liberty in contemporary neo-liberal societies, it also represents the scope and limitations of such freedoms. According to such a perspective, the right to protest and engage in social criticism uncomfortably validates the political constellations that simultaneously produce war, poverty, and neo-colonial power relations. Such are the dialectical antimonies of participatory democracies with free market economies. They express their hostility towards their own democratic political structures through their contradictory embrace of freedom of speech and constitutional rights on the one hand, with laissez-faire economics and military-driven foreign policies on the other. What makes this uncomfortable balancing act work is the continuous demand for tolerance made by citizens and civil libertarians, specifically state tolerance of the necessary role that dissent always plays in democratic societies. For example, on a visit to Germany in May 2003, greeted by large groups of demonstrators, US President George W. Bush affirmatively stated "That's good. That's democracy. See, I love to visit a place that is confident in her freedom, a place where people feel free to express themselves, because that's what I believe in." Equally, American soldiers in Iraq repeatedly cite US domestic protest as a validation of their military campaign ('we're fighting here so you can protest there'), even as they occupy a foreign country and deny its citizens the most basic of political freedoms. Protest may gain tolerance, but protest is feared depending on its origin. Media scenes of civil dissent within the dominant West have become part of neo-liberalism's self-complimentary ideological paradigm, whereas protests originating from subordinated cultures and nations represent an intrinsic threat. The confidence that Bush expresses is a belief in the efficacy of internalized social controls that marginalize dissent within powerful metropolitan cultures like those which exist in the US. It is market hubris that Bush exudes, a deeply-held faith that constitutional democracies will consistently reject the destabilizing potential of protest and affirm the ideological values that underwrite social inequality. For such a worldview, protest is the right of ideological losers who pose no intrinsic threat  to a transnational, consolidated, expansive, and entrenched middle-class electoral bloc that bases its present and future prosperity on being winners in a global market. Even if protest should be successful, it also unconsciously confirms a systemic belief in the internal capacity of electoral democracy — a narrowly-conceived understanding of democracy's ultimate potential — to correct its errors and override the contradictory nature of constitutions which guarantee civil but not economic equality. In the United States, for example, the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s achieved retrospective legitimization as corrective social protest that confirmed, not challenged, the democratic nature of the nation, despite the fact that racial discrimination has shifted in nature rather than been eliminated. The social destabilizations of the 1960s and its protests have been converted into historical capital to contribute to confidence in the nation, not a questioning of that confidence. Such expressions of certitude emerge from a consumer confidence in protest as a state-protected value, not in the desirability or efficacy of social protest in practice: protest is one more available commodity and option for consumer dissatisfaction in a democracy. Dissent and protest evidence the existence of a free market of opinion, one that profits through diverse social valuations and confirms a fundamental governing stability. Communications media provide a nominally free exchange mechanism that informs the market of public opinion, and yet these very same media are the basis of an ideological hegemony that protest criticizes because these media continually reaffirm and normalize the values of American capitalism. And thus the cycle turns on itself as state authority generates protest, protest confirms the existence and legal protection of democratic values, media restate that protest is both part of the democratic value system yet marginal, and this circular hegemonic ideology in turn confirms the benign character of state authority. While protest may always express a post-capitalist utopian horizon that transcends this negative dialectic, in such a scenario, horizons do not consistently — if ever — translate into concrete political practices that transcend their negation by the market.

Confusing criticism with action is like the TV viewer who thinks that sarcastic commentary puts them above viewers who have been fooled into enjoyment by the poor plot or cheesy writing. The joke is actually on the cynic because all that the critique changes is the type of enjoyment derived from watching. Given that their end goal is the empty gesture of the ballot, the 1AC criticism turns itself by placing us even more firmly within the existing order.  
Donahue, 01 (Brian, (Department of English, Gonzaga University),  “Marxism, Postmodernism, Žižek,” Postmodern Culture,12.2, Project Muse).

Developing this idea in specifically Marxist terms, Žižek emphasizes the point that commodity fetishism is a property not of consciousness but of objective behavior and that belief in the fetish is always ascribed to a "subject presumed to believe." Thus in their actual socioeconomic behavior, in their everyday activity, people fetishize commodities, even though consciously, they are perfectly aware that the "relations between things" mask "relations between people" ("Supposed" 41). In such a context, Žižek points out, the task for theory is not to "demonstrate how the original human belief was transposed onto things"; on the contrary, "displacement is original and constitutive" ("Supposed" 41). No one consciously acknowledges that he or she believes in the magical properties of commodities; rather, this belief is attributed always to an Other, in this case, to the uncritical consumer who is duped by the messages of advertising, ignorantly seeking happiness through the consumption of commodities: There are some beliefs, the most fundamental ones, which are from the very outset "decentered," beliefs of the Other; the phenomenon of the "subject supposed to believe" is thus universal and structurally necessary.... All concrete versions of this "subject supposed to believe" (from the small kids for whose sake their parents pretend to believe in Santa Claus to the "ordinary working people" for whose sake communist intellectuals pretend to believe in socialism) are stand-ins for the big Other. So the answer to the conservative platitude according to which every honest man has a profound need to believe in something is that every honest man has a profound need to find another subject who would believe in his place. ("Supposed" 41-42) After summarizing this argument about the psychological displacement of belief that characterizes the subject's relation to commodities in capitalist society, Žižek specifies the appropriate Marxist response, which is not to perform a kind of primary-level ideology critique, since the bourgeois subject is already consciously critical: What the fetish objectivizes is "my true belief," the way things "truly seem to me," although I never effectively experience them this way.... So when a critical Marxist encounters a bourgeois subject immersed in commodity fetishism, the Marxist's reproach to him is not "Commodity may seem to you a magical object endowed with special powers, but it really is just a reified expression of relations between people"; the actual Marxist's reproach is rather "You may think that the commodity appears to you as a simple embodiment of social relations (that, for example, money is just a kind of voucher entitling you to a part of the social product), but this is not how things really seem to you--in your social reality, by means of your participation in social exchange, you bear witness to the uncanny fact that a commodity really appears to you as a magical object endowed with special powers." ("Supposed" 54) In other words, bourgeois subjects think they see through the veil of the commodity form and rest comfortably in that critical knowledge of socioeconomic relations; but in reality, they behave as if they believe differently from what they know, and their relation to commodities is the objective illustration of this disavowed belief. This line of reasoning, then, locates ideology not in consciousness but in real activity. Žižek cites the formula for contemporary cynical ideology proposed in Peter Sloterdijk's Critique of Cynical Reason: as opposed to the traditional Marxist notion, according to which people are "duped" into believing the ruling ideology and thus "do not know what they are doing" when they effectively participate in their own subjugation, contemporary popular cynicism forces us to consider the notion of an "enlightened false consciousness" whereby "they know very well what they are doing, but still, they are doing it" (Sublime 29). Like most analyses of subjectivity in contemporary theory, this version disrupts radically the notion of a fully self-present subject: the grain of material practice in time is always already altering all ideological symbolization.  To use Žižek's Lacanian language: the irreducible "hard kernel" of the Real remains unassimilated into the Symbolic order. One can, for example, have a self-conception as an ironic, critical viewer who watches TV comedies as kitsch or as the detritus of the culture industry, but according to Žižek's version of externalized ideology, as long as one sits and watches--whether laughing idiotically or making ironic, cynical comments--objectively, one is doing one's duty to "enjoy the show." This notion has significant implications for theories of both ideology and subjectivity. For example, the determining effect of objective activity regardless of subjective intention can be read as another way of stating the existentialist slogan that there is no "dress rehearsal" for life: at each moment actions are final and decisive, even if one believes oneself to be, for example, merely "performing a role" temporarily before returning to some other "real life." That real life is being determined at each instant by numerous material factors in the face of which a concept like "personal choice" loses the certainty of its suggestion of direct action in pursuit of clearly understood interests.

Academics engaged in critique can be entirely sincere as they speak from a position of privilege within academy. But, when we passionately cry out on behalf of the subaltern, we bring them into not only our discussion, but into the world order we claim to protest against. We still know what is best for the Other.  Critiques are a continuation of colonialist violence.
Nayar, 99 (School of Law, University of Warwick) 99 (Jayan, Transnational Law and Contemporary Problems, Fall, 9 Transnat'l L. and Contemp. Probs. 599). 

As we contemplate transformations, therefore, it is essential that we do not detach ourselves from the "worlds" which are the objects of our critique and imaginations. To some, those who might have the occasion to read this current article, the changes brought about by the advent of the so-called post-colonial, post-communist, post-ideological, post-modern period may indeed have been beneficial. Some of us--the expert intellectual community, the development planners, the security strategists, the bureaucratic elites, even the "students" who might have been encouraged to refer to the insights contained in this Symposium--are, to some extent or the other, the beneficiaries of this order(ing). From this location, then, it becomes not too difficult to rationalize the limited successes, if not defend the fundamentals, of "our world" within a transnational, global reality. n49 It becomes not too difficult to intellectualize pleasure and pain and to project toward ever-more "new beginnings" in which the virtues of "our world" may be extolled. For this is the "truth" of the "world" as experienced within these locations of privilege. Others among us, without the comforts of such complacencies and with the best of intentions, may seek to extend and apply the benefits of the world that we know, that is "our" truth, to those who we identify as being "excluded." The politics of inclusion then dominates our attention--inclusion of the poor in "development," inclusion of the terrorized in the framework of "security," inclusion of all those thus far marginalized into the "world." The keyword for this new politics of inclusion, we often hear, is "participation." So we might struggle to bring the excluded within the fora of national, international and transnational organizations, articulate their interests and demand service to their cause. And yet, so much inclusion has done little to change the culture of violence. However sympathetic, even empathetic, we may be to the cause of the "subaltern," however sophisticated and often self-complicating our exposition of violence, one thing is difficult for us to face: when all is said and done, most of us engaged in these transformatory endeavors are far removed from the existential realities of "subaltern"  suffering. For "them," what is the difference, I wonder, between the violence of new orders and that of the old, what is the difference between the new articulations of violence and those of the old, when violence itself is a continuing reality? But we push on, keeping ourselves busy. What else can we do but suggest new beginnings? I am not suggesting that all "new beginnings" of world-order, past and present, were envisioned with cynical intent. Quite the opposite is the reason for the point I wish to make. The persistent realities of violence within "ordered" worlds are all the more glaring when we acknowledge that they arise in the name of human aspirations that were mostly articulated by progressive forces, in the wake of real struggles, to contribute to the transformation of the inequities and violence of the then existing "orders." Yet more and more talk of universal human welfare, transformed world-orders, new beginnings and the like have only given us more and more occasion to lament the resulting dashed hopes. My questioning is not of intent, or of commitment, or of the sincerity of those who advocate world-order transformations. Rather, my questionings relate to a perspective on "implications." Here, there is a very different, and more subtle, sort of globalized world-order that we need to consider--the globalization of violence, wherein human relationships become disconnected from the personal and are instead conjoined into distant and distanced chains of violence, an alienation of human and human. And by the nature of this new world-ordering, as the web of implication in relational violence is increasingly extended, so too, the vision of violence itself becomes blurred and the voice, muted. Through this implication into violence, therefore, the order(ing) of emancipatory imagination is reinforced. What we cannot see, after all, we cannot speak; what we refuse to see, we dare not speak.

Hence we present our alternative: reject the affirmative on the grounds that it plays into the power of the structures they claim to critique.  We will not claim to solve better, just to avoid making it worse.

1nc – topicality
TOPICALITY – Our interpretation is that the affirmative should have an advocacy statement tied to the benefits of engagement toward Cuba, Mexico, or Venezuela.

Economic Engagement is only tangible trade and financial benefits – not the aff.
Haass 2k – Richard Haass and Meghan O’Sullivan, Senior Fellows in the Brookings Institution Foreign Policy Studies Program, Honey and Vinegar: Incentives, Sanctions, and Foreign Policy, p. 5-6
*plenty of neg flex
*most real world – policymaker’s choices

Architects of engagement strategies have a wide variety of incentives from which to choose. Economic engagement might offer tangible incentives such as export credits, investment insurance or promotion, access to technology, loans, and economic aid.’2 Other equally useful economic incentives involve the removal of penalties,

 whether they be trade embargoes, investment bans, or high tariffs that have impeded economic relations between the United States and the target country. In addition, facilitated entry into the global economic arena and the institutions that govern it rank among the most potent incentives in today’s global market.’
Similarly, political engagement can involve the lure of diplomatic recognition, access to regional or international institutions, or the scheduling of summits between leaders—or the termination of these benefits. Military engagement could involve the extension of International Military Educational Training (IMET) both to strengthen respect for civilian authority and human rights among a country’s armed forces and, more feasibly, to establish relationships between Americans and young foreign mffitary officers.’4 These areas of engagement are likely to involve, working with state institutions, while cultural or civil society engagement is likely to entail building people-to-people contacts. Funding nongovernmental organizations, facilitating the flow of remittances, establishing postal and telephone links between the United States and the target country, and promoting the exchange of students, tourists, and other nongovernmental people between the countries are some of the incentives that might be offered under a policy of cultural engagement.
This brief overview of the various forms of engagement illuminates the choices open to policymakers. The plethora of options signals the flexibility of engagement as a foreign policy strategy and, in doing so, reveals one of the real strengths of engagement. At the same time, it also suggests the urgent need for considered analysis of this strategy. The purpose of this book is to address this need by deriving insights and lessons from past episodes of engagement and proposing guidelines for the future use of engagement strategies. Throughout the book, two critical questions are entertained. First, when should policymakers consider engagement? A strategy of engagement may serve certain foreign policy objectives better than others. Specific characteristics of a target country may make it more receptive to a strategy of engagement and the incentives offered under it; in other cases, a country's domestic politics may effectively exclude the use of engagement strategies. Second, how should engagement strategies be managed to maximize the chances of success? Shedding light on how policymakers achieved, or failed, in these efforts in the past is critical in an evaluation of engagement strategies. By focusing our analysis, these questions and concerns help produce a framework to guide the use of engagement strategies in the upcoming decades.

That’s a voting issue –
First, limits and ground – non-economic areas are huge, overstretch research burdens and require completely different strategies – trade and finance allow sufficient flexibility but lock-in a core mechanism for preparation. That’s key to decision-making and advocacy skills.
Steinberg and Freeley 08 Austin J. Freeley is a Boston based attorney who focuses on criminal, personal injury and civil rights law, David L. Steinberg; Lecturer of Communication Studies @ U Miami, “Argumentation and Debate: Critical Thinking for Reasoned Decision Making” pp45-48

Debate is a means of settling differences, so there must be a difference of opinion or a conflict of interest before there can be a debate. If everyone is in agreement on a tact or value or policy, there is no need for debate: the matter can be settled by unanimous consent. Thus, for example, it would be pointless to attempt to debate "Resolved: That two plus two equals four," because there is simply no controversy about this statement. (Controversy is an essential prerequisite of debate. Where there is no clash of ideas, proposals, interests, or expressed positions on issues, there is no debate. In addition, debate cannot produce effective decisions without clear identification of a question or questions to be answered. For example, general argument may occur about the broad topic of illegal immigration. How many illegal immigrants are in the United States? What is the impact of illegal immigration and immigrants on our economy? What is their impact on our communities? Do they commit crimes? Do they take jobs from American workers? Do they pay taxes? Do they require social services? Is it a problem that some do not speak English? Is it the responsibility of employers to discourage illegal immigration by not hiring undocumented workers? Should they have the opportunity- to gain citizenship? Docs illegal immigration pose a security threat to our country? Do illegal immigrants do work that American workers are unwilling to do? Are their rights as workers and as human beings at risk due to their status? Are they abused by employers, law enforcement, housing, and businesses? I low are their families impacted by their status? What is the moral and philosophical obligation of a nation state to maintain its borders? Should we build a wall on the Mexican border, establish a national identification can!, or enforce existing laws against employers? Should we invite immigrants to become U.S. citizens? Surely you can think of many more concerns to be addressed by a conversation about the topic area of illegal immigration. Participation in this "debate" is likely to be emotional and intense. However, it is not likely to be productive or useful without focus on a particular question and identification of a line demarcating sides in the controversy. To be discussed and resolved effectively, controversies must be stated clearly. Vague understanding results in unfocused deliberation and poor decisions, frustration, and emotional distress, as evidenced by the failure of the United States Congress to make progress on the immigration debate during the summer of 2007.
Someone disturbed by the problem of the growing underclass of poorly educated, socially disenfranchised youths might observe, "Public schools are doing a terrible job! They are overcrowded, and many teachers are poorly qualified in their subject areas. Even the best teachers can do little more than struggle to maintain order in their classrooms." That same concerned citizen, facing a complex range of issues, might arrive at an unhelpful decision, such as "We ought to do something about this" or. worse. "It's too complicated a problem to deal with." Groups of concerned citizens worried about the state of public education could join together to express their frustrations, anger, disillusionment, and emotions regarding the schools, but without a focus for their discussions, they could easily agree about the sorry state of education without finding points of clarity or potential solutions. A gripe session would follow. But if a precise question is posed—such as "What can be done to improve public education?"—then a more profitable area of discussion is opened up simply by placing a focus on the search for a concrete solution step. One or more judgments can be phrased in the form of debate propositions, motions for parliamentary debate, or bills for legislative assemblies. The statements "Resolved: That the federal government should implement a program of charter schools in at-risk communities" and "Resolved: That the state of Florida should adopt a school voucher program" more clearly identify specific ways of dealing with educational problems in a manageable form, suitable for debate. They provide specific policies to be investigated and aid discussants in identifying points of difference.
To have a productive debate, which facilitates effective decision making by directing and placing limits on the decision to be made, the basis for argument should be clearly defined. If we merely talk about "homelessness" or "abortion" or "crime'* or "global warming" we are likely to have an interesting discussion but not to establish profitable basis for argument. For example, the statement "Resolved: That the pen is mightier than the sword" is debatable, yet fails to provide much basis for clear argumentation. If we take this statement to mean that the written word is more effective than physical force for some purposes, we can identify a problem area: the comparative effectiveness of writing or physical force for a specific purpose.
Although we now have a general subject, we have not yet stated a problem. It is still too broad, too loosely worded to promote well-organized argument. What sort of writing are we concerned with—poems, novels, government documents, website development, advertising, or what? What does "effectiveness" mean in this context? What kind of physical force is being compared—fists, dueling swords, bazookas, nuclear weapons, or what? A more specific question might be. "Would a mutual defense treaty or a visit by our fleet be more effective in assuring Liurania of our support in a certain crisis?" The basis for argument could be phrased in a debate proposition such as "Resolved: That the United States should enter into a mutual defense treatv with Laurania." Negative advocates might oppose this proposition by arguing that fleet maneuvers would be a better solution. This is not to say that debates should completely avoid creative interpretation of the controversy by advocates, or that good debates cannot occur over competing interpretations of the controversy; in fact, these sorts of debates may be very engaging. The point is that debate is best facilitated by the guidance provided by focus on a particular point of difference, which will be outlined in the following discussion.

Second, discussion of specific policy-questions is crucial for skills development – we’re not saying you have to defend the federal government, just that the discussion of specific policy proposals creates engagement with and resolution of competing perspectives to improve social outcomes and break down traditional pedagogical frameworks by positing students as agents of decision-making.
Esberg and Sagan 12 Jane Esberg is special assistant to the director at New York University's Center on. International Cooperation. She was the winner of 2009 Firestone Medal. Scott Sagan is a professor of political science and director of Stanford's Center for International Security and Cooperation, “NEGOTIATING NONPROLIFERATION: Scholarship, Pedagogy, and Nuclear Weapons Policy,” 2/17 The Nonproliferation Review, 19:1, 95-108

These government or quasi-government think tank simulations often provide very similar lessons for high-level players as are learned by students in educational simulations. Government participants learn about the importance of understanding foreign perspectives, the need to practice internal coordination, and the necessity to compromise and coordinate with other governments in negotiations and crises. During the Cold War, political scientist Robert Mandel noted how crisis exercises and war games forced government officials to overcome ‘‘bureaucratic myopia,’’ moving beyond their normal organizational roles and thinking more creatively about how others might react in a crisis or conflict.6 The skills of imagination and the subsequent ability to predict foreign interests and reactions remain critical for real-world foreign policy makers. For example, simulations of the Iranian nuclear crisis*held in 2009 and 2010 at the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center and at Harvard University’s Belfer Center, and involving former US senior officials and regional experts*highlighted the dangers of misunderstanding foreign governments’ preferences and misinterpreting their subsequent behavior. In both simulations, the primary criticism of the US negotiating team lay in a failure to predict accurately how other states, both allies and adversaries, would behave in response to US policy initiatives.7
By university age, students often have a pre-defined view of international affairs, and the literature on simulations in education has long emphasized how such exercises force students to challenge their assumptions about how other governments behave and how their own government works.8 Since simulations became more common as a teaching tool in the late 1950s, educational literature has expounded on their benefits, from encouraging engagement by breaking from the typical lecture format, to improving communication skills, to promoting teamwork.9 More broadly, simulations can deepen understanding by asking students to link fact and theory, providing a context for facts while bringing theory into the realm of practice.10 These exercises are particularly valuable in teaching international affairs for many of the same reasons they are useful for policy makers: they force participants to ‘‘grapple with the issues arising from a world in flux.’’11 Simulations have been used successfully to teach students about such disparate topics as European politics, the Kashmir crisis, and US response to the mass killings in Darfur.12 Role-playing exercises certainly encourage students to learn political and technical facts* but they learn them in a more active style. Rather than sitting in a classroom and merely receiving knowledge, students actively research ‘‘their’’ government’s positions and actively argue, brief, and negotiate with others.13 Facts can change quickly; simulations teach students how to contextualize and act on information.14

Third, Switch-side is key – forces critical thinking and better advocacy of one’s positions.
Keller et al 01 – Asst. professor School of Social Service Administration U. of Chicago (Thomas E., James K., and Tracly K., Asst. professor School of Social Service Administration U. of Chicago, professor of Social Work, and doctoral student School of Social Work, “Student debates in policy courses: promoting policy practice skills and knowledge through active learning,” Journal of Social Work Education, Spring/Summer 2001, EBSCO)

SOCIAL WORKERS HAVE a professional responsibility to shape social policy and legislation (National Association of Social Workers, 1996). In recent decades, the concept of policy practice has encouraged social workers to consider the ways in which their work can be advanced through active participation in the policy arena (Jansson, 1984, 1994; Wyers, 1991). The emergence of the policy practice framework has focused greater attention on the competencies required for social workers to influence social policy and placed greater emphasis on preparing social work students for policy intervention (Dear and Patti, 1981; Jansson, 1984, 1994; Mahaffey and Hanks, 1982; McInnis-Dittrich, 1994). The curriculum standards of the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) require the teaching of knowledge and skills in the political process (CSWE, 1994). With this formal expectation of policy education in schools of social work, the best instructional methods must be employed to ensure students acquire the requisite policy practice skills and perspectives. The authors believe that structured student debates have great potential for promoting competence in policy practice and in-depth knowledge of substantive topics relevant to social policy. Like other interactive assignments designed to more closely resemble "real-world" activities, issue-oriented debates actively engage students in course content. Debates also allow students to develop and exercise skills that may translate to political activities, such as testifying before legislative committees. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, debates may help to stimulate critical thinking by shaking students free from established opinions and helping them to appreciate the complexities involved in policy dilemmas. Relationships between Policy Practice Skills, Critical Thinking, and Learning Policy practice encompasses social workers' "efforts to influence the development, enactment, implementation, or assessment of social policies" (Jansson, 1994, p. 8). Effective policy practice involves analytic activities, such as defining issues, gathering data, conducting research, identifying and prioritizing policy options, and creating policy proposals (Jansson, 1994). It also involves persuasive activities intended to influence opinions and outcomes, such as discussing and debating issues, organizing coalitions and task forces, and providing testimony. According to Jansson (1984,pp. 57-58), social workers rely upon five fundamental skills when pursuing policy practice activities: value-clarification skills for identifying and assessing the underlying values inherent in policy positions; conceptual skills for identifying and evaluating the relative merits of different policy options; interactional skills for interpreting the values and positions of others and conveying one's own point of view in a convincing manner; political skills for developing coalitions and developing effective strategies; and position-taking skills for recommending, advocating, and defending a particular policy. These policy practice skills reflect the hallmarks of critical thinking (see Brookfield, 1987; Gambrill, 1997). The central activities of critical thinking are identifying and challenging underlying assumptions, exploring alternative ways of thinking and acting, and arriving at commitments after a period of questioning, analysis, and reflection (Brookfield, 1987). Significant parallels exist with the policy-making process--identifying the values underlying policy choices, recognizing and evaluating multiple alternatives, and taking a position and advocating for its adoption. Developing policy practice skills seems to share much in common with developing capacities for critical thinking. R.W. Paul (as cited in Gambrill, 1997) states that critical thinkers acknowledge the imperative to argue from opposing points of view and to seek to identify weakness and limitations in one's own position. Critical thinkers are aware that there are many legitimate points of view, each of which (when thought through) may yield some level of insight. (p. 126) John Dewey, the philosopher and educational reformer, suggested that the initial advance in the development of reflective thought occurs in the transition from holding fixed, static ideas to an attitude of doubt and questioning engendered by exposure to alternative views in social discourse (Baker, 1955, pp. 36-40). Doubt, confusion, and conflict resulting from discussion of diverse perspectives "force comparison, selection, and reformulation of ideas and meanings" (Baker, 1955, p. 45). Subsequent educational theorists have contended that learning requires openness to divergent ideas in combination with the ability to synthesize disparate views into a purposeful resolution (Kolb, 1984; Perry, 1970). On the one hand, clinging to the certainty of one's beliefs risks dogmatism, rigidity, and the inability to learn from new experiences. On the other hand, if one's opinion is altered by every new experience, the result is insecurity, paralysis, and the inability to take effective action. The educator's role is to help students develop the capacity to incorporate new and sometimes conflicting ideas and experiences into a coherent cognitive framework. Kolb suggests that, "if the education process begins by bringing out the learner's beliefs and theories, examining and testing them, and then integrating the new, more refined ideas in the person's belief systems, the learning process will be facilitated" (p. 28). The authors believe that involving students in substantive debates challenges them to learn and grow in the fashion described by Dewey and Kolb. Participation in a debate stimulates clarification and critical evaluation of the evidence, logic, and values underlying one's own policy position. In addition, to debate effectively students must understand and accurately evaluate the opposing perspective. The ensuing tension between two distinct but legitimate views is designed to yield a reevaluation and reconstruction of knowledge and beliefs pertaining to the issue. 

Fourth, Decisionmaking outweighs.
Steinberg and Freeley 08 Austin J. Freeley is a Boston based attorney who focuses on criminal, personal injury and civil rights law. David L. Steinberg is a Lecturer of Communication Studies @ U Miami, Argumentation and Debate: Critical Thinking for Reasoned Decision Making pp9-10

If we assume it to be possible without recourse to violence to reach agreement on all the problems implied in the employment of the idea of justice we are granting the possibility of formulating an ideal of man and society, valid for all beings endowed with reason and accepted by what we have called elsewhere the universal audience.14
I think that the only discursive methods available to us stem from techniques that are not demonstrative—that is, conclusive and rational in the narrow sense of the term—but from argumentative techniques which are not conclusive but which may tend to demonstrate the reasonable character of the conceptions put forward. It is this recourse to the rational and reasonable for the realization of the ideal of universal communion that characterizes the age-long endeavor of all philosophies in their aspiration for a city of man in which violence may progressively give way to wisdom.13
Whenever an individual controls the dimensions of" a problem, he or she can solve the problem through a personal decision. For example, if the problem is whether to go to the basketball game tonight, if tickets are not too expensive and if transportation is available, the decision can be made individually. But if a friend's car is needed to get to the game, then that person's decision to furnish the transportation must be obtained.
Complex problems, too, are subject to individual decision making. American business offers many examples of small companies that grew into major corporations while still under the individual control of the founder. Some computer companies that began in the 1970s as one-person operations burgeoned into multimillion-dollar corporations with the original inventor still making all the major decisions. And some of the multibillion-dollar leveraged buyouts of the 1980s were put together by daring—some would say greedy—financiers who made the day-to-day and even hour-to-hour decisions individually.
When President George H. W. Bush launched Operation Desert Storm, when President Bill Clinton sent troops into Somalia and Haiti and authorized Operation Desert Fox, and when President George W. Bush authorized Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom in Iraq, they each used different methods of decision making, but in each case the ultimate decision was an individual one. In fact, many government decisions can be made only by the president. As Walter Lippmann pointed out, debate is the only satisfactory way the exact issues can be decided:
A president, whoever he is, has to find a way of understanding the novel and changing issues which he must, under the Constitution, decide. Broadly speaking ... the president has two ways of making up his mind. The one is to turn to his subordinates—to his chiefs of staff and his cabinet officers and undersecretaries and the like—and to direct them to argue out the issues and to bring him an agreed decision…
The other way is to sit like a judge at a hearing where the issues to be decided are debated. After he has heard the debate, after he has examined the evidence, after he has heard the debaters cross-examine one another, after he has questioned them himself he makes his decision…
It is a much harder method in that it subjects the president to the stress of feeling the full impact of conflicting views, and then to the strain of making his decision, fully aware of how momentous it Is. But there is no other satisfactory way by which momentous and complex issues can be decided.16
John F. Kennedy used Cabinet sessions and National Security Council meetings to provide debate to illuminate diverse points of view, expose errors, and challenge assumptions before he reached decisions.17 As he gained experience in office, he placed greater emphasis on debate. One historian points out: "One reason for the difference between the  Bay of Pigs and the missile crisis was that the Bay of Pig* fiasco instructed Kennedy in the importance of uninhibited debate in advance of major decision."18 All presidents, to varying degrees, encourage debate among their advisors.
We may never be called on to render the final decision on great issues of national policy, but we are constantly concerned with decisions important to ourselves for which debate can be applied in similar ways. That is, this debate may take place in our minds as we weigh the pros and cons of the problem, or we may arrange for others to debate the problem for us. Because we all are increasingly involved in the decisions of the campus, community, and society in general, it is in our intelligent self-interest to reach these decisions through reasoned debate.

That turns the case.
Steinberg and Freeley 08 Austin J. Freeley is a Boston based attorney who focuses on criminal, personal injury and civil rights law. David L. Steinberg is a Lecturer of Communication Studies @ U Miami, Argumentation and Debate: Critical Thinking for Reasoned Decision Making pp9-10

After several days of intense debate, first the United States House of Representatives and then the U.S. Senate voted to authorize President George W. Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refused to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by United Nations's resolutions. Debate about a possible military* action against Iraq continued in various governmental bodies and in the public for six months, until President Bush ordered an attack on Baghdad, beginning Operation Iraqi Freedom, the military campaign against the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein. He did so despite the unwillingness of the U.N. Security Council to support the military action, and in the face of significant international opposition.
Meanwhile, and perhaps equally difficult for the parties involved, a young couple deliberated over whether they should purchase a large home to accommodate their growing family or should sacrifice living space to reside in an area with better public schools; elsewhere a college sophomore reconsidered his major and a senior her choice of law school, graduate school, or a job. Each of these* situations called for decisions to be made. Each decision maker worked hard to make well-reasoned decisions.
Decision making is a thoughtful process of choosing among a variety of options for acting or thinking. It requires that the decider make a choice. Life demands decision making. We make countless individual decisions every day. To make some of those decisions, we work hard to employ care and consideration; others seem to just happen. Couples, families, groups of friends, and coworkers come together to make choices, and decision-making homes from committees to juries to the U.S. Congress and the United Nations make decisions that impact us all. Every profession requires effective and ethical decision making, as do our school, community, and social organizations.
We all make many decisions even- day. To refinance or sell one's home, to buy a high-performance SUV or an economical hybrid car. what major to select, what to have for dinner, what candidate CO vote for. paper or plastic, all present lis with choices. Should the president deal with an international crisis through military invasion or diplomacy? How should the U.S. Congress act to address illegal immigration?
Is the defendant guilty as accused? Tlie Daily Show or the ball game? And upon what information should I rely to make my decision? Certainly some of these decisions are more consequential than others. Which amendment to vote for, what television program to watch, what course to take, which phone plan to purchase, and which diet to pursue all present unique challenges. At our best, we seek out research and data to inform our decisions. Yet even the choice of which information to attend to requires decision making. In 2006, TIMI: magazine named YOU its "Person of the Year." Congratulations! Its selection was based on the participation not of ''great men" in the creation of history, but rather on the contributions of a community of anonymous participants in the evolution of information. Through blogs. online networking. You Tube. Facebook, MySpace, Wikipedia, and many other "wikis," knowledge and "truth" are created from the bottom up, bypassing the authoritarian control of newspeople. academics, and publishers. We have access to infinite quantities of information, but how do we sort through it and select the best information for our needs?
The ability of every decision maker to make good, reasoned, and ethical decisions relies heavily upon their ability to think critically. Critical thinking enables one to break argumentation down to its component parts in order to evaluate its relative validity and strength. Critical thinkers are better users of information, as well as better advocates.
Colleges and universities expect their students to develop their critical thinking skills and may require students to take designated courses to that end. The importance and value of such study is widely recognized.
Much of the most significant communication of our lives is conducted in the form of debates. These may take place in intrapersonal communications, in which we weigh the pros and cons of an important decision in our own minds, or they may take place in interpersonal communications, in which we listen to arguments intended to influence our decision or participate in exchanges to influence the decisions of others.
Our success or failure in life is largely determined by our ability to make wise decisions for ourselves and to influence the decisions of others in ways that are beneficial to us. Much of our significant, purposeful activity is concerned with making decisions. Whether to join a campus organization, go to graduate school, accept a job oiler, buy a car or house, move to another city, invest in a certain stock, or vote for Garcia—these are just a few of the thousands of decisions we may have to make. Often, intelligent self-interest or a sense of responsibility will require us to win the support of others. We may want a scholarship or a particular job for ourselves, a customer for out product, or a vote for our favored political candidate.

case
They universalize coloniality. That method’s worse; misinforms transitions and disproves the K in Cuba context.
Powell ‘8
Kathy Powell. Lecturer. PhD Social Anthroplogy – National University of Ireland, Galway. Critique of Anthropology – Vol 28(2) p. 177–197 – Sage Database

Yet, within these broad patterns, it is clear from the behaviour of different¶ states and the diversity of political responses that neoliberalism has¶ spread unevenly, been adopted selectively and hybridized with existing political¶ processes and political cultures; that neoliberalism in practice is characterized¶ by an ‘unstable and volatile historical geography’ (Harvey, 2005: 70).¶ Emphasizing the need to study such ‘actually existing neoliberalisms’, Peck¶ and Tickell insist that ‘while processes of neoliberalization are clearly at work in . . . diverse situations, we should not expect this to lead to a simple¶ convergence of outcomes, a neoliberalized end of history and geography’¶ (Peck and Tickell, 2002: 384, quoted in Gledhill, 2004). Such a focus not¶ only fractures the notion of neoliberalism as a monolithic force; its emphasis¶ on process also complicates the notion of political ‘transitions’ by raising¶ questions about the normativities underlying perceptions of previous¶ periods as well as future ones (Gledhill, 2002; Roseberry, 1985; Verdery,¶ 2002) – and Cuba is particularly burdened by the reification of ‘transition’.¶ An emphasis on historically and contextually specific studies shares¶ conceptual and methodological ground both with historical anthropology’s¶ critique of monolithic views of colonialism, the spread of capitalism and¶ state formation ( Joseph and Nugent, 1994; Roseberry, 1985), and with calls¶ for an ‘ethnography of the state’: these similarly critique binary state/society¶ models (Gupta, 1995; Nugent, 1994), focusing on the ‘degree to which the¶ state has become implicated in the minute texture of everyday life’ (Gupta,¶ 1995: 375) and the specific nature of these intimate relations, where people¶ deal with the corrupt bureaucrat, petition the official representative, avoid¶ the police, and engage in discursive constructions of the state which both¶ inform and make sense of their accommodations and resistances – and¶ which reveal the state as an ‘ensemble of social relations’ ( Jessop, 2002: 40).¶ Cuba both shares in and departs from these broad regional tendencies,¶ and presents a particularly complex historical conjuncture. Centeno notes¶ that ‘Cuba remained exceptional during the 1990s as it not only resisted¶ neoliberalism, but also the accompanying democratizing wave’ (2004:¶ 404). Resistance came at an immense social cost: the 1990s in Cuba¶ mirrored the decimation much of the rest of Latin America endured¶ during the 1980s under structural adjustment, and revealed the exclusionary¶ and punitive logic of neoliberal hegemony.3 As mentioned above,¶ resistance entailed accommodation in the marketization of certain sectors,¶ resulting in an economic and social bifurcation and hierarchization,¶ reproducing regional patterns of inequality, informality and migration:¶ these processes (discussed in more detail below) coexist in some tension¶ with the government’s strong political imperatives to firmer resistance in¶ the face of heightened hostility.¶ The Cuban state’s formal ‘ensemble of social relations’ and the¶ ways in which it is ‘implicated in the minute texture of everyday life’, are¶ exemplified by official mass organizations4 with active and highly politicized¶ memberships at neighbourhood level and upwards. These organizations¶ can be seen as attempts to ‘monopolize social allocation’, which¶ Verdery (2002: 382) argues have been characteristic of socialist systems: at¶ the same time, while such ‘monopolization’ cannot be exhaustive, it does tend to view with suspicion unofficial social groupings and dynamics,¶ particularly when these ‘escape’ into informality,5 positing more ambiguous¶ sets of relations. By no means everyone is captured by the mass organizations,¶ and the socially divisive effects of growing inequality work against¶ their efforts to sustain a vigorous attachment to Cuban socialism. For some¶ disaffected sectors of the population, the Cuban state’s resistance to neoliberalism¶ itself represents the continued hegemony of the socialist regime,¶ which is in turn unevenly resisted in a variety of everyday ways, such as¶ evasion, political apathy, valorization of self-interest and, especially, dreams¶ of escape to an imagined capitalist prosperity; and here alienated¶ discourses of a ‘totalizing’ state re-emerge which construct a future resolved¶ by the demise of socialism.

Imperialism can’t be blamed solely on the imperialist
Said 94 (Edward W., was a professor of English and Comparative Literature at Columbia University, a literary theorist, and a public intellectual, “Culture and Imperialism” May 31, 1994, pg. 19)
Domination and inequities of power and wealth are perennial facts of human society. But in today's global setting they are also interpretable as having something to do with imperialism, its history, its new forms. The nations of contemporary Asia, Latin America, and Africa are politically independent but in many ways are as dominated and dependent as they were 'when ruled directly by European powers. On the one hand, this is the consequence of self-inflicted wounds, critics like V. S. Naipaul are wont to say: they (everyone knows that "they" means coloreds, wogs, niggers) are to blame for what "they" are, and it's no use droning on about the legacy of imperialism. On the other hand, blaming the Europeans sweepingly for the misfortunes of the present is not much of an alternative. What we need to do is to look at these Matters as a network of interdependent histories that it would be inaccurate and senseless to repress, useful and interesting to understand.¶ The point here is not complicated. If while sitting in Oxford, Paris, or New York you tell Arabs or Africans that they belong to a basically sick or unregenerate culture, you are unlikely to convince them. Even if you prevail over them, they are not going to concede to you your essential superiority or your right to rule them despite your evident wealth and power. The history of this standoff is manifest throughout colonies where white masters were once unchallenged but finally driven out. Conversely, the triumphant natives soon enough found that they needed the West and that the idea of fatal independence was a nationalist fiction designed mainly for what Fanon calls the "nationalist bourgeoisie," who in turn often ran the new countries with a callous, exploitative tyranny reminiscent of the departed masters. 

A focus on reforming policies is necessary to fix societal problems – other criticisms are irrelevant to the day-to-day affairs that we confront  
McClean, 01 – Adjunct Professor of Philosophy, Molloy College, New York
(David E., “The Cultural Left and the Limits of Social Hope,” Presented at the 2001 Annual Conference of the Society for the Advancement of American Philosophy, www.american-philosophy.org/archives/past_conference_programs/pc2001/Discussion20papers/david_mcclean.htm, JMP)

There is a lot of philosophical prose on the general subject of social justice. Some of this is quite good, and some of it is quite bad. What distinguishes the good from the bad is not merely the level of erudition. Displays of high erudition are gratuitously reflected in much of the writing by those, for example, still clinging to Marxian ontology and is often just a useful smokescreen which shrouds a near total disconnect from empirical reality. This kind of political writing likes to make a lot of references to other obscure, jargon-laden essays and tedious books written by other true believers - the crowd that takes the fusion of Marxian and Freudian private fantasies seriously. Nor is it the lack of scholarship that makes this prose bad. Much of it is well "supported" by footnotes referencing a lode of other works, some of which are actually quite good. Rather, what makes this prose bad is its utter lack of relevance to extant and critical policy debates, the passage of actual laws, and the amendment of existing regulations that might actually do some good for someone else. The writers of this bad prose are too interested in our arrival at some social place wherein we will finally emerge from our "inauthentic" state into something called "reality." Most of this stuff, of course, comes from those steeped in the Continental tradition (particularly post-Kant). While that tradition has much to offer and has helped shape my own philosophical sensibilities, it is anything but useful when it comes to truly relevant philosophical analysis, and no self-respecting Pragmatist can really take seriously the strong poetry of formations like "authenticity looming on the ever remote horizons of fetishization." What Pragmatists see instead is the hope that we can fix some of the social ills that face us if we treat policy and reform as more important than Spirit and Utopia.
Like light rain released from pretty clouds too high in the atmosphere, the substance of this prose dissipates before it can reach the ground and be a useful component in a discussion of medicare reform or how to better regulate a pharmaceutical industry that bankrupts senior citizens and condemns to death HIV patients unfortunate enough to have been born in Burkina Faso - and a regulatory regime that permits this. It is often too drenched in abstractions and references to a narrow and not so merry band of other intellectuals (Nietzsche, Bataille, Foucault, Lukács, Benjamin) to be of much use to those who are the supposed subject matter of this preternatural social justice literature. Since I have no particular allegiance to these other intellectuals, no particular impulse to carry their water or defend their reputations, I try and forget as much as I can about their writings in order to make space for some new approaches and fresh thinking about that important question that always faces us - "What is to be done?" I am, I think, lucky to have taken this decision before it had become too late.
One might argue with me that these other intellectuals are not looking to be taken seriously in the construction of solutions to specific socio-political problems. They are, after all, philosophers engaged in something called philosophizing. They are, after all, just trying to be good culture critics. Of course, that isn't quite true, for they often write with specific reference to social issues and social justice in mind, even when they are fluttering about in the ether of high theory (Lukács, for example, was a government officer, albeit a minister of culture, which to me says a lot), and social justice is not a Platonic form but parses into the specific quotidian acts of institutions and individuals. Social justice is but the genus heading which may be described better with reference to its species iterations- the various conditions of cruelty and sadism which we wittingly or unwittingly permit. If we wanted to, we could reconcile the grand general theories of these thinkers to specific bureaucracies or social problems and so try to increase their relevance. We could construct an account which acts as a bridge to relevant policy considerations. But such attempts, usually performed in the reams of secondary literature generated by their devotees, usually make things even more bizarre. In any event, I don't think we owe them that amount of effort. After all, if they wanted to be relevant they could have said so by writing in such a way that made it clear that relevance was a high priority. For Marxians in general, everything tends to get reduced to class. For Lukács everything tends to get reduced to "reification." But society and its social ills are far too intricate to gloss in these ways, and the engines that drive competing interests are much more easily explained with reference to animal drives and fears than by Absolute Spirit. That is to say, they are not easily explained at all.

In the context of Latin America policy debates that focus on how to best utilize liberalized trading lead to the best forms of stability and decrease oppressive regimes - decades of reforms prove
Korzeniewicz ‘00
Roberto Patricio Korzeniewicz and William C. Smith, “Poverty, Inequality, and Growth in Latin America: Searching for the High Road to Globalization”, Latin American Research Review, 2000, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2692041
A major concern addressed by the intellectual architects of the original consensus involved the social conflicts and political instability of the 1970s, both linked to the crisis of civilian rule and the prevalence of authoritarian regimes in the region. Rising instability, associated with "macroeconomic populism, “was linked to the crisis of state-centric development models in closed protectionist economies (see, for example, Dornbusch and Edwards 1991). In this regard, the collapse of heterodox shock policies (such as the Austral, Cruzado, and Inti plans in Argentina, Brazil, and Peru) contributed to the growing hegemony of more orthodox neoclassical policies. In addition, cross-regional comparisons with the then thriving East Asian economies called attention to the advantages of an alternative model of development based on a "market-friendly" strategy built on trade liberalization and export orientation as engines of growth (Kahler 1990, 1992; World Bank 1993c).¶ According to this new World Bank perspective, although poverty rates may have recently declined somewhat in some countries, this outcome is due not to trade and financial reforms but to lower inflation and a return to modest growth. This admission brings the views of the bank into alignment with the broad consensus previously discussed. Moreover, the authors of these studies agree that formal and informal unemployment has risen in many countries and that wage differentials between skilled and unskilled workers have worsened.16 This rather pessimistic assessment of a decade of Washington Consensus-style reforms is the basis for their advocacy of "a dialogue among policy-makers, civil society, and the academic community in Latin America and the Caribbean on how best to design and reform institutions-that is, on how to 'supply' institutional reforms to meet new societal demands" (World Bank 1998, 2).

The ideology of imperialism is to deeply entrenched in society that the State has been corrupted and prevents any alternative
Van Elteren 3 (Mel, Associate Professor of Social Sciences at Tilburg University, “US Cultural Imperialism Today” http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/sais_review/v023/23.2elteren.html) 

To the extent that advertising constitutes a pervasive public "art form," however, it has become the dominant mode in which thoughts and experiences are expressed. This trend is most evident in U.S. society. While alternative values and ideologies do exist in this culture, it is harder to find representations for them. Advertising distorts and flattens people's ability to interpret complex experiences, and it reflects the culture only partially, and in ways that are biased toward a capitalist idealization of American culture. 47  At this level, goods are framed and displayed to entice the customer, and shopping has become an event in which individuals purchase and consume the meanings attached to goods. The ongoing interpenetration and crossover between consumption and the aesthetic sphere (traditionally separated off as an artistic counter-world to the everyday aspect of the former) has led to a End Page 182 greater "aestheticization of reality": appearance and image have become of prime importance. Not only have commodities become more stylized but style itself has turned into a valuable commodity. The refashioning and reworking of commodities—which are themselves carefully selected according to one's individual tastes—achieve a stylistic effect that expresses the individuality of their owner. 48 This provides the framework for a more nuanced and sometimes contradictory second order of meaning. The dynamics of cultural change therefore entail both processes of "traveling culture," in which the received culture (in this case globalizing capitalist culture) is appropriated and assigned new meaning locally, and at the same time a "first order" meaning that dominates and delimits the space for second order meanings—thus retaining something of the traditional meaning of cultural imperialism. The latter is, ultimately, a negative phenomenon from the perspective of self-determination by local people under the influence of the imperial culture.  Traditional critiques of cultural globalization have missed the point. The core of the problem lies not in the homogenization of cultures as such, or in the creation of a "false consciousness" among consumers and the adoption of a version of the dominant ideology thesis. Rather, the problem lies in the global spread of the institutions of capitalist modernity tied in with the culturally impoverished social imagery discussed above, which crowd out the cultural space for alternatives (as suggested by critical analysts like Benjamin Barber and Leslie Sklair). The negative effects of cultural imperialism—the disempowerment of people subjected to the dominant forms of globalization—must be located on this plane.  It is necessary, of course, to explore in more detail how the very broad institutional forces of capitalist modernity actually operate in specific settings of cultural contact. The practices of transnational corporations are crucial to any understanding of the concrete activities and local effects of globalization. A state-centered approach blurs the main issue here, which is not whether nationals or foreigners own the carriers of globalization, but whether their interests are driven by capitalist globalization.

Lack of a concrete advocacy destroys the aff’s potential
McClean 1 SOCIETY FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF AMERICAN PHILOSOPHY – GRADUATE AND PHILOSOPHER – NYU DAVID E., “THE CULTURAL LEFT AND THE LIMITS OF SOCIAL HOPE”, http://www.american-philosophy.org/archives/200120Conference/Discussion20papers/david_mcclean.htm

Leftist American culture critics might put their considerable talents to better use if they bury some of their cynicism about America's social and political prospects and help forge public and political possibilities in a spirit of determination to, indeed, achieve our country - the country of Jefferson and King; the country of John Dewey and Malcom X; the country of Franklin Roosevelt and Bayard Rustin, and of the later George Wallace and the later Barry Goldwater. To invoke the words of King, and with reference to the American society, the time is always ripe to seize the opportunity to help create the "beloved community," one woven with the thread of agape into a conceptually single yet diverse tapestry that shoots for nothing less than a true intra-American cosmopolitan ethos, one wherein both same sex unions and faith-based initiatives will be able to be part of the same social reality, one wherein business interests and the university are not seen as belonging to two separate galaxies but as part of the same answer to the threat of social and ethical nihilism. We who fancy ourselves philosophers would do well to create from within ourselves and from within our ranks a new kind of public intellectual who has both a hungry theoretical mind and who is yet capable of seeing the need to move past high theory to other important questions that are less bedazzling and "interesting" but more important to the prospect of our flourishing - questions such as "How is it possible to develop a citizenry that cherishes a certain hexis, one which prizes the character of the Samaritan on the road to Jericho almost more than any other?" or "How can we square the political dogma that undergirds the fantasy of a missile defense system with the need to treat America as but one member in a community of nations under a "law of peoples?"
The new public philosopher might seek to understand labor law and military and trade theory and doctrine as much as theories of surplus value; the logic of international markets and trade agreements as much as critiques of commodification, and the politics of complexity as much as the politics of power (all of which can still be done from our arm chairs.) This means going down deep into the guts of our quotidian social institutions, into the grimy pragmatic details where intellectuals are loathe to dwell but where the officers and bureaucrats of those institutions take difficult and often unpleasant, imperfect decisions that affect other peoples' lives, and it means making honest attempts to truly understand how those institutions actually function in the actual world before howling for their overthrow commences. This might help keep us from being slapped down in debates by true policy pros who actually know what they are talking about but who lack awareness of the dogmatic assumptions from which they proceed, and who have not yet found a good reason to listen to jargon-riddled lectures from philosophers and culture critics with their snobish disrespect for the so-called "managerial class."

Empirics first – discourse focus is epistemologically flawed and paralyzes action
Rodwell 5 (Jonathan, Ph.D. student at Manchester Metropolitan University, "Trendy But Empty: A Response to Richard Jackson," www.49thparallel.bham.ac.uk/back/issue15/rodwell1.htm slim_)

The reason it there is no attempt to explore the complexity of causation is that this would clearly automatically undermine the concentration on discourse. Moreover it would require the admittance of identifiable evidence about the real world to be able to say anything about it! For if something historical changed the meaning of a word, or if something about society gave the word a different meaning and impact, then it would be an identifiable ‘something’. Moreover if the word is tied to and altered by an historical event or social impact, would it not be a case of assessing the effect of original event itself as well as the language? The larger problem is that without clear causal links between materially identifiable events and factors any assessment within the argument actually becomes nonsensical. Mirroring the early inability to criticise, if we have no traditional causational discussion how can we know what is happening? For example, Jackson details how the rhetoric of anti-terrorism and fear is obfuscating the real problems. It is proposed that the real world killers are not terrorism, but disease or illegal drugs or environmental issues. The problem is how do we know this? It seems we know this because there is evidence that illustrates as much – Jackson himself quoting to Dr David King who argued global warming is a greater that than terrorism. The only problem of course is that discourse analysis has established (as argued by Jackson) that King’s argument would just be self-contained discourse designed to naturalise another arguments for his own reasons. Ultimately it would be no more valid than the argument that excessive consumption of Sugar Puffs is the real global threat. It is worth repeating that I don’t personally believe global terrorism is the world’s primary threat, nor do I believe that Sugar Puffs are a global killer. But without the ability to identify real facts about the world we can simply say anything, or we can say nothing. This is clearly ridiculous and many post-structuralists can see this. Their argument is that there “are empirically more persuasive explanations.”xi The phrase ‘empirically persuasive’ is however the final undermining of post-structural discourse analysis. It is a seemingly fairly obvious reintroduction of traditional methodology and causal links. It implies things that can be seen to be right regardless of perspective or discourse. It again goes without saying that logically in this case if such an assessment is possible then undeniable material factors about the word are real and are knowable outside of any cultural definition. Language or culture then does not wholy constitute reality. How do we know in the end that the world not threatened by the onslaught of an oppressive and dangerous breakfast cereal? Because empirically persuasive evidence tells us this is the case. The question must then be asked, is our

Their root cause claims are false-there is no single cause of events, rather many different causes
Wallerstein, is an American sociologist, historical social scientist, and world-systems analyst, 97
(Immanuel, an American sociologist, historical social scientist, and world-systems analyst. His bimonthly commentaries on world affairs are syndicated, 1997, Binghamton.edu "Eurocentrism and its Avatars: The Dilemmas of Social Science," http://www2.binghamton.edu/fbc/archive/iweuroc.htm, Accessed: 7/6/13, LPS.)

But even if we agree on the definition and the timing, and therefore so to speak on the reality of the phenomenon, we have actually explained very little. For we must then explain why it is that Europeans, and not others, launched the specified phenomenon, and why they did so at a certain moment of history. In seeking such explanations, the instinct of most scholars has been to push us back in history to presumed antecedents. If Europeans in the eighteenth or sixteenth century did x, it is said to be probably because their ancestors (or attributed ancestors, for the ancestry may be less biological than cultural, or assertedly cultural) did, or were, y in the eleventh century, or in the fifth century B.C. or even further back. We can all think of the multiple explanations that, once having established or at least asserted some phenomenon that has occurred in the sixteenth to nineteenth centuries, proceed to push us back to various earlier points in European ancestry for the truly determinant variable.
There is a premise here that is not really hidden, but was for a long time undebated. The premise is that whatever is the novelty for which Europe is held responsible in the sixteenth to nineteenth centuries, this novelty is a good thing, one of which Europe should be proud, one of which the rest of the world should be envious, or at least appreciative. This novelty is perceived as an achievement, and numerous book titles bear testimony to this kind of evaluation.
There seems to me little question that the actual historiography of world social science has expressed such a perception of reality to a very large degree. This perception of course can be challenged on various grounds, and this has been increasingly the case in recent decades. One can challenge the accuracy of the picture of what happened, within Europe and in the world as a whole in the sixteenth to nineteenth centuries. One can certainly challenge the plausibility of the presumed cultural antecedents of what happened in this period. One can implant the story of the sixteenth to nineteenth centuries in a longer duration, from several centuries longer to tens of thousands of years. If one does that, one is usually arguing that the European "achievements" of the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries thereby seem less remarkable, or more like a cyclical variant, or less like achievements that can be credited primarily to Europe. Finally one can accept that the novelties were real, but argue that they were less a positive than a negative accomplishment.

Decolonization requires an encounter with the colonized – simply deconstructing one knowledge base doesn’t allow for any new modes of thought
Mignolo, Duke University professor of Literature and Romance Studies, 2
(Walter, Argentine semiotician and professor at Duke University, Published Winter 2002, “The Geopolitics of Knowledge and the Colonial Difference”, Pg. 69-71, The South Atlantic Quarterly, Volume 101, Number 1, Winter 2002, Accessed July 10 2013, JB)

The irreducible colonial difference that I am trying to chart, starting from Dussel's dialogue with Vattimo, was also perceived by Robert Bernasconi in his account of the challenge that African philosophy puts forward to continental philosophy. Simply put, Bernasconi notes that "Western philosophy traps African philosophy in a double bind. Either African philosophy is so similar to Western philosophy that it makes no distinctive contribution and effectively disappears; or it is so different that its credentials to be genuine philosophy will always be in doubt." 45 This double bind is the colonial End Page 70 difference that creates the conditions for what I have elsewhere called "border thinking." 46 I have defined border thinking as an epistemology from a subaltern perspective. Although Bernasconi describes the phenomenon with different terminology, the problem we are dealing with here is the same. Furthermore, Bernasconi makes his point with the support of African American philosopher Lucius Outlaw in an article titled "African ‘Philosophy': Deconstructive and Reconstructive Challenges." 47 Emphasizing the sense in which Outlaw uses the concept of deconstruction, Bernasconi at the same time underlines the limits of Jacques Derrida's deconstructive operation and the closure of Western metaphysics. Derrida, according to Bernasconi, offers no space in which to ask the question about Chinese, Indian, and especially African philosophy. Latin and Anglo-American philosophy should be added to this. After a careful discussion of Derrida's philosophy, and pondering possible alternatives for the extension of deconstruction, Bernasconi concludes by saying, "Even after such revisions, it is not clear what contribution deconstruction could make to the contemporary dialogue between Western philosophy and African philosophy." 48 Or, if a contribution could be foreseen, it has to be from the perspective that Outlaw appropriates and that denaturalizes the deconstruction of the Western metaphysics from the inside (and maintains the totality, á la Derrida). That is to say, it has to be a deconstruction from the exteriority of Western metaphysics, from the perspective of the double bind that Bernasconi detected in the interdependence (and power relations) between Western and African philosophy. However, if we invert the perspective, we are located in a particular deconstructive strategy that I would rather name the decolonization of philosophy (or of any other branch of knowledge, natural sciences, social sciences, and the humanities). Such a displacement of perspective was already suggested by Moroccan philosopher Abdelkhebir Khatibi, which I have discussed at length elsewhere. 49 However, certainly Bernasconi will concur with Khatibi in naming decolonization as the type of deconstructive operation proposed by Outlaw, thus maintaining and undoing the colonial difference from the colonial difference itself. That is to say, maintaining the difference under the assumption that "we are all human" although undoing the coloniality of power that converted differences into values and hierarchies. "The existential dimension of African philosophy's challenge to Western philosophy in general and Continental philosophy in particular is located in the need to decolonize the mind. This task is at least as important for End Page 71 the colonizer as it is for the colonized. For Africans, decolonizing the mind takes place not only in facing the experience of colonialism, 

but also in recognizing the precolonial, which established the destructive importance of so-called ethnophilosophy." 50 The double bind requires also a double operation from the perspective of African philosophy, that is, an appropriation of Western philosophy and at the same time a rejection of it grounded in the colonial difference. Bernasconi recognizes that these, however, are tasks and issues for African philosophers. What would be similar issues for a continental philosopher? For Europeans, Bernasconi adds, "decolonizing the colonial mind necessitates an encounter with the colonized, where finally the European has the experience of being seen as judged by those they have denied. The extent to which European philosophy championed colonialism, and more particularly helped to justify it through a philosophy of history that privileged Europe, makes it apparent that such a decolonizing is an urgent task for European thought." 51

2nc
D/m uniquely turns colonialism.
Steinberg and Freeley 08 Austin J. Freeley is a Boston based attorney who focuses on criminal, personal injury and civil rights law. David L. Steinberg is a Lecturer of Communication Studies @ U Miami, Argumentation and Debate: Critical Thinking for Reasoned Decision Making pp9-10

After several days of intense debate, first the United States House of Representatives and then the U.S. Senate voted to authorize President George W. Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refused to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by United Nations's resolutions. Debate about a possible military* action against Iraq continued in various governmental bodies and in the public for six months, until President Bush ordered an attack on Baghdad, beginning Operation Iraqi Freedom, the military campaign against the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein. He did so despite the unwillingness of the U.N. Security Council to support the military action, and in the face of significant international opposition.
Meanwhile, and perhaps equally difficult for the parties involved, a young couple deliberated over whether they should purchase a large home to accommodate their growing family or should sacrifice living space to reside in an area with better public schools; elsewhere a college sophomore reconsidered his major and a senior her choice of law school, graduate school, or a job. Each of these* situations called for decisions to be made. Each decision maker worked hard to make well-reasoned decisions.
Decision making is a thoughtful process of choosing among a variety of options for acting or thinking. It requires that the decider make a choice. Life demands decision making. We make countless individual decisions every day. To make some of those decisions, we work hard to employ care and consideration; others seem to just happen. Couples, families, groups of friends, and coworkers come together to make choices, and decision-making homes from committees to juries to the U.S. Congress and the United Nations make decisions that impact us all. Every profession requires effective and ethical decision making, as do our school, community, and social organizations.
We all make many decisions even- day. To refinance or sell one's home, to buy a high-performance SUV or an economical hybrid car. what major to select, what to have for dinner, what candidate CO vote for. paper or plastic, all present lis with choices. Should the president deal with an international crisis through military invasion or diplomacy? How should the U.S. Congress act to address illegal immigration?
Is the defendant guilty as accused? Tlie Daily Show or the ball game? And upon what information should I rely to make my decision? Certainly some of these decisions are more consequential than others. Which amendment to vote for, what television program to watch, what course to take, which phone plan to purchase, and which diet to pursue all present unique challenges. At our best, we seek out research and data to inform our decisions. Yet even the choice of which information to attend to requires decision making. In 2006, TIMI: magazine named YOU its "Person of the Year." Congratulations! Its selection was based on the participation not of ''great men" in the creation of history, but rather on the contributions of a community of anonymous participants in the evolution of information. Through blogs. online networking. You Tube. Facebook, MySpace, Wikipedia, and many other "wikis," knowledge and "truth" are created from the bottom up, bypassing the authoritarian control of newspeople. academics, and publishers. We have access to infinite quantities of information, but how do we sort through it and select the best information for our needs?
The ability of every decision maker to make good, reasoned, and ethical decisions relies heavily upon their ability to think critically. Critical thinking enables one to break argumentation down to its component parts in order to evaluate its relative validity and strength. Critical thinkers are better users of information, as well as better advocates.
Colleges and universities expect their students to develop their critical thinking skills and may require students to take designated courses to that end. The importance and value of such study is widely recognized.
Much of the most significant communication of our lives is conducted in the form of debates. These may take place in intrapersonal communications, in which we weigh the pros and cons of an important decision in our own minds, or they may take place in interpersonal communications, in which we listen to arguments intended to influence our decision or participate in exchanges to influence the decisions of others.
Our success or failure in life is largely determined by our ability to make wise decisions for ourselves and to influence the decisions of others in ways that are beneficial to us. Much of our significant, purposeful activity is concerned with making decisions. Whether to join a campus organization, go to graduate school, accept a job oiler, buy a car or house, move to another city, invest in a certain stock, or vote for Garcia—these are just a few of the thousands of decisions we may have to make. Often, intelligent self-interest or a sense of responsibility will require us to win the support of others. We may want a scholarship or a particular job for ourselves, a customer for out product, or a vote for our favored political candidate.
There has to be a balance of ground or else one side claims the high ground and creates a de facto monologue
Hanghoj 08 – PhD, assistant professor, School of Education, University of Aarhus, also affiliated with the Danish Research Centre on Education and Advanced Media Materials, located at the Institute of Literature, Media and Cultural Studies at the University of Southern Denmark (Thorkild, http://static.sdu.dk/mediafiles/Files/Information_til/Studerende_ved_SDU/Din_uddannelse/phd_hum/afhandlinger/2009/ThorkilHanghoej.pdf)

Debate games are often based on pre-designed scenarios that include descriptions of issues to be debated, educational goals, game goals, roles, rules, time frames etc. In this way, debate games differ from textbooks and everyday classroom instruction as debate scenarios allow teachers and students to actively imagine, interact and communicate within a domain-specific game space. However, instead of mystifying debate games as a “magic circle” (Huizinga, 1950), I will try to overcome the epistemological dichotomy between “gaming” and “teaching” that tends to dominate discussions of educational games. In short, educational gaming is a form of teaching. As mentioned, education and games represent two different semiotic domains that both embody the three faces of knowledge: assertions, modes of representation and social forms of organisation (Gee, 2003; Barth, 2002; cf. chapter 2). In order to understand the interplay between these different domains and their interrelated knowledge forms, I will draw attention to a central assumption in Bakhtin’s dialogical philosophy. According to Bakhtin, all forms of communication and culture are subject to centripetal and centrifugal forces (Bakhtin, 1981). A centripetal force is the drive to impose one version of the truth, while a centrifugal force involves a range of possible truths and interpretations. This means that any form of expression involves a duality of centripetal and centrifugal forces: “Every concrete utterance of a speaking subject serves as a point where centrifugal as well as centripetal forces are brought to bear” (Bakhtin, 1981: 272). If we take teaching as an example, it is always affected by centripetal and centrifugal forces in the on-going negotiation of “truths” between teachers and students. In the words of Bakhtin: “Truth is not born nor is it to be found inside the head of an individual person, it is born between people collectively searching for truth, in the process of their dialogic interaction” (Bakhtin, 1984a: 110). Similarly, the dialogical space of debate games also embodies centrifugal and centripetal forces. Thus, the election scenario of The Power Game involves centripetal elements that are mainly determined by the rules and outcomes of the game, i.e. the election is based on a limited time frame and a fixed voting procedure. Similarly, the open-ended goals, roles and resources represent centrifugal elements and create virtually endless possibilities for researching, preparing, presenting, debating and evaluating a variety of key political issues. Consequently, the actual process of enacting a game scenario involves a complex negotiation between these centrifugal/centripetal forces that are inextricably linked with the teachers and students’ game activities. In this way, the enactment of The Power Game is a form of teaching that combines different pedagogical practices (i.e. group work, web quests, student presentations) and learning resources (i.e. websites, handouts, spoken language) within the interpretive frame of the election scenario. Obviously, tensions may arise if there is too much divergence between educational goals and game goals. This means that game facilitation requires a balance between focusing too narrowly on the rules or “facts” of a game (centripetal orientation) and a focusing too broadly on the contingent possibilities and interpretations of the game scenario (centrifugal orientation). For Bakhtin, the duality of centripetal/centrifugal forces often manifests itself as a dynamic between “monological” and “dialogical” forms of discourse. Bakhtin illustrates this point with the monological discourse of the Socrates/Plato dialogues in which the teacher never learns anything new from the students, despite Socrates’ ideological claims to the contrary (Bakhtin, 1984a). Thus, discourse becomes monologised when “someone who knows and possesses the truth instructs someone who is ignorant of it and in error”, where “a thought is either affirmed or repudiated” by the authority of the teacher (Bakhtin, 1984a: 81). In contrast to this, dialogical pedagogy fosters inclusive learning environments that are able to expand upon students’ existing knowledge and collaborative construction of “truths” (Dysthe, 1996). At this point, I should clarify that Bakhtin’s term “dialogic” is both a descriptive term (all utterances are per definition dialogic as they address other utterances as parts of a chain of communication) and a normative term as dialogue is an ideal to be worked for against the forces of “monologism” (Lillis, 2003: 197-8). In this project, I am mainly interested in describing the dialogical space of debate games. At the same time, I agree with Wegerif that “one of the goals of education, perhaps the most important goal, should be dialogue as an end in itself” (Wegerif, 2006: 61). 

SFG is the government in Washington D.C.
Encarta 2k Online Encyclopedia 2K http://encarta.msn.com

“The federal government of the United States is centered in Washington DC”

Government is not the people
Costello and Thomas 2k (George A. and Kenneth R., Congressional Research Service, The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution~preamble/#annotations)

Article Text I Annotations We the People of the United States. in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.  Annotations PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF THE PREAMBLE Although the preamble is not a source of power for any department of the Federal Government, 1 the Supreme Court has often referred to it as evidence of the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution. 2 "Its true office," wrote Joseph Story in his COMMENTARIES, "is to expound the nature and extent and application of the powers actually conferred by the Constitution, and not substantively to create them. For example, the preamble declares one object to be, 'to provide for the common defense.'

Increase requires a net increase
Words and Phrases 8  (20B WandP – 265-265)

Cal.App.2 Dist. 1991.  Term “increase,” as used in statute giving the Energy Commission modification jurisdiction over any alteration, replacement, or improvement of equipment that results in “increase” of 50 megawatts or more in electric generating capacity of existing thermal power plant, refers to “net increase” in power plant’s total generating capacity; in deciding whether there has been the requisite 50-megawatt increase as a result of new units being incorporated into a plant, Energy Commission cannot ignore decreases in capacity caused by retirement or deactivation of other units at plant.  West’s Ann.Cal.Pub.Res.Code § 25123.
Substantially means in substance, not illusory
Merriam-Webster, 8 (“substantial”, 2008, http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionaryandva=substantially)

Main Entry: sub•stan•tial
1 a: consisting of or relating to substance b: not imaginary or illusory : real, true c: important, essential

heir “Resolved” and colon arguments make no sense–the Affirmative has to defend the proposition that the government should act
Parcher 01 (Jeff, Fmr. Debate Coach at Georgetown University, February, http://www.ndtceda.com/archives/200102/0790.html)

(1) Pardon me if I turn to a source besides Bill. American Heritage Dictionary: Resolve: 1. To make a firm decision about. 2. To decide or express by formal vote. 3. To separate something into constiutent parts See Syns at *analyze* (emphasis in orginal) 4. Find a solution to. See Syns at *Solve* (emphasis in original) 5. To dispel: resolve a doubt. n 1. Frimness of purpose; resolution. 2. A determination or decision. (2) The very nature of the word "resolution" makes it a question. American Heritage: A course of action determined or decided on. A formal statemnt of a deciion, as by a legislature. (3) The resolution is obviously a question. Any other conclusion is utterly inconcievable. Why? Context. The debate community empowers a topic committee to write a topic for ALTERNATE side debating. The committee is not a random group of people coming together to "reserve" themselves about some issue. There is context they are empowered by a community to do something. In their deliberations, the topic community attempts to craft a resolution which can be ANSWERED in either direction. They focus on issues like ground and fairness because they know the resolution will serve as the basis for debate which will be resolved by determining the policy desireablility of that resolution. That's not only what they do, but it's what we REQUIRE them to do. We don't just send the topic committtee somewhere to adopt their own group resolution. It's not the end point of a resolution adopted by a body it's the prelimanary wording of a resolution sent to others to be answered or decided upon. (4) Further context: the word resolved is used to emphasis the fact that it's policy debate. Resolved comes from the adoption of resolutions by legislative bodies. A resolution is either adopted or it is not. It's a question before a legislative body. Should this statement be adopted or not. (5) The very terms 'affirmative' and 'negative' support my view. One affirms a resolution. Affirmative and negative are the equivalents of 'yes' or 'no' which, of course, are answers to a question.

Fairness exists to ensure participation from both sides – our framework allows for storytelling, they just have to ground it in a topical affirmative
Burch 08 – Assistant Professor, Cumberland School of Law (Elizabeth, “CAFA'S IMPACT ON LITIGATION AS A PUBLIC GOOD” 29 Cardozo L. Rev. 2517, May, lexis)

Given this shortcoming, the second procedural justice component is fairness. Fairness arguments are typically offered as policy reasons to trump pursuit of certain reform proposals and aggregate social goals; n101 however, I use fairness here (and in assessing CAFA) as a supplemental constraint rather than a substitute. Employing a deontological conception of fairness to balance utility aids in, not only distributing procedural costs and correcting procedural errors, but also in ensuring that the procedural system does not disproportionately favor or burden plaintiffs or defendants. n102 Put differently, process should disperse the risk of error and the cost of access as evenly as possible. Neither party  *2535  should have an advantage. n103 This idea of "fairness" as avoiding lopsided distribution of error can be likened to the concept of "neutrality." n104 To be sure, some imparity in distributing risks may be inevitable.
Finally, although analogous to fairness, participation - manifested as adequate representation in the class context - humanizes process. n105 In its simplest form, participation necessitates that those who are bound by a decision have an opportunity to take part (and be heard) in adjudication. n106 Moreover, it encompasses inherent rights to present evidence, observe the proceedings, cross-examine witnesses, and hear the judge's decision. n107 And participation, even in class litigation, affords litigants dignity by granting them a forum in which to tell their story. n108 "Storytelling" has been criticized when used to demonstrate satisfaction with process as a proxy for "justice." n109 I use the term here, however, for its cathartic value only when situated within this larger  *2536  procedural fairness framework.

1nr

Criticizing the brutal history of the United States accomplishes nothing–this criticism becomes isolated and self-referential without concrete alternatives and blocks action against atrocities in the present
GITLIN 2005 (Todd, professor of journalism and sociology at Columbia University, The Intellectuals and Patriotism, http://www.ciaonet.org/book/git01/)
From the late New Left point of view, then, patriotism meant obscuring the whole grisly truth of the United States. It couldn’t help spilling over into what Orwell thought was the harsh, dangerous, and distinct phenomenon of nationalism, with its aggres-sive edge and its implication of superiority. Scrub up patriotism as you will, and nationalism, as Schaar put it, remained “patriotism’s bloody brother.”
Was Orwell’s distinction not, in the end, a distinction without a difference? Didn’t his patriotism, while refusing aggressiveness, still insist that the nation he affirmed was “the best in the world”? What if there was more than one feature of the American way of life that you did not believe to be “the best in the world”—the national bravado, the overreach of the marketplace. Patriotism might well be the door through which you marched with the rest of the conformists to the beat of the national anthem.
Facing these realities, all the left could do was criticize empire and, on the positive side, unearth and cultivate righteous tradi-tions. The much-mocked “political correctness” of the next academic generations was a consolation prize. We might have lost politics but we won a lot of the textbooks. The tragedy of the left is that, having achieved an unprece-dented victory in helping stop an appalling war, it then proceeded to commit suicide. The left helped force the United States out of Vietnam, where the country had no constructive work to do—ei- ther for Vietnam or for itself—but did so at the cost of discon-necting itself from the nation. Most U.S. intellectuals substituted the pleasures of condemnation for the pursuit of improvement.
The orthodoxy was that “the system” precluded reform—never mind that the antiwar movement had already demonstrated that reform was possible. Human rights, feminism, environmental-
ism—these worldwide initiatives, American in their inception, flowing not from the American Establishment but from our own American movements, were noises off, not center stage. They
were outsider tastes, the stuff of protest, not national features, the real stuff. Thus when, in the nineties, the Clinton administra-tion finally mobilized armed force in behalf of Bosnia and then
Kosovo against Milosevic’s genocidal Serbia, the hard left only could smell imperial motives, maintaining that democratic, anti-genocidal intentions added up to a paper-thin mask.
In short, if the United States seemed fundamentally trapped in militarist imperialism, its opposition was trapped in the mir-ror-image opposite. By the seventies the outsider stance had be-come second nature. Even those who had entered the sixties in diapers came to maturity thinking patriotism a threat or a bad joke. But anti-Americanism was, and remains, a mood and a
metaphysics more than a politics. It cannot help but see practical politics as an illusion, entangled as it is and must be with a sys-tem fatally flawed by original sin. Viewing the ongoing politics of the Americans as contemptibly shallow and compromised, the demonological attitude naturally rules out patriotic attachment to those very Americans. Marooned (often self-marooned) on university campuses, exiled in left-wing media and other cultural
outposts—all told, an archipelago of bitterness—what sealed it- self off in the postsixties decades was what Richard Rorty has called “a spectatorial, disgusted, mocking Left rather than a Left which dreams of achieving our country.”

We are not responsible for every evil perpetuated by individuals representing western culture – their argument breeds racism because it is the essence of cultural stereotyping
Berliner, 1999 (Michael, PhD and Former Executive Director of the Ayn Rand Institute, “The Christopher Columbus Controversy,” http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_columbus)

Underlying the political collectivism of the anti-Columbus crowd is a racist view of human nature. They claim that one's identity is primarily ethnic: if one thinks his ancestors were good, he will supposedly feel good about himself; if he thinks his ancestors were bad, he will supposedly feel self-loathing. But it doesn't work; the achievements or failures of one's ancestors are monumentally irrelevant to one's actual worth as a person. Only the lack of a sense of self leads one to look to others to provide what passes for a sense of identity. Neither the deeds nor misdeeds of others are his own; he can take neither credit nor blame for what someone else chose to do. There are no racial achievements or racial failures, only individual achievements and individual failures. One cannot inherit moral worth or moral vice. "Self-esteem through others" is a self-contradiction. Thus the sham of "preserving one's heritage" as a rational life goal. Thus the cruel hoax of "multicultural education" as an antidote to racism: it will continue to create more racism. Individualism is the only alternative to the racism of political correctness. We must recognize that everyone is a sovereign entity, with the power of choice and independent judgment. That is the ultimate value of Western civilization, and it should be proudly proclaimed.

“The West” is not a monolith that can be rejected as a whole.  The left condemns itself political irrelevancy when they refuse to recognize differences between policies.
Wolin, 06 (The Seduction of Unreason: The Intellectual Romance with Fascism from Nietzsche to Postmodernism, Richard Wolin, Professor of History and Comparative Literature at the Graduate Center, City University). 

With a self defeating Nietzschean glibness, postmodernism has burned its bridges to a traditional rhetoric of moral evaluation. Hence, Baudrillard and Zizek pointedly fad to mention that the West, in addition to being an epicenter of imperialism (conveniently, instances of genocide or conquest that originate outside the West always go unmentioned), is also the birthplace of a moral discourse that has given birth to international law, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the 1948 Convention against Genocide. For postmodernist hipsters like Zizek and Baudrillard, however, such precepts remain woefully "foundationalist" and are, consequently, simply irrelevant. Amid the fog of postmodern relativism disseminated by Baudrillard, Zizek, and others, something essential is missing. Going back to the Thucydides' Melian Dialogue, the massacre of civilian innocents has been a touchstone of civilized moral judgment. It remains today the cornerstone of human rights law and just war theory. Yet for the cultural left, slavishly following the "genealogical" approach recommended by Nietzsche and Foucault, moral reasoning is merely another one of civilization's clever "normalizing ruses”- hence, an intellectual weakness to be avoided at all costs. Once again, postmodernism's right-wing intellectual pedigree- Nietzsche, Spengler, and Heidegger-has left it morally impotent and politically clueless. For years the left has demonstrated a predilection to romanticize the "other”- Ho Chi Minh, Che, Fidel, as well as countless other apostles of Third World revolution-in the hope that the Wretched of the Earth would provide a remedy for the West's intractable political impasse. At a conference I attended recently, a friend with impeccable left-wing credentials who until communism's recent collapse had been an ardent champion of the proletarian cause, jumped on the pan-Arab bandwagon, reciting the names of obscure Muslim intellectuals who, he claimed, offered a promising political alternative to the debilities of Western liberalism. Plus ca change . . . . The left can ignore the imperatives of morality and international law only at its own peril. By romanticizing the lifestyles and mores of non-Western peoples, it suspends critical judgment, destroys its own credibility, and guarantees its own political irrelevance. 

They universalize coloniality. That method’s worse; misinforms transitions and disproves the K in Cuba context.
Powell ‘8
Kathy Powell. Lecturer. PhD Social Anthroplogy – National University of Ireland, Galway. Critique of Anthropology – Vol 28(2) p. 177–197 – Sage Database

Yet, within these broad patterns, it is clear from the behaviour of different¶ states and the diversity of political responses that neoliberalism has¶ spread unevenly, been adopted selectively and hybridized with existing political¶ processes and political cultures; that neoliberalism in practice is characterized¶ by an ‘unstable and volatile historical geography’ (Harvey, 2005: 70).¶ Emphasizing the need to study such ‘actually existing neoliberalisms’, Peck¶ and Tickell insist that ‘while processes of neoliberalization are clearly at work in . . . diverse situations, we should not expect this to lead to a simple¶ convergence of outcomes, a neoliberalized end of history and geography’¶ (Peck and Tickell, 2002: 384, quoted in Gledhill, 2004). Such a focus not¶ only fractures the notion of neoliberalism as a monolithic force; its emphasis¶ on process also complicates the notion of political ‘transitions’ by raising¶ questions about the normativities underlying perceptions of previous¶ periods as well as future ones (Gledhill, 2002; Roseberry, 1985; Verdery,¶ 2002) – and Cuba is particularly burdened by the reification of ‘transition’.¶ An emphasis on historically and contextually specific studies shares¶ conceptual and methodological ground both with historical anthropology’s¶ critique of monolithic views of colonialism, the spread of capitalism and¶ state formation ( Joseph and Nugent, 1994; Roseberry, 1985), and with calls¶ for an ‘ethnography of the state’: these similarly critique binary state/society¶ models (Gupta, 1995; Nugent, 1994), focusing on the ‘degree to which the¶ state has become implicated in the minute texture of everyday life’ (Gupta,¶ 1995: 375) and the specific nature of these intimate relations, where people¶ deal with the corrupt bureaucrat, petition the official representative, avoid¶ the police, and engage in discursive constructions of the state which both¶ inform and make sense of their accommodations and resistances – and¶ which reveal the state as an ‘ensemble of social relations’ ( Jessop, 2002: 40).¶ Cuba both shares in and departs from these broad regional tendencies,¶ and presents a particularly complex historical conjuncture. Centeno notes¶ that ‘Cuba remained exceptional during the 1990s as it not only resisted¶ neoliberalism, but also the accompanying democratizing wave’ (2004:¶ 404). Resistance came at an immense social cost: the 1990s in Cuba¶ mirrored the decimation much of the rest of Latin America endured¶ during the 1980s under structural adjustment, and revealed the exclusionary¶ and punitive logic of neoliberal hegemony.3 As mentioned above,¶ resistance entailed accommodation in the marketization of certain sectors,¶ resulting in an economic and social bifurcation and hierarchization,¶ reproducing regional patterns of inequality, informality and migration:¶ these processes (discussed in more detail below) coexist in some tension¶ with the government’s strong political imperatives to firmer resistance in¶ the face of heightened hostility.¶ The Cuban state’s formal ‘ensemble of social relations’ and the¶ ways in which it is ‘implicated in the minute texture of everyday life’, are¶ exemplified by official mass organizations4 with active and highly politicized¶ memberships at neighbourhood level and upwards. These organizations¶ can be seen as attempts to ‘monopolize social allocation’, which¶ Verdery (2002: 382) argues have been characteristic of socialist systems: at¶ the same time, while such ‘monopolization’ cannot be exhaustive, it does tend to view with suspicion unofficial social groupings and dynamics,¶ particularly when these ‘escape’ into informality,5 positing more ambiguous¶ sets of relations. By no means everyone is captured by the mass organizations,¶ and the socially divisive effects of growing inequality work against¶ their efforts to sustain a vigorous attachment to Cuban socialism. For some¶ disaffected sectors of the population, the Cuban state’s resistance to neoliberalism¶ itself represents the continued hegemony of the socialist regime,¶ which is in turn unevenly resisted in a variety of everyday ways, such as¶ evasion, political apathy, valorization of self-interest and, especially, dreams¶ of escape to an imagined capitalist prosperity; and here alienated¶ discourses of a ‘totalizing’ state re-emerge which construct a future resolved¶ by the demise of socialism.

The debate space creates backlash and fractures coalitions – losers become scapegoats
Atchison and Panetta 9 (Jarrod, PhD. In Speech Communication.  Edward, Ph.D. in Communication. “Intercollegiate Debate Speech Communication: Historical Developments and Issues for the Future”; The SAGE Handbook of Rhetorical Studies, Pg. 28-9)JFS
The larger problem with locating the "debate as activism" perspective within the competitive framework is that it overlooks the communal nature of the community problem. If each individual debate is a decision about how the debate community should approach a problem, then the losing debaters become collateral damage in the activist strategy dedicated toward creating community change. One frustrating example of this type of argument might include a judge voting for an activist team in an effort to help them reach elimination rounds to generate a community discussion about the problem. Under this scenario, the losing team serves as a sacrificial lamb on the altar of community change. Downplaying the important role of competition and treating opponents as scapegoats for the failures of the community may increase the profile of the winning team and the community problem, but it does little to generate the critical coalitions necessary to address the community problem, because the competitive focus encourages teams to concentrate on how to beat the strategy with little regard for addressing the community problem. There is no role for competition when a judge decides that it is important to accentuate the publicity of a community problem. An extreme example might include a team arguing that their opponents' academic institution had a legacy of civil rights abuses and that the judge should not vote for them because that would be a community endorsement of a problematic institution. This scenario is a bit more outlandish but not unreasonable if one assumes that each debate should be about what is best for promoting solutions to diversity problems in the debate community. If the debate community is serious about generating community change, then it is more likely to occur outside a traditional competitive debate. When a team loses a debate because the judge decides that it is better for the community for the other team to win, then they have sacrificed two potential advocates for change within the community. Creating change through wins generates backlash through losses. Some proponents are comfortable with generating backlash and argue that the reaction is evidence that the issue is being discussed. From our perspective, the discussion that results from these hostile situations is not a productive one where participants seek to work together for a common goal. Instead of giving up on hope for change and agitating for wins regardless of who is left behind, it seems more reasonable that the debate community should try the method of public argument that we teach in an effort to generate a discussion of necessary community changes. Simply put, debate competitions do not represent the best environment for community change because it is a competition for a win and only one team can win any given debate, whereas addressing systemic century-long community problems requires a tremendous effort by a great number of people.

Tournament: Greenhill | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Lexington XA | Judge: Jason Peterson, Garrett Abelkop, Val McIntosh
1nc – politics disad
The debt ceiling will pass but it will be a fight
Washington Post, 9/15/13 (“Congress can turn back to the budget now” http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/congress-can-turn-back-to-the-budget-now/2013/09/15/e05c975c-1ca5-11e3-82ef-a059e54c49d0_story.html)

WITH PRESIDENT Obama’s bid for congressional support for a military strike against Syria on hold for the time being, members of the House and Senate can devote their attention to what was previously supposed to have been their priority for September: avoiding a potential political and economic train wreck over the federal government’s finances.
Specifically, Congress needs to fund the government after the current spending law expires on Sept. 30, and it needs to raise the $16.7 trillion debt limit, which will be reached sometime in the second half of October, and which must be increased to avoid the possibility of a U.S. default.
Alas, these two pieces of what should be routine business have become entangled in the politics of Obamacare, which is to say the decreasingly comprehensible politics of the House Republican caucus. A sizable minority of GOP members insists on “defunding” the health care law before the major parts of it begin to take effect in January. According to a recent Congressional Research Service analysis, this is an operationally futile goal. It would be bad policy even if it were possible.
What’s more, it’s bad politics for the GOP to risk a government shutdown in pursuit of this chimera — a fact Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) recognizes but which has, so far, failed to sway his back-benchers. This is why Democrats are content, for now, to sit back and cheer on the Republicans’ internal feud. Also, that’s easier than countering the Republicans’ anti-Obamacare crusade with realistic budget alternatives.
How this latest impasse plays out is anyone’s guess, though there are plausible scenarios under which Mr. Boehner can give the ultras in his caucus a chance to vote one more time against Obamacare, while engineering Democratic acquiescence in a short-term continuation of the current $988 billion annual spending rate. Such a result would avoid a partial government shutdown — for a few months.
The debt ceiling, too, probably can be finessed, as it has been in the past. Exactly how is admittedly difficult to predict given Mr. Obama’s insistence that raising it is not negotiable and Mr. Boehner’s seemingly incompatible insistence that he won’t increase Washington’s borrowing capacity except in return for progress on deficit reduction. But a default would not be in either side’s political interest.

The plan’s aura of spending ensures loss of PC — political opposition turns the case
Reilly 13 — reporter at Federal Times (Sean Reilly, Federal Times, 03-06-2013, “Private investors sought for border infrastructure”, http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20130306/DEPARTMENTS03/303060009/Private-investors-sought-border-infrastructure, Accessed 07-31-2013 | AK)

Cross-border trade is booming, but federal building money to expand and enhance border crossings has dried up.
In response, a spate of proposals aim to leverage private funding to make up the difference, particularly along the U.S.-Mexico border.
The Department of Homeland Security has created a task force to look at ways to encourage private investment in roads and other infrastructure at border crossings. In a recently proposed overhaul of the immigration system, the Obama administration also suggested allowing DHS to accept donations from citizens, businesses, and state and local governments to enhance border crossings, officially known as land ports of entry, according to a copy of the package obtained by USA Today, a sister paper of Federal Times.
On a separate track, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, in January reintroduced a bill that would allow Customs and Border Protection, part of DHS, to charge fees in return for providing extra customs and immigration services. The bill would also order the General Services Administration, which owns or leases about three-quarters of the 168 land ports of entry in CBP’s inventory, to set up a process for evaluating cost-sharing proposals for upkeep or construction of new infrastructure. The idea is to ensure that proposals for such alternative financing arrangements “no longer sit on desks in Washington for decades,” Cornyn said in a news release.
Customs and Border Protection estimates it would take some $6 billion to fully modernize its ports of entry, which are more than 40 years old on average and lack the capacity to handle steadily growing traffic volumes.
But as lawmakers crack down on federally funded construction, ports of entry projects have gotten no money from GSA’s Public Buildings Fund since 2010, according to numbers provided by the Texas Border Coalition, an advocacy group.
“We think it’s a big deal,” John Cook, mayor of El Paso, Texas, and a backer of Cornyn’s bill, said in a phone interview. “Our No. 1 economic driver is international trade. Anything we can do to enhance and protect it is in our best interest.”
There are no rules forbidding public-private partnerships, said Chris Wilson, a trade expert at the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. “It’s more a matter of creating a stable legal framework that everyone can refer to.”
One example of how this could work is underway along the California-Mexico border, where a group of investors have government approval to build an enclosed pedestrian bridge from San Diego to the Tijuana airport. In return for paying a toll, users will be able avoid traffic tie-ups elsewhere along the border. The walkway is scheduled to open next year.
Congress has yet to act on any specific legislation to spur similar endeavors. And even if it does, permitting requirements and other hurdles means that new projects probably won’t take off for five more years, Wilson said.
Capital is finite and spending it elsewhere prevents a debt ceiling deal
Moore, 9/10/13 - Guardian's US finance and economics editor. (Heidi, “Syria: the great distraction” The Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/10/obama-syria-what-about-sequester)

The country will crash into the debt ceiling in mid-October, which would be an economic disaster, especially with a government shutdown looming at the same time. These are deadlines that Congress already learned two years ago not to toy with, but memories appear to be preciously short.
The Federal Reserve needs a new chief in three months, someone who will help the country confront its raging unemployment crisis that has left 12 million people without jobs. The president has promised to choose a warm body within the next three weeks, despite the fact that his top pick, Larry Summers, would likely spark an ugly confirmation battle – the "fight of the century," according to some – with a Congress already unwilling to do the President's bidding.
Congress was supposed to pass a farm bill this summer, but declined to do so even though the task is already two years late. As a result, the country has no farm bill, leaving agricultural subsidies up in the air, farmers uncertain about what their financial picture looks like, and a potential food crisis on the horizon.
The two main housing agencies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, have been in limbo for four years and are desperately in need of reform that should start this fall, but there is scant attention to the problem.
These are the problems going unattended by the Obama administration while his aides and cabinet members have been wasting the nation's time making the rounds on television and Capitol Hill stumping for a profoundly unpopular war. The fact that all this chest-beating was for naught, and an easy solution seems on the horizon, belies the single-minded intensity that the Obama White House brought to its insistence on bombing Syria.
More than one wag has suggested, with the utmost reason, that if Obama had brought this kind of passion to domestic initiatives, the country would be in better condition right now. As it is, public policy is embarrassingly in shambles at home while the administration throws all of its resources and political capital behind a widely hated plan to get involved in a civil war overseas.
The upshot for the president may be that it's easier to wage war with a foreign power than go head-to-head with the US Congress, even as America suffers from neglect.
This is the paradox that President Obama is facing this fall, as he appears to turn his back on a number of crucial and urgent domestic initiatives in order to spend all of his meager political capital on striking Syria.
Syria does present a significant humanitarian crisis, which has been true for the past two years that the Obama administration has completely ignored the atrocities of Bashar al-Assad.
Two years is also roughly the same amount of time that key domestic initiatives have also gone ignored as Obama and Congress engage in petty battles for dominance and leave the country to run itself on a starvation diet imposed by sequestration cuts. Leon Panetta tells the story of how he tried to lobby against sequestration only to be told:
Leon, you don't understand. The Congress is resigned to failure.
Similarly, those on Wall Street, the Federal Reserve, those working at government agencies, and voters themselves have become all too practiced at ignoring the determined incompetence of those in Washington.
Political capital – the ability to horse-trade and win political favors from a receptive audience – is a finite resource in Washington. Pursuing misguided policies takes up time, but it also eats up credibility in asking for the next favor. It's fair to say that congressional Republicans, particularly in the House, have no love for Obama and are likely to oppose anything he supports. That's exactly the reason the White House should stop proposing policies as if it is scattering buckshot and focus with intensity on the domestic tasks it wants to accomplish, one at a time.
Default will destroy the U.S. and global economy
Davidson, 9/10/13 – co-founder of NPR’s Planet Money (Adam, “Our Debt to Society” New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/magazine/our-debt-to-society.html?pagewanted=all)

If the debt ceiling isn’t lifted again this fall, some serious financial decisions will have to be made. Perhaps the government can skimp on its foreign aid or furlough all of NASA, but eventually the big-ticket items, like Social Security and Medicare, will have to be cut. At some point, the government won’t be able to pay interest on its bonds and will enter what’s known as sovereign default, the ultimate national financial disaster achieved by countries like Zimbabwe, Ecuador and Argentina (and now Greece). In the case of the United States, though, it won’t be an isolated national crisis. If the American government can’t stand behind the dollar, the world’s benchmark currency, then the global financial system will very likely enter a new era in which there is much less trade and much less economic growth. It would be, by most accounts, the largest self-imposed financial disaster in history.
Nearly everyone involved predicts that someone will blink before this disaster occurs. Yet a small number of House Republicans (one political analyst told me it’s no more than 20) appear willing to see what happens if the debt ceiling isn’t raised — at least for a bit. This could be used as leverage to force Democrats to drastically cut government spending and eliminate President Obama’s signature health-care-reform plan. In fact, Representative Tom Price, a Georgia Republican, told me that the whole problem could be avoided if the president agreed to drastically cut spending and lower taxes. Still, it is hard to put this act of game theory into historic context. Plenty of countries — and some cities, like Detroit — have defaulted on their financial obligations, but only because their governments ran out of money to pay their bills. No wealthy country has ever voluntarily decided — in the middle of an economic recovery, no less — to default. And there’s certainly no record of that happening to the country that controls the global reserve currency.
Like many, I assumed a self-imposed U.S. debt crisis might unfold like most involuntary ones. If the debt ceiling isn’t raised by X-Day, I figured, the world’s investors would begin to see America as an unstable investment and rush to sell their Treasury bonds. The U.S. government, desperate to hold on to investment, would then raise interest rates far higher, hurtling up rates on credit cards, student loans, mortgages and corporate borrowing — which would effectively put a clamp on all trade and spending. The U.S. economy would collapse far worse than anything we’ve seen in the past several years.

Nuclear war
Friedberg and Schoenfeld 8
Aaron, Prof. Politics. And IR @ Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School and Visiting Scholar @ Witherspoon Institute, and Gabriel, Senior Editor of Commentary and Wall Street Journal, “The Dangers of a Diminished America”, 10-28, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122455074012352571.html
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.

1nc – china disad
China’s sphere of influence in Mexico is high – the plan trades off
Fabens 8/14 (Isabella, Research Associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, 8/14/13, “CHINA’S LATEST INVESTMENTS IN MEXICO: THE PLIGHT OF MAQUILADORA WORKERS,” http://www.coha.org/chinas-latest-investments-in-mexico-the-plight-of-maquiladora-workers/)//DR. H

Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, in the course of a trip to Asia last April, initiated important trade discussions on a stopover in China. 1 In return, Chinese President Xi Jinping returned the courtesy during his visit to Mexico on June 4. 2 Mexico is attempting to reduce its trade deficit with China by exporting some of its natural resources. In return, China is stepping up its role in Latin America as a major consumer of primary products. President Xi’s plans include potential investments in the hydrocarbon and natural gas sectors of the Mexican economy. There is every reason to believe that increased trade between the countries will augment Mexico’s economic growth. The trouble is that, to date, there has been no real consideration given to working conditions in Mexican facilities owned by U.S. companies, which too often pay their workers a low wage and overlook the unsafe conditions under which their employees labor.
Mexico and China   
Formal relations between Mexico and China began in 1972 when Mexican President Luis Echeverría Álvarez (1970-1976) established diplomatic ties with the Asian nation. 3 Tensions flared in 2011, however, when Mexican President Felipe Calderón Hinojosa (2006-2012) hosted the Dalai Lama in Mexico City, as China has always considered Tibet to be under its jurisdiction. 4
Since President Peña Nieto took office on December 1, 2012, he has attempted to rebuild bilateral relations with China and to promote economic growth through heightened foreign investment in natural resources. For his part, President Xi hopes to gain influence in Mexico and elsewhere in the region, as the United States and China move into competition for economic hegemony. 5 In response, Washington has launched a somewhat half-hearted effort to establish closer relations with key Asian countries known to be engines of growth. 6 China seems to be winning this competition, moving forward to achieve important economic victories in Mexico, Latin America’s second largest economy.

Chinese influence is key to its economy.
Arnson et al. ‘9 (Cynthia Anderson, Mark Mohr, Riordan Roett, writers for Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, “Enter the Dragon? China’s Presence in Latin America”, http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/EnterDragonFinal.pdf) (JN)

China’s role in Latin America is, above all, based on trade, despite U.S. concerns about China’s  military in?uence in Latin America. The major exception to this rule is Cuba, for which China  represents a political relationship as well as one based on economic interests. Although Venezuelan  authorities may also prefer that its relationship with China have political as well as economic dimensions, it is not clear that China has the same expectations of its relationship with Venezuela. To China, Latin America represents a signi?cant source of the necessary natural resources  that will help China maintain its economic growth. Due primarily to trade with China, Latin America’s trade volume grew from $2.8 billion in 1988 to $49 billion in 2005. Also, and as publicly announced, China intends to surpass $180 billion in trade with Latin America by 2010, not only due to the country’s need for natural resources, but also as a result of China’s intention to diversify and expand its markets in the region. Thus, Latin America represents a substantial market for Chinese goods.

Weak economy is the only incentive for aggressive foreign policy and great power involvement.
Chuang 2001 (Major Liow Boon, Singapore Armed Forces, Pointer (The Journal of Singapore’s Armed Forces), “A Weak or Strong China: Which Is Better for the Asia-Pacific Region?” Volume 27, Number 1, January-March,
http://www.mindef.gov.sg/safti/pointer/back/journals/2001/Vol27_1/7.htm)

'In the past, a weak China, beset by social disorder, inflation and civil war attracted foreign intervention by the great powers. The result was turbulence and instability inside China and at its borders'. China was invaded twice and suffered from several decades of civil wars and occupation by Japan.25 A loosening of China's political system has already been brought about by economic liberalization, more will follow as communications and education improve with economic growth. Indeed, lessons from Europe and the Soviet Union have taught that a rapid political liberalization unsupported by economic growth can easily lead to social disintegration, which if it divides China, will jeopardize the stability of the whole Asia-Pacific.26 Slow growth of the economy could increase the level of social discontent that would result in political instability. Chinese leaders will attempt to implement the structural reforms necessary to provide a sound framework for sustained future economic growth while minimising political unrest. China's leadership understand that for China to achieve great power status, economic power with a commensurate amount of military power will be the key.
It is commonly asserted that national leaders who are unable to overcome domestic difficulties sometimes pursue an aggressively extroverted foreign policy to distract their people from the problems at home. Samuel S. Kim seems to have this idea in mind when he argues that 'Today the main danger to the peace and stability of the Asia-Pacific region stems more from China's domestic weakness than from its external assertiveness a weak, reactive, insecure and fragmenting China is more unpredictable and dangerous than a strong, confident and cohesive China.'27
There are already signs of unrest and secessionist movements in China, and if China is weak economically and governed by a weak government that does not handle these problems well, an internal break-up could occur and it could precipitate the fall of the country. Controlling the widening income gap between city dwellers and peasants is one pressing problem the Chinese government has to tackle, and keeping the secessionist movement of Muslims in Xinjiang Province and the banned Falungong cult under control are some urgent tasks.

1nc – t
Engagement towards a government must be conditional, the plan isn’t.
Haass and O’Sullivan, 2k - *Vice President and Director of Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution AND a Fellow with the Foreign Policy Studies Program at the Brookings Institution (Richard and Meghan, “Terms of Engagement: Alternatives to Punitive Policies” Survival _{vol. 42, no. 2, Summer 2000, http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/articles/2000/6/summer20haass/2000survival.pdf}

Many different types of engagement strategies exist, depending on who is engaged, the kind of incentives employed and the sorts of objectives pursued. Engagement may be conditional when it entails a negotiated series of exchanges, such as where the US extends positive inducements for changes undertaken by the target country. Or engagement may be unconditional if it offers modifications in US policy towards a country without the explicit expectation that a reciprocal act will follow. Generally, conditional engagement is geared towards a government; unconditional engagement works with a country’s civil society or private sector in the hopes of promoting forces that will eventually facilitate cooperation.
Its means ownership.
Glossary of English Grammar Terms, 05  
(http://www.usingenglish.com/glossary/possessive-pronoun.html)

Mine, yours, his, hers, its, ours, theirs are the possessive pronouns used to substitute a noun and to show possession or ownership.
EG. This is your disk and that's mine. (Mine substitutes the word disk and shows that it belongs to me.)

Voter – for limits and ground – engagement is a huge mechanism; requiring the affirmative to use a predictable mechanism like a quid pro quo is essential for disad links and critiques of attaching strings – view this debate through competing interpretations.

1nc kritik – generic

The intersection between economic engagement and neoliberalism is the root cause of the current economic crisis—it ushers in an unsustainable model of debt-driven growth.
Palley, PhD in economics from Yale, 10 (Thomas, MA in IR from Yale, and a BA from Oxford, “AMERICA’S EXHAUSTED PARADIGM: MACROECONOMIC CAUSES OF THE FINANCIAL CRISIS AND GREAT RECESSION”, New School Economic Review, Volume 4(1), 2010: 15-43, ZBurdette)

This paper traces the roots of the current financial crisis to a faulty U.S. macroeconomic paradigm. One flaw in this paradigm was the neoliberal growth model adopted after 1980 that relied on debt and asset price inflation to drive demand in place of wage growth. A second flaw was the model of U.S. engagement with the global economy that created a triple economic hemorrhage of spending on imports, manufacturing job losses, and off-shoring of investment. Financial deregulation and financial excess are important parts of the story, but they are not the ultimate cause of the crisis. These developments contributed significantly to the housing bubble but they were a necessary part of the neoliberal model, their function being to fuel demand growth by making ever larger amounts of credit easily available. As the neoliberal model slowly cannibalized itself by undermining income distribution and accumulating debt, the economy needed larger speculative bubbles to grow. The flawed model of global engagement accelerated the cannibalization process, thereby creating need for a huge bubble that only housing could provide. However, when that bubble burst it pulled down the entire economy because of the bubble’s massive dependence on debt. The old postWorld War II growth model based on rising middle-class incomes has been dismantled, while the new neoliberal growth model has imploded. The United States needs a new economic paradigm and a new growth model, but as yet this challenge has received little attention from policymakers or economists.

Neoliberal engagement of Latin America results in a laundry list of tear-invoking events.
Makwana 06 (Rajesh, STWR, 23rd November 06, http://www.stwr.org/globalization/neoliberalism-and-economic-globalization.html, ZBurdette)

Neoliberalism and Economic Globalization
The goal of neoliberal economic globalization is the removal of all barriers to commerce, and the privatization of all available resources and services. In this scenario, public life will be at the mercy of market forces, as the extracted profits benefit the few, writes Rajesh Makwana.
The thrust of international policy behind the phenomenon of economic globalization is neoliberal in nature. Being hugely profitable to corporations and the wealthy elite, neoliberal polices are propagated through the IMF, World Bank and WTO. Neoliberalism favours the free-market as the most efficient method of global resource allocation. Consequently it favours large-scale, corporate commerce and the privatization of resources.
There has been much international attention recently on neoliberalism. Its ideologies have been rejected by influential countries in Latin America and its moral basis is now widely questioned. Recent protests against the WTO, IMF and World Bank were essentially protests against the neoliberal policies that these organizations implement, particularly in low-income countries.
The neoliberal experiment has failed to combat extreme poverty, has exacerbated global inequality, and is hampering international aid and development efforts. This article presents an overview of neoliberalism and its effect on low income countries.
Introduction
After the Second World War, corporate enterprises helped to create a wealthy class in society which enjoyed excessive political influence on their government in the US and Europe. Neoliberalism surfaced as a reaction by these wealthy elites to counteract post-war policies that favoured the working class and strengthened the welfare state.
Neoliberal policies advocate market forces and commercial activity as the most efficient methods for producing and supplying goods and services. At the same time they shun the role of the state and discourage government intervention into economic, financial and even social affairs. The process of economic globalization is driven by this ideology; removing borders and barriers between nations so that market forces can drive the global economy. The policies were readily taken up by governments and still continue to pervade classical economic thought, allowing corporations and affluent countries to secure their financial advantage within the world economy.
The policies were most ardently enforced in the US and Europe in the1980s during the Regan–Thatcher–Kohl era. These leaders believed that expanding the free-market and private ownership would create greater economic efficiency and social well-being. The resulting deregulation, privatization and the removal of border restrictions provided fertile ground for corporate activity, and over the next 25 years corporations grew rapidly in size and influence. Corporations are now the most productive economic units in the world, more so than most countries. With their huge financial, economic and political leverage, they continue to further their neoliberal objectives.
There is a consensus between the financial elite, neoclassical economists and the political classes in most countries that neoliberal policies will create global prosperity. So entrenched is their position that this view determines the policies of the international agencies (IMF, World Bank and WTO), and through them dictates the functioning of the global economy. Despite reservations from within many UN agencies, neoliberal policies are accepted by most development agencies as the most likely means of reducing poverty and inequality in the poorest regions.
There is a huge discrepancy between the measurable result of economic globalization and its proposed benefits. Neoliberal policies have unarguably generated massive wealth for some people, but most crucially, they have been unable to benefit those living in extreme poverty who are most in need of financial aid. Excluding China, annual economic growth in developing countries between 1960 and 1980 was 3.2. This dropped drastically between 1980 and 2000 to a mere 0.7 . This second period is when neoliberalism was most prevalent in global economic policy. (Interestingly, China was not following the neoliberal model during these periods, and its economic growth per capita grew to over 8 between 1980 and 2000.)
Neoliberalism has also been unable to address growing levels of global inequality. Over the last 25 years, the income inequalities have increased dramatically, both within and between countries. Between 1980 and 1998, the income of richest 10 as share of poorest 10 became 19 more unequal; and the income of richest 1 as share of poorest 1 became 77 more unequal (again, not including China).
The shortcomings of neoliberal policy are also apparent in the well documented economic disasters suffered by countries in Latin America and South Asia in the 1990s. These countries were left with no choice but to follow the neoliberal model of privatization and deregulation, due to their financial problems and pressure from the IMF. Countries such as Venezuela, Cuba, Argentina and Bolivia have since rejected foreign corporate control and the advice of the IMF and World Bank. Instead they have favoured a redistribution of wealth, the re-nationalization of industry and have prioritized the provision of healthcare and education. They are also sharing resources such as oil and medical expertise throughout the region and with other countries around the world.
The dramatic economic and social improvement seen in these countries has not stopped them from being demonized by the US. Cuba is a well known example of this propaganda. Deemed to be a danger to ‘freedom and the American way of life’, Cuba has been subject to intense US political, economic and military pressure in order to tow the neoliberal line. Washington and the mainstream media in the US have recently embarked on a similar propaganda exercise aimed at Venezuela’s president Chavez.  This over-reaction by Washington to ‘economic nationalism’ is consistent with their foreign policy objectives which have not changed significantly for the past 150 years. Securing resources and economic dominance has been and continues to be the USA’s main economic objective.
According to Maria Páez Victor:
“Since 1846 the United States has carried out no fewer than 50 military invasions and destabilizing operations involving 12 different Latin American countries. Yet, none of these countries has ever had the capacity to threaten US security in any significant way.  The US intervened because of perceived threats to its economic control and expansion.  For this reason it has also supported some of the region’s most vicious dictators such as Batista, Somoza, Trujillo, and Pinochet.”
As a result of corporate and US influence, the key international bodies that developing countries are forced to turn to for assistance, such as the World Bank and IMF, are major exponents of the neoliberal agenda. The WTO openly asserts its intention to improve global business opportunities; the IMF is heavily influenced by the Wall Street and private financiers, and the World Bank ensures corporations benefit from development project contracts. They all gain considerably from the neo-liberal model.
So influential are corporations at this time that many of the worst violators of human rights have even entered a Global Compact with the United Nations, the world’s foremost humanitarian body. Due to this international convergence of economic ideology, it is no coincidence that the assumptions that are key to increasing corporate welfare and growth are the same assumptions that form the thrust of mainstream global economic policy.
However, there are huge differences between the neoliberal dogma that the US and EU dictate to the world and the policies that they themselves adopt. Whilst fiercely advocating the removal of barriers to trade, investment and employment, The US economy remains one of the most protected in the world. Industrialized nations only reached their state of economic development by fiercely protecting their industries from foreign markets and investment. For economic growth to benefit developing countries, the international community must be allowed to nurture their infant industries. Instead economically dominant countries are ‘kicking away the ladder’ to achieving development by imposing an ideology that suits their own economic needs.
The US and EU also provide huge subsidies to many sectors of industry. These devastate small industries in developing countries, particularly farmers who cannot compete with the price of subsidized goods in international markets. Despite their neoliberal rhetoric, most ‘capitalist’ countries have increased their levels of state intervention over the past 25 years, and the size of their government has increased. The requirement is to ‘do as I say, not as I do’.
Given the tiny proportion of individuals that benefit from neoliberal policies, the chasm between what is good for the economy and what serves the public good is growing fast. Decisions to follow these policies are out of the hands of the public, and the national sovereignty of many developing countries continues to be violated, preventing them from prioritizing urgent national needs.
Below we examine the false assumptions of neoliberal policies and their effect on the global economy.
Economic Growth
Economic growth, as measured in GDP, is the yardstick of economic globalization which is fiercely pursued by multinationals and countries alike. It is the commercial activity of the tiny portion of multinational corporations that drives economic growth in industrialized nations. Two hundred corporations account for a third of global economic growth. Corporate trade currently accounts for over 50 of global economic growth and as much as 75 of GDP in the EU. The proportion of trade to GDP continues to grow, highlighting the belief that economic growth is the only way to prosper a country and reduce poverty.
Logically, however, a model for continual financial growth is unsustainable. Corporations have to go to extraordinary lengths in order to reflect endless growth in their accounting books. As a result, finite resources are wasted and the environment is dangerously neglected. The equivalent of two football fields of natural forest is cleared each second by profit hungry corporations.
Economic growth is also used by the World Bank and government economists to measure progress in developing countries. But, whilst economic growth clearly does have benefits, the evidence strongly suggests that these benefits do not trickle down to the 986 million people living in extreme poverty, representing 18 percent of the world population (World Bank, 2007). Nor has economic growth addressed inequality and income distribution. In addition, accurate assessments of both poverty levels and the overall benefits of economic growth have proved impossible due to the inadequacy of the statistical measures employed.
The mandate for economic growth is the perfect platform for corporations which, as a result, have grown rapidly in their economic activity, profitability and political influence. Yet this very model is also the cause of the growing inequalities seen across the globe. The privatization of resources and profits by the few at the expense of the many, and the inability of the poorest people to afford market prices, are both likely causes.
Free Trade
Free trade is the foremost demand of neoliberal globalization. In its current form, it simply translates as greater access to emerging markets for corporations and their host nations. These demands are contrary to the original assumptions of free trade as affluent countries adopt and maintain protectionist measures. Protectionism allows a nation to strengthen its industries by levying taxes and quotas on imports, thus increasing their own industrial capacity, output and revenue. Subsidies in the US and EU allow corporations to keep their prices low, effectively pushing smaller producers in developing countries out of the market and impeding development.
With this self interest driving globalization, economically powerful nations have created a global trading regime with which they can determine the terms of trade.
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the US, Canada, and Mexico is an example of free-market fundamentalism that gives corporations legal rights at the expense of national sovereignty. Since its implementation it has caused job loss, undermined labour rights, privatized essential services, increased inequality and caused environmental destruction.
In Europe only 5 of EU citizens work in agriculture, generating just 1.6 of EU GDP compared to more than 50 of citizens in developing countries. However, the European Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) provides subsidies to EU farmers to the tune of £30 billion, 80 of which goes to only 20 of farmers to guarantee their viability, however inefficient this may be.
The General Agreement on Trade and Services (GATS) was agreed at the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1994. Its aim is to remove any restrictions and internal government regulations that are considered to be "barriers to trade". The agreement effectively abolishes a government’s sovereign right to regulate subsidies and provide essential national services on behalf of its citizens. The Trade Related agreement on International Property Rights (TRIPS) forces developing countries to extend property rights to seeds and plant varieties. Control over these resources and services are instead granted to corporate interests through the GATS and TRIPS framework.
These examples represent modern free trade which is clearly biased in its approach. It fosters corporate globalization at the expense of local economies, the environment, democracy and human rights. The primary beneficiaries of international trade are large, multinational corporations who fiercely lobby at all levels of national and global governance to further the free trade agenda.
Liberalization
The World Bank, IMF and WTO have been the main portals for implementing the neoliberal agenda on a global scale. Unlike the United Nations, these institutions are over-funded, continuously lobbied by corporations, and are politically and financially dominated by Washington, Wall Street, corporations and their agencies. As a result, the key governance structures of the global economy have been primed to serve the interests of this group, and market liberalization has been another of their key policies.
According to neoliberal ideology, in order for international trade to be ‘free’ all markets should be open to competition, and market forces should determine economic relationships. But the overall result of a completely open and free market is of course market dominance by corporate heavy-weights. The playing field is not even; all developing countries are at a great financial and economic disadvantage and simply cannot compete.
Liberalization, through Structural Adjustment Programs, forces poorer countries to open their markets to foreign products which largely destroys local industries. It creates dependency upon commodities which have artificially low prices as they are heavily subsidized by economically dominant nations. Financial liberalization removes barriers to currency speculation from abroad. The resulting rapid inflow and outflow of currencies is often responsible for acute financial and economic crisis in many developing countries. At the same time, foreign speculators and large financial firms make huge gains. Market liberalization poses a clear economic risk; hence the EU and US heavily protect their own markets.
A liberalized global market provides corporations with new resources to capitalize and new markets to exploit. Neoliberal dominance over global governance structures has enforced access to these markets. Under WTO agreements, a sovereign country cannot interfere with a corporation’s intentions to trade even if their operations go against domestic environmental and employment guidelines. Those governments that do stand up for their sovereign rights are frequently sued by corporations for loss of profit, and even loss of potential profit. Without this pressure they would have been able to stimulate domestic industry and self sufficiency, thereby reducing poverty. They would then be in a better position to compete in international markets.

Our alternative is to reject the aff to create space for alternatives to neoliberal engagement.
Munck, professor of Globalization and Social Exclusion, 3 (Ronaldo, Department of Sociology, Social Policy and Social Work Studies and Globalisation and Social Exclusion Unit, University of Liverpool, “Neoliberalism, necessitarianism and alternatives in Latin America: there is no alternative (TINA)?”, Third World Quarterly, Vol 24, No 3, pp 495–511, 2003, http://www-e.uni-magdeburg.de/evans/Journal20Library/Trade20and20Countries/Neoliberalism,20necessitarianism20and20alternatives20in20Latin20America.pdf, ZBurdette)

Taking as its point of departure the position that there are or must be alternatives to neoliberalism, this article explores the issue in relation to some examples from Latin America. The 2001–02 virtual collapse of the economy of Argentina and the recent victory of Workers Party candidate, Lula, in Brazil highlight, in very different ways, the need for a viable alternative democratic economic strategy for Latin America. Many progressive analysts seem to be paralysed by a false ‘necessitarianism’ which grants more coherence and solidity to the neoliberal project than it merits. Argentina puts paid to that illusion. Will the exciting experience of Porto Alegre’s ‘participatory budget’ in Brazil now be scaled up to the national level or does ‘globalisation’ block this option? Do the old questions of imperialism and dependency now come to the fore again after being left dormant under the spell of globalisation? We may not have all the answers yet but Latin America is back in the foreground of thinking and practice around alternative economic theories.
There is no alternative (TINA) was an oft-repeated expression of Margaret Thatcher’s, used to dismiss any plausible alternatives to her brand of hard-nosed neoliberalism. One imagines that her friend General Pinochet, with whom she shared tea during his enforced stay in London, would agree with her. What is more surprising is the influence the TINA philosophy has had on social science analysis of neoliberalism in Latin America since Pinochet. What I propose is a radically anti-necessitarian approach to neoliberalism, inspired by the work of Roberto Mangabeira Unger. Things are not always how they are because they have to be so. There is life beyond neoliberalism. There are alternatives taking shape all the time at all levels of society in Latin America. The so-called Washington Consensus is no longer so consensual even in Washington and there is growing recognition that globalisation requires global governance. We therefore need to return to the rise of neoliberalism and globalisation in a nonnecessitarian spirit and examine the whole horizon of possibilities that is now opening up in Latin America as elsewhere. If the virtual collapse of Argentina in 2001–02 shows that ‘actually existing’ neoliberalism simply does not work even on its own terms, the exciting but also challenging prospects now opening up in Brazil under Lula underline the urgency of developing a credible and viable alternative to its policies.

1nc – cp
Text: All relevant states and territories should substantially increase its investment in surface transportation infrastructure, deploy large-scale atmospheric carbon-capture systems to address global emissions, construct and maintain self-sufficient, global, remote, permanently occupied refuges meant to protect humanity from extinction events, support the cultivation and distribution of natural history collections modeled on the Darwin Initiative.

The counterplan solves for warming – new polyethylenimine material discoveries make it possible
Dillow 12 – staff writer, Popular Science (Jan 2012, Clay, http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-01/new-material-can-pull-carbon-dioxide-right-out-air-unprecedented-rates)JCP

If cleaning carbon dioxide from the atmosphere was easy, we’d already be doing it. But carbon capture has proven to be a tough technology to feasibly roll out on a grand scale, and that means all the things we do that produce carbon dioxide emissions--which seems to be just about everything these days--are still roughly as bad for the planet as they were several years ago. That’s a problem in a warming world, and one that a team of researchers may have just found a solution for via an inexpensive polymeric material.
Reporting their findings in the Journal of the American Chemical Society, the team (which includes a Nobel laureate in chemistry) descirbes a new solid material based on polyethylenimine that can be used to capture carbon dioxide at the source--be that an industrial smokestack or a car’s exhaust pipe--under real-world conditions where the air contains moisture.
Science, Clay Dillow, carbon capture, carbon dioxide, carbon sequestration, energy, environment, greenhouse gas emissionsThat last part is important. Previous methods of scrubbing CO2 from the air have enjoyed varying degrees of success (usually under controlled conditions), but none has been particularly effective in the presence of humidity. The new material, which is inexpensive and readily available, has shown some of the highest carbon dioxide removal rates of any material ever tested in the presence of humidity.
It’s also reusable. After capturing carbon, the material also gives it up easily so it can be sequestered or recycled through the manufacture of other substances. The polyethylenimine material can then also be reused over and over again to capture more carbon dioxide. Used to line smokestacks or even out in the open atmosphere, the material could blunt the impact of all of those things we humans do that are contributing to the carbon glut in the atmosphere.

History plank solves.
James et al 11, Postdoctoral researcher at the Natural History Museum in London,  February,  Karen E. James, Adrian M. Lister, Ellinor Michel, Mark Spencer, Jonathan A. Todd, Eugenia Valsami-Jones, Jeremy R. Young, John R. Stewart, Climate Change and Biosphere Response: Unlocking the Collections Vault
 
Over the past few decades, ecologists have been using data from repeated surveys, time-series stations, and other monitoring activities to study the biotic response to climate change (e.g., Eggleton et al. 2009). Such surveys are the most powerful tools we have for finding correlations between biotic changes and climate change; however, the numbers of these surveys and their duration have been limited, and funding has often been intermittent. For many questions, data of this type are simply unavailable, and alternative sources of data must be creatively repurposed. Historical records provide a second source of temporal information on biotic change; these include diaries and memoirs, collection logs, official catch or hunting records, personal memories, ships’ logs, photographs, and paintings and other images of landscapes or biota. Such sources recently have been mined for information in ways previously unexplored (Wheeler and García-Herrera 2008). Natural history collections (NHCs), held worldwide in museums and research institutions, provide a third valu- able set of resources for climate change research (Pyke and Ehrlich 2010). These collections hold billions of specimens collected over the past two centuries, each potentially wit- ness to past ecological conditions and irrefutable evidence of historical biogeographic distributions (Krishtalka and Humphrey 2000). These collections have evolved ad hoc in response to changing institutional collecting priorities. Most were assembled to serve research in taxonomy, sys- tematics, and biogeography, and were supplemented by material obtained through the opportunistic acquisition of donations, rescue of orphaned collections, and purchase of specimens for exhibition. This history presents opportuni- ties and barriers to the use of NHCs in research on biotic response to climate change. One advantage is that NHCs typically have broad taxonomic and geographic coverage, and often include material obtained through repeated col- lecting over long periods using a variety of methods. These complementary collections are usually held by multiple institutions and will require enhanced tools for discovery and integration. Existing NHCs can possibly provide a more complete sampling of biotic diversity than other sources; some examples of NHC resources are published systematic works and floral and faunal lists, unpublished reports, new survey observations, or new collections (Mikkelsen and Bieler 2000). Moreover, study of NHCs can inform the need for new surveys and suggest areas to be resampled, informa- tion that is invaluable when resources are limited and the need for results is urgent.

CP prevents the worst effects of warming.
Matheny 07 Jason G., Research Associate at the Future of Human Institute at Oxford University, Ph.D. Candidate in Applied Economics at Johns Hopkins University, holds a Master’s in Public Health from the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University and an M.B.A. from the Fuqua School of Business at Duke University, 2007 (“Reducing the Risk of Human Extinction,” Risk Analysis, Volume 27, Issue 5, October, Available Online at http://jgmatheny.org/matheny_extinction_risk.htm, Accessed 07-04-2011)

Perhaps more cost effective than building refuges in space would be building them on Earth. Elaborate bunkers exist for government leaders to occupy during a nuclear war (McCamley, 2007). And remote facilities are planned to protect crop seeds from "nuclear war, asteroid strikes, and climate change" (Hopkin, 2007). But I k now of no self-sufficient, remote, permanently occupied refuge meant to protect humanity from a range of possible extinction events. Hanson (2007) argues that a refuge permanently housing as few as 100 people would significantly improve the chances of human survival during a range of global catastrophes. The Americas and Polynesia were originally populated by fewer than 100 founders (Hey, 2005 ; Murray-McIntosh et al., 1998 ). Although it would take thousands of years for 100 people to repopulate Earth, this would be a small setback compared to extinction.

Domestic transportation infrastructure is key to manufacturing.
Council on Competitiveness 12, 2/29/12, “Report on the U.S. Manufacturing Competitiveness Initiative: Dialogue on Next Generation Supply
Networks and Logistics,” Georgia Tech, pdf)DR. H

From a supply chain standpoint, the most visible impediment to expanding America’s global manufacturing and export capacity is the growing inadequacy of its infrastructure. An estimated one in four of the nation’s 152,000 bridges is in need of repair. The U.S. ranks twenty-fourth in the world among trade-competitive nations in terms of infrastructure quality; the Society of Civil Engineers gives the nation’s roads and bridges a D grade.
The interstate highway system is the backbone of the trucking industry, which moves 97 percent of all consumer goods and 70 percent of all goods by weight. But highways and bridges are in a state of serious disrepair, producing time-wasting bottlenecks and traffic congestion. These conditions slow down the movement of raw materials and finished products, placing competitive restraints on manufacturing and economic growth. Moreover, the highway and rail networks are not growing—even as the population increases. Besides adding to congestion problems, this means the current transportation network is not aligned with shifts in population and manufacturing centers.
1nc – warming
no internal link—border infrastructure is not technical assistance for renewables—just because a card mentions NADbank doesn’t mean they actually reduce CO2

Squo solves
Meyer 13 – Analyst in Latin American affairs for the Congressional Research Service (Peter J. Meyer, “Brazil-US Relations”, Congressional Research Service, 2/27/13,  https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33456.pdf)//js

Energy has been another important area of U.S.-Brazilian cooperation in recent years. Brazil is widely regarded as a world leader in energy policy for successfully reducing its reliance on foreign oil through the development of alternative energy resources and increased domestic production. In addition to being the world’s second-largest producer of ethanol (after the United States), Brazil currently generates 85 of its electricity through hydropower. Brazil also has recently discovered large offshore oil deposits that have the potential to turn the country into a major oil and gas producer and an important source of energy for the United States.106 To facilitate greater cooperation in the development of safe, secure, and affordable energy, President Obama and President Rousseff launched a Strategic Energy Dialogue in March 2011. Ethanol and Other Biofuels107 Brazil stands out as an example of a country that has become a net exporter of energy, partially by increasing its use and production of ethanol. In 1975, in response to sharp increases in global oil prices, the Brazilian government began a national program to promote the production and consumption of sugarcane ethanol. Brazil now produces some 390,000 barrels per day.108 Within Brazil, pure ethanol is available at nearly every fueling station and gasoline is required to include a 20 ethanol blend. About 90 of new cars sold in Brazil each year are fitted with “flex-fuel” engines capable of running on fuel blends ranging from pure ethanol to pure gasoline. As a result, ethanol accounts for over half of all fuel pumped in Brazil.109 On March 9, 2007, the United States and Brazil, the world’s two largest ethanol-producing countries, signed a memorandum of understanding to promote  greater cooperation on ethanol and biofuels. The agreement involves (1) technology sharing between the United States and Brazil; (2) feasibility studies and technical assistance to build domestic biofuels industries in third countries; and (3) multilateral efforts to advance the global development of biofuels.110 Over the past six years, the United States and Brazil have moved forward on all three facets of the agreement. Presidents Obama and Rousseff signed onto a partnership agreement for the development of aviation biofuels in March 2011,111 and in October 2011, Boeing and Brazil’s Embraer announced plans to build a joint research center.112 Brazil and the United States have also worked together in a number of Latin American, Caribbean, and African countries. In March 2011, Presidents Obama and Rousseff agreed to commit $3 million to support the development of legal regimes and domestic biofuels production in the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, and Senegal.113 Additionally, the United States and Brazil are working with other members of the International Biofuels Forum (IBF) to make biofuels standards and codes more uniform. Brazil and the United States have taken steps to liberalize trade in ethanol over the past year. In December 2011, the Brazilian government issued a resolution to extend its duty-free treatment of imported ethanol until December 31, 2015.114 Similarly, the U.S. Congress allowed a 54-cent-pergallon duty on imported ethanol to expire at the end of 2011. Prior to its expiration, the duty served as a significant barrier to direct imports of Brazilian ethanol in most years. Although some Brazilian ethanol was allowed to enter the United States duty-free after being reprocessed in Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI) countries, such imports could only account for up to 7 of the U.S. ethanol market. A 2.5 ad valorem tariff on ethanol imports to the United States remains in place permanently unless the Harmonized Tariff Schedule code is changed.

plan can’t solve—their Passell evidence describes subsidizing renewables RandD, at best the plan is just technical assistance
Warming won’t cause extinction
NIPCC 11 – Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change. Surviving the unprecedented climate change of the IPCC. 8 March 2011. http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2011/mar/8mar2011a5.html

In a paper published in Systematics and Biodiversity, Willis et al. (2010) consider the IPCC (2007) "predicted climatic changes for the next century" -- i.e., their contentions that "global temperatures will increase by 2-4°C and possibly beyond, sea levels will rise (1 m ± 0.5 m), and atmospheric CO2will increase by up to 1000 ppm" -- noting that it is "widely suggested that the magnitude and rate of these changes will result in many plants and animals going extinct," citing studies that suggest that "within the next century, over 35 of some biota will have gone extinct (Thomas et al., 2004; Solomon et al., 2007) and there will be extensive die-back of the tropical rainforest due to climate change (e.g. Huntingford et al., 2008)." On the other hand, they indicate that some biologists and climatologists have pointed out that "many of the predicted increases in climate have happened before, in terms of both magnitude and rate of change (e.g. Royer, 2008; Zachos et al., 2008), and yet biotic communities have remained remarkably resilient (Mayle and Power, 2008) and in some cases thrived (Svenning and Condit, 2008)." But they report that those who mention these things are often "placed in the 'climate-change denier' category," although the purpose for pointing out these facts is simply to present "a sound scientific basis for understanding biotic responses to the magnitudes and rates of climate change predicted for the future through using the vast data resource that we can exploit in fossil records." Going on to do just that, Willis et al. focus on "intervals in time in the fossil record when atmospheric CO2 concentrations increased up to 1200 ppm, temperatures in mid- to high-latitudes increased by greater than 4°C within 60 years, and sea levels rose by up to 3 m higher than present," describing studies of past biotic responses that indicate "the scale and impact of the magnitude and rate of such climate changes on biodiversity." And what emerges from those studies, as they describe it, "is evidence for rapid community turnover, migrations, development of novel ecosystems and thresholds from one stable ecosystem state to another." And, most importantly in this regard, they report "there is very little evidence for broad-scale extinctions due to a warming world." In concluding, the Norwegian, Swedish and UK researchers say that "based on such evidence we urge some caution in assuming broad-scale extinctions of species will occur due solely to climate changes of the magnitude and rate predicted for the next century," reiterating that "the fossil record indicates remarkable biotic resilience to wide amplitude fluctuations in climate."

Modeling impossible—developing countries don’t’ have transmission infrastructure for new forms of energy generation
Agricultural crises are creating global food shortages – that kills a billion people – increased CO2 is key to solve
Idso’s 11 – Sherwood PhD and former research physicist for the Department of Agriculture, Keith PhD Botany, Craig PhD Geography, 6/6/2011, “Meeting the Food Needs of a Growing World Population”,  http://www.co2science.org/articles/V14/N27/EDIT.php DHirsch

Parry and Hawkesford (2010) introduce their study of the global problem by noting that "food production needs to increase 50 by 2030 and double by 2050 to meet projected demands," and they note that at the same time the demand for food is increasing, production is progressively being limited by "non-food uses of crops and cropland," such as the production of biofuels, stating that in their homeland of the UK, "by 2015 more than a quarter of wheat grain may be destined for bioenergy production," which surely must strike one as both sad and strange, when they also note that "currently, at least one billion people are chronically malnourished and the situation is deteriorating," with more people "hungrier now than at the start of the millennium." So what to do about it: that is the question the two researchers broach in their review of the sad situation. They begin by describing the all-important process of photosynthesis, by which the earth's plants "convert light energy into chemical energy, which is used in the assimilation of atmospheric CO2 and the formation of sugars that fuel growth and yield," which phenomena make this natural and life-sustaining process, in their words, "a major target for improving crop productivity both via conventional breeding and biotechnology." Next to a plant's need for carbon dioxide comes its need for water, the availability of which, in the words of Parry and Hawkesford, "is the major constraint on world crop productivity." And they state that "since more than 80 of the world's available water is used for agricultural production, there is little opportunity to use additional water for crop production, especially because as populations increase, the demand to use water for other activities also increases." Hence, they rightly conclude that "a real and immediate challenge for agriculture is to increase crop production with less available water." Enlarging upon this challenge, they give an example of a success story: the Australian wheat variety 'Drysdale', which gained its fame "because it uses water more efficiently." This valued characteristic is achieved "by slightly restricting stomatal aperture and thereby the loss of water from the leaves." They note, however, that this ability "reduces photosynthetic performance slightly under ideal conditions," but they say it enables plants to "have access to water later in the growing season thereby increasing total photosynthesis over the life of the crop." Of course, Drysdale is but one variety of one crop; and the ideal goal would be to get nearly all varieties of all crops to use water more efficiently. And that goal can actually be reached by doing nothing, by merely halting the efforts of radical environmentalists to deny earth's carbon-based life forms -- that's all of us and the rest of the earth's plants and animals -- the extra carbon we and they need to live our lives to the fullest. This is because allowing the air's CO2content to rise in response to the burning of fossil fuels naturally causes the vast majority of earth's plants to progressively reduce the apertures of their stomata and thereby lower the rate at which water escapes through them to the air. And the result is even better than that produced by the breeding of Drysdale, because the extra CO2 in the airmore than overcomes the photosynthetic reduction that results from the partial closure of plant stomatal apertures, allowing even more yield to be produced per unit of water transpired in the process. Yet man can make the situation better still, by breeding and selecting crop varieties that perform better under higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations than the varieties we currently rely upon, or he can employ various technological means of altering them to do so. Truly, we can succeed, even where "the United Nations Millennium Development Goal of substantially reducing the world's hungry by 2015 will not be met," as Parry and Hawkesford accurately inform us. And this truly seems to us the moral thing to do, when "at least one billion people are chronically malnourished and the situation is deteriorating," with more people "hungrier now than at the start of the millennium." 

warming inevitable—their Hanseon evidence from 2008, indicates that CO2 will remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years

Elevated CO2 key to cotton
Kakani et al 04 – Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, and USDA UV-B Monitoring and Research Program, Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory, Colorado State University, Fort Collins (Vijaya Gopal Kakani, Kambham Raja Reddy, Duli Zhao and Wei Gao, 2004, “Senescence and hyperspectral reflectance of cotton leaves exposed to
ultraviolet-B radiation and carbon dioxide”, PHYSIOLOGIA PLANTARUM 121: 250–257. 2004, pubmed.gov | JJ)

Considerable growth and developmental variations occur in plants exposed to UV-B radiation and atmospheric CO2 . Selection of leaves from a plant at different node positions provided us with leaves that differed in age, and the leaves at same node in different treatments enabled us to study the effect of different intensities of UV-B radiation and CO2  on leaves of the same age. In cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L. cv. DES119), Sassenrath-Cole et al. (1996) found that changes in leaf photosynthetic responses to light environment during leaf ageing were solely as a result of physiological changes within the senescing leaf and not the result of photon flux density environment or shading. Decline in photosynthesis and chlorophyll are early symptoms of senescence, with chloroplasts as one of the primary targets for degradation (Thomas and Stoddart 1980, Grove and Mohanty 1992). In cotton, remobilization of leaf N to reproductive organs appears to be the principle component leading to photosynthetic decline (Pettigrew et al. 2000) and the data also suggest that environmental factors can play a role in causing the photosynthetic decline. In our study, atmospheric CO2  did not alter the senescence as indicated by Pn and chlorophyll pigments. Elevated CO2 , however, increased Pn by 35 similar to that recorded in earlier studies in well-watered and well fertilized conditions (Reddy et al. 1997, 2000). In this study, at 0 kJ of UV-B and with increase in leafage, a decrease in Pn was recorded with no change in chlorophyll pigments indicating that decline in Pn is a stimulant for leaf senescence in cotton. The photosynthesis activity below a certain threshold level is known to induce leaf senescence (Smart 1994, Dai et al. 1999). Hensel et al. (1993) postulated that a decrease in photosynthesis efficiency reduces sugar levels that may be an early signal for induction of senescence. In the current study, near ambient UV-B radiation (7.7 kJ) reduced the Pn of30day-old leaves by 50 compared with that at 0 kJ UV-B radiation. In detached maize leaves, senescence induced loss of chlorophyll and photosynthesis was significantly enhanced by UV-B radiation (Biswal et al. 1997). Under high UV-B of15.1 kJ, the 12-day-old leaves had Pn on par with the 30-day-old leaves in the control treatment. The 21-day-old leaves exposed to high UV-B were on par with the 30-day-old leaves exposed to ambient and high UV-B, suggesting that these leaves were in a similar senescence phase as a result of their exposure to UV-B radiation. Thus, the UV-B radiation resulted in accelerated leaf ageing.

Cotton’s key to the Pakistani economy – we control uniqueness
Nadeem et al, 10 - Department o f Agronomy, University o f Agriculture, Faisalabad , Pakistan, 1 = University College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences , Islamia University, Bahawalpur , Pakistan (Muhammad Ather Nadeem, Asghar Ali, Muhammad Tahir , Muhammad Naeem 1 , Asim Raza Chadhar and Sagheer Ahmad, 2010, “Effect of Nitrogen Levels and Plant Spacing on Growth and Yield of Cotton”, Pakistan Journal of Life and Social Sciences, Vol. 8 No. 2, http://www.pjlss.edu.pk/sites/default/files/121-12420(dr.20Athar202).pdf | JJ)

Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) is considered as mainstay of Pakistan’s economy. It is an important cash crop, major source of foreign exchange and plays an important role in agriculture, industry and economic development of the country. In Pakistan cotton is grown on an area is 3.22 million hectares with total production of 12417 thousand bales and average seed cotton yield of 732 kg ha -1 (Anonymous, 2007). Despite of concerted efforts of breeders and agronomists, yield per unit area is still far below from many other cotton producing countries of the world. Low yield of cotton in Pakistan is attributed to some production as well as economic constraints. Poor quality seed, low seed rate, low plant population, poor management or agronomic practices, conventional sowing methods, imbalanced fertilizer application, weed infestation and insect attack are main causes of its low yield. In cotton plant, spacing has effects on the growth and yield characteristics of the plant. Plant population (density) is very important for attaining optimum crop growth and yield under irrigated conditions. Mostly, farmers maintain plant spacing and density according to their traditional methods of planting rather than variety requirement and hence do not obtain the high crop yield. Hussain et al. (2000) reported that 30 cm spacing between cotton plants increased plant height, number of bolls per plant and boll weight as compared to 10 cm and 20 cm. However, plant spacing did not affect ginning out turn or fiber quality. On the other hand Muhammad et al. (2002) found that boll weight decreased by increasing plant population. The field conditions that produce short stature plants can generally tolerate higher plant density without incurring significant yield reduction (Hake et al., 1991). Adequate plant population facilitates the efficient use of applied fertilizers and irrigation (Abbas, 2000). When density is low, fruiting branches are longer and a greater percentage of bolls are produced on outer position of fruiting branches but first position bolls produced by high density are the biggest and best resulting in high yield. Fruit initiation was influenced by plant density in upland cotton (Buxton et al., 1977).

Nuclear War
Guthrie 2k – (Grant, J.D. candidate, 2000, University of California, Hastings College of the Law., Hastings International and Comparative Law Review “Nuclear Testing Rocks the Sub-Continent: Can International Law Halt the Impending Nuclear Conflict Between India and Pakistan?” Spring/Summer 2000, pg lexis wyo-ef)

Nuclear testing creates political instability because it requires a substantial economic investment. One, small fission device typically costs five million U.S. dollars to manufacture. 84 Pakistan's economy is fragile already. 85 Pakistan's total budget for 1996-1997 was $ 12.5 *503 billion, out of which 45 percent was spent on debt service and 24 percent on defense. 86 If Pakistan begins increasing its defense budget there will be nothing left for its people. 87 The spending effects of continued nuclear tests might bankrupt the Pakistani economy. One day, the Pakistani government might be forced to sell nuclear fuel, nuclear weapons or nuclear technology to generate capital. Uncontrollable nuclear proliferation could ensue and the world political regime might become destabilized. There are strong political forces contending for control of Pakistan. 88 Pakistan has been ruled on and off by the military for half of its history. 89 In October of 1999, Pakistan's democratically elected government was overthrown and traded for a military regime. 90 If Pakistan's political climate does not eventually stabilize, Pakistan may become divided and compartmentalized, like a warlord-ridden, nuclear Somalia. Each faction would control nuclear weapons and a nuclear civil war could ensue. The world could be at the mercy of a rogue nuclear state. The effect on the world could be incredibly destabilizing.

1nc – mexico manufacturing
can’t solve congestion--
US Manufacturing competitiveness bounced back, the plan’s not sufficient, and the past 3 decades should’ve triggered your impacts.
IMFD 9/10, International Monetary Forum’s Interactive Forum, Around 10 quallified bloggers, “Hi-Fis and Low Gears: Manufacturing’s Bounce in the U.S.,” http://www.economonitor.com/blog/2013/09/hi-fis-and-low-gears-manufacturings-bounce-in-the-u-s/)//DR. H

It’s no secret that the manufacturing sector in the United States has been in decline for the past three decades. But a strong rebound in durable goods, such as cars and electronics, has helped revive the manufacturing sector and has supported the post-recession recovery.
As of early 2013, manufacturing output was only 4 percentage points below its pre-recession peak. Comparing across countries, the United States has performed more strongly than most of its G-7 counterparts, with the exception of Germany. Yet, the recovery in Germany has stagnated since mid-2011, while the U.S. recovery continues to gain steam.
Is this strong rebound in U.S. manufacturing here to stay, or just a temporary phenomenon?
A lopsided recovery
Our new study, The U.S. Manufacturing Recovery: Uptick or Renaissance?, looks at the U.S. manufacturing sector and shows that while the headline recovery numbers for U.S. manufacturing are impressive, they mask significant differences between the sectors producing durable goods and nondurable goods (such as food and clothing).
The post-recession recovery has been driven almost entirely by a rebound in durable goods production. On the other hand, nondurable goods have fared poorly—their production is still 10 percent below its pre-recession levels and only 6 percent above its trough.
Even within the durable sector, production growth rates have varied substantially. Automobiles, computers and electronics, and machinery have driven the majority of the rebound. However, the rebounds in machinery and automobiles have strong cyclical components (both had declined substantially during the crisis), while growth in the production of computers and electronics has been unrelenting over the last decade.
The energy revolution
What factors can explain the strong rebound in durable goods production in the United States?
Lower labor costs in the United States compared with those in emerging markets have been the most important factor in explaining the recent revival in U.S. manufacturing. But other factors, such as a more competitive real exchange rate (a depreciation of the dollar relative to other currencies, corrected for differences in inflation) and lower energy prices, may have also played a significant role.
The increasing U.S. production of oil and gas through unconventional extraction techniques—such as natural gas extracted from shale rock formation—could provide a boost to the manufacturing sector. However, our analysis suggests that the “pull” from the energy boom to manufacturing has been limited. Based on the scenarios in the 2013 Annual Energy Outlook by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, additional production of oil and gas would result in a positive contribution to manufacturing growth of around 0.1 – 0.3 percentage points per year through the end of the decade.
Nondurable goods, such as the production of chemicals or primary metals, would benefit much more than sectors that rebounded strongly from the recession, such as computers and electronics and automobiles.

Deterrence fails – 5 reasons.
Wilson 1/13/13 -senior fellow at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies (1/13/2013, “The Myth of Nuclear Necessity,” http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/14/opinion/the-myth-of-nuclear-necessity.html?pagewanted=all)JCP

There is also a small group of people who still believe fervently in nuclear weapons. President Obama had to buy passage of the New START treaty with Russia, in 2010, with a promise to spend $185 billion to modernize warheads and delivery systems over 10 years — revealing that while support for nuclear weapons may not be broad, it runs deep. That support endures because of five widely held myths. The first is the myth that nuclear weapons altered the course of World War II. Leaving aside the morality of America’s decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, new research by the historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa and other scholars shows that Japan surrendered not because of the atom bomb but because the Soviets renounced neutrality and joined the war. Sixty-six Japanese cities had already been destroyed by conventional weapons — two more did not make the difference. Attributing surrender to the bomb was also convenient for Japan’s leaders, allowing them to blame defeat on a “miracle” weapon. Second is the myth of “decisive destruction.” Mass destruction doesn’t win wars; killing soldiers does. No war has ever been won simply by killing civilians. The 1941-44 siege of Leningrad didn’t deter Soviet leaders from pressing the fight against Hitler. Nor did the 1945 firebombing of Dresden force Germany to submit. As long as an army has a fighting chance at victory, wars continue. Building ever more destructive weapons simply increases the horror of war, not the certainty of ending it. Third is the myth of reliable nuclear deterrence. Numerous leaders have taken risks and acted aggressively during nuclear crises. In 1962, President John F. Kennedy and his advisers knew that blockading Cuba risked nuclear war; they mentioned the possibility 60 times while debating their options. Yet they went ahead. Nuclear proponents might argue that no cold war crisis ever erupted into nuclear war, so deterrence must work. But they’re moving the goal posts. Originally it was claimed that nuclear weapons would assure success in negotiations, prevent any sort of attack — conventional or nuclear — and allow countries to protect their friends with a nuclear umbrella. When the Russians weren’t intimidated during talks after World War II, the claim about negotiations was dropped. When the Yom Kippur War and the Falkland Islands War showed that fighting against nuclear-armed countries was possible, the prevention of conventional war claim was dropped. The nuclear umbrella claim ought to have been dropped at the same time, but there was too much American foreign policy riding on it for anyone to make this argument. After all, if Britain couldn’t deter an attack on its own far-flung islands, how could deterrence prevent attacks on other countries? Fourth is the myth of the long peace: the argument that the absence of nuclear war since 1945 means nuclear weapons have “kept the peace.” But we don’t accept proof by absence in any circumstance where there is real risk. We wouldn’t fly an airline that claimed to have invented a device that prevented metal fatigue, proved it by equipping 100 planes with the devices for one year without a single crash, and then suddenly ceased all metal-fatigue inspections and repairs, and decided instead to rely solely on these new devices. The last and most stubborn myth is that of irreversibility. Whenever idealists say that they want to abolish nuclear weapons, so-called realists shake their heads and say, in tones of patient condescension, “You can’t stuff the nuclear genie back in the bottle.” This is a specious argument. It’s true that no technology is ever disinvented, but technology does fall out of use all the time. (If you don’t believe me, try to get tech support on any electronic device more than three years old.) Devices disappear either because they are displaced by better technology or because they simply weren’t good. The question isn’t whether nuclear weapons can be disinvented, but whether they are useful. And their usefulness is questionable, given that no one has found an occasion to use them in over 67 years. NOT everyone wants nuclear weapons. What most people don’t realize is that 12 countries have either abandoned nuclear programs, dismantled existing weapons, as South Africa did in the early 1990s, or handed them over, as Kazakhstan did after the 1991 breakup of the Soviet Union. By contrast, only nine have nukes today (the United States, Russia, Britain, France, China, India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea). It’s often assumed that Israel would be the last nation to give up nuclear weapons, given its history and a deep sense of responsibility to protect the Jewish people after the horrors of the Holocaust. But Israel has a powerful conventional military, is allied with the strongest country in the world and its leaders have a keen appreciation of military realities. They understand that nukes pose a greater danger to small countries than large ones. Twenty nuclear weapons used on Israel would do far more overlapping damage than 20 used on Iran. Small nations have always been vulnerable. In a world without nuclear weapons they would preserve themselves as they always have: by forming alliances with the powerful and avoiding antagonizing neighbors. France, not Israel, would most likely be the last country to give up nuclear weapons, which help preserve its image as a world power. In a nuclear-free world, France would just be another middle-size power with great cuisine. The real value of nuclear bombs is as status symbols, not as practical weapons. America and other nuclear powers must pursue the gradual abolition of nuclear weapons, but it will not be easy. Many leaders have little interest in giving up power, real or perceived. Any agreement would have to include stringent inspections and extensive safeguards. It would have to include all current nuclear-armed states in a complicated diplomatic process. But bans on other dangerous but clumsy armaments, like chemical and biological weapons, have been negotiated in the past. These bans — like laws — are sometimes broken. But the world is far safer with the bans than it would be without them. As Reagan knew, nuclear weapons make the world more dangerous, not less. Imagine arming a bank guard with dynamite and a lighter and you get a good idea of nuclear weapons’ utility: powerful, but too clumsy to use. Nuclear weapons were born out of fear, nurtured in fear and sustained by fear. They are dinosaurs — an evolutionary dead end. The trend in warfare today is toward smaller, smarter, more effective precision-guided weapons. Nuclear weapons — extremely dangerous and not very useful — are the wave of the past.
No China war.
Rosecrance et al 10 – (Richard, Political Science Professor @ Cal and Senior Fellow @ Harvard’s Belfer Center and Former Director @ Burkle Center of IR @ UCLA, and Jia Qingguo, PhD Cornell, Professor and Associate Dean of School of International Studies @ Peking University, “Delicately Poised: Are China and the US Heading for Conflict?” Global Asia 4.4, http://www.globalasia.org/l.php?c=e251)

Will China and the US Go to War?  If one accepts the previous analysis, the answer is “no,” or at least not likely. Why?  First, despite its revolutionary past, China has gradually accepted the US-led world order and become a status quo power. It has joined most of the important inter-governmental international organizations. It has subscribed to most of the important international laws and regimes. It has not only accepted the current world order, it has become a strong supporter and defender of it. China has repeatedly argued that the authority of the United Nations and international law should be respected in the handling of international security crises. China has become an ardent advocate of multilateralism in managing international problems. And China has repeatedly defended the principle of free trade in the global effort to fight the current economic crisis, despite efforts by some countries, including the US, to resort to protectionism. To be sure, there are some aspects of the US world order that China does not like and wants to reform. However, it wishes to improve that world order rather than to destroy it.  Second, China has clearly rejected the option of territorial expansion. It argues that territorial expansion is both immoral and counterproductive: immoral because it is imperialistic and counterproductive because it does not advance one’s interests. China’s behavior shows that instead of trying to expand its territories, it has been trying to settle its border disputes through negotiation. Through persistent efforts, China has concluded quite a number of border agreements in recent years. As a result, most of its land borders are now clearly drawn and marked under agreements with its neighbors. In addition, China is engaging in negotiations to resolve its remaining border disputes and making arrangements for peaceful settlement of disputed islands and territorial waters. Finally, even on the question of Taiwan, which China believes is an indisputable part of its territory, it has adopted a policy of peaceful reunification. A country that handles territorial issues in such a manner is by no means expansionist.  Third, China has relied on trade and investment for national welfare and prestige, instead of military conquest. And like the US, Japan and Germany, China has been very successful in this regard. In fact, so successful that it really sees no other option than to continue on this path to prosperity.  Finally, after years of reforms, China increasingly finds itself sharing certain basic values with the US, such as a commitment to the free market, rule of law, human rights and democracy. Of course, there are still significant differences in terms of how China understands and practices these values. However, at a conceptual level, Beijing agrees that these are good values that it should strive to realize in practice.  A Different World  It is also important to note that certain changes in international relations since the end of World War II have made the peaceful rise of a great power more likely. To begin with, the emergence of nuclear weapons has drastically reduced the usefulness of war as a way to settle great power rivalry. By now, all great powers either have nuclear weapons or are under a nuclear umbrella. If the objective of great power rivalry is to enhance one’s interests or prestige, the sheer destructiveness of nuclear weapons means that these goals can no longer be achieved through military confrontation. Under these circumstances, countries have to find other ways to accommodate each other — something that China and the US have been doing and are likely to continue to do.  Also, globalization has made it easier for great powers to increase their national welfare and prestige through international trade and investment rather than territorial expansion. In conducting its foreign relations, the US relied more on trade and investment than territorial expansion during its rise, while Japan and Germany relied almost exclusively on international trade and investment. China, too, has found that its interests are best served by adopting the same approach.  Finally, the development of relative pacifism in the industrialized world, and indeed throughout the world since World War II, has discouraged any country from engaging in territorial expansion. There is less and less popular support for using force to address even legitimate concerns on the part of nation states. Against this background, efforts to engage in territorial expansion are likely to rally international resistance and condemnation.  Given all this, is the rise of China likely to lead to territorial expansion and war with the US? The answer is no. 

No internal link.
Boushey 12 – (Heather, Chief Economist at American Progress, where her research focuses on U.S. employment, social policy, and family economic well-being. She is also currently a visiting fellow at the Institute for Public Policy Research in London, “Tax Reform and the U.S. Manufacturing Sector Testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means,” July 19th, 2012, Center for American Progress Action Fund, http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/general/report/2012/07/19/11949/tax-reform-and-the-u-s-manufacturing-sector/ EH)

Second, there are a variety of ways that policymakers can support manufacturing, of which reforming the corporate tax code is one piece of the puzzle. Manufacturers make their investment decisions based on a variety of factors, not only the level of taxation. The research is clear that any set of policies aimed at supporting U.S. manufacturing should include investments in education and training, infrastructure, basic and applied research and development, and improvements to basic data collection. To support manufacturing, I recommend that this Congress focus on a few key items: Pass comprehensive business tax reform that both eliminates loopholes and inefficient business tax expenditures without disadvantaging domestic manufacturing. Currently, loopholes allow companies to avoid paying U.S. taxes by artificially shifting their profits offshore. Closing these loopholes by adopting strong provisions to prevent base erosion and will promote job growth in the United States and insure businesses are both competitive and fairly taxed. Find a fiscally responsible way to make the research and experimentation, or RandE, tax credit permanent in order to boost and attract domestic investment in research and development, or RandD, from the private sector. Studies have shown that the RandE tax credit stimulates as much research and development investment as a direct subsidy and that the social returns on RandD are greater than returns for private investors who finance RandD. The Obama tax proposal finances the credit exclusively through business tax reform. Introduce a minimum tax on foreign earnings to prevent production from going to tax havens overseas. This would also ease the tax code’s current bias towards foreign, as opposed to domestic, investment and level the playing field among competing businesses. I want to stress, however, that the level of taxation is only one piece of the puzzle and the statutory corporate tax rate is only one aspect of the corporate tax code and how it affects businesses. Supporting manufacturing requires a deeper policy commitment and while I will focus my time in my remarks specifically on tax policy, given the jurisdiction of this committee, there are also a variety of other ways that we can promote manufacturing and innovation in the United States—or least not disadvantage it relative to other industries—including: Improve infrastructure so that U.S. goods can be more easily transported and marketed at home and abroad. This will also make the U.S. more appealing to businesses and globally competitive. Implement the Obama administration’s proposal to start an $8 billion “Community College to Career Fund” to encourage collaboration and partnerships between community colleges and businesses in training our future workforce.  Two million workers would learn skills vital to working in burgeoning industries like advanced manufacturing and heath care. A highly skilled workforce would also give the U.S. and its regional economies further advantages over its global competitors. Increase government investment in advanced manufacturing by 19 percent, to $2.2 billion in fiscal year 2013, as outlined by the current administration. Manufacturing workers receive better pay and benefits, while the manufacturing sector is the driving force behind innovation in our economy. Additional investments in this area will benefit workers, improve our standard of living, and strengthen our economy. Follow through on President Obama’s plan to establish a National Network for Manufacturing Innovation. This network, comprised of up to 15 new manufacturing institutes, would facilitate and promote collaboration between companies and research universities, all with the aim of increasing and scaling up manufacturing production. Having a strong manufacturing industry in the United States should be at the top of our national economic agenda. Without a vibrant and innovative manufacturing base, we will not be a global leader for long. Moreover, as more of our energy future will rely on high-tech manufacturing, our economic competitiveness will be even more closely aligned with our ability to be an innovator and producer of manufactured goods. Further, this is an urgent national issue and one of those cases where success begets success. Economists have begun to study and show that the “industrial commons” matters for innovation and the extent to which we allow manufacturing processes to continue to go overseas, we only make it that much harder to regain our place as a global leader. As my colleagues Michael Ettlinger and Kate Gordon have put it, “the cross-fertilization and engagement of a community of experts in industry, academia, and government is vital to our nation’s economic competitiveness.”

No impact to off-shoring.
Heineman, 3/26 – (Ben, The Atlantic, 3/26/13, http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/why-we-can-all-stop-worrying-about-offshoring-and-outsourcing/274388/, "Why We Can All Stop Worrying About Offshoring and Outsourcing," alp)

Labor markets have for the past quarter century been at the center of the globalization disputes under the "off-shoring and out-sourcing" rubric. How many jobs were lost at home to cheap labor abroad? What were conditions for those overseas workers? But the rapidly changing nature of the global economy has changed much, though not all, of that "off-shoring/out-sourcing" debate. Today, cheap labor is only one of many factors leading global companies to choose where to do business in diverse nations across the world. Major economic changes like the internal growth of emerging markets have scrambled debates about the global economy, posed challenges for international business, stimulated contradictory public policies and confused the general public. It was often cheap labor in emerging markets that, more than two decades ago, led companies in developed markets to move company jobs away from the home country either to company owned facilities (off-shoring) or to third parties (out-sourcing) in developing markets. The broad idea was that less expensive manufacturing or inexpensive white collar workers would create goods and services in developing nations that would serve world markets. China, especially, would be the global product-manufacturing center; India, via the web, would be the global service provider. The well known debate ensued between free-trade (more competition, cheaper goods in U.S., growth in developing markets) and fair trade (only wealthy benefit, hollowing out of U.S. middle class, exploitive labor standards overseas). The debate heated up in political years (including 2012), when "outsourcing" became an especially a dirty word.  But, in addition to dramatic economic growth in emerging markets, four recent trends have significantly modified this old off-shoring and out-sourcing schematic. First, labor costs for many businesses may no longer be the critical or even primary factor in global location decisions. Wages are rising in many emerging markets due, in part, to increased demand, new labor laws, and greater worker voice. Wages are declining in developed markets like the U.S. where depressed economic conditions for workers have led to lower wage and benefit packages, especially for lower entry level workers, and often through negotiations with organized labor. New technology, such as robotics, and higher productivity have also lowered the price of labor as a percentage of total product or service costs. When labor cost differences are not as dramatic or important, other costs like materials, energy, transportation, currency, capital, government imposed costs (tariffs, regulation) -- which were always important -- may have as great (or greater) impact on the location as cheap workers. Second, companies are retaining but modifying their global supply chains by selectively reversing the long-term trend of outsourcing. They are "making" important parts of the products or services rather than "buying" from third parties, as described recently by U.S. business people and journalists, Companies are recognizing that closely interrelating, even co-locating, research and development, design and marketing, manufacturing and assembly close to the markets served can lead to much faster response to market shifts and to much faster innovation. The old practice of designing at home and then manufacturing abroad can slow the pace of innovation and product change to a crawl. So companies are making complex trade-offs between "making" and "buying" -- and between the need to develop technology at connected global RandD centers and the need to apply it in a variety of local settings in a variety of ways. Similarly, companies which were enamored of outsourcing key service functions like information technology to nations like India are discovering that these, too, are key to fast-paced innovation and should be "made" not "bought" -- bringing them back in-house, with corporate units integrated across the world under global/local management. The "de-verticalizing" outsourcing process - when a company sent many of its functions between raw materials and the finished product to third parties - is now being partially reversed with "re-verticalization." But, even with changes, global supply chains, even if owned more by the company and less by third parties, will remain critical.
Squo solves aerospace.
RNCOS 1/31 – specializes in Industry intelligence and creative solutions for contemporary business segments. Our professionals analyze the industry and its various components, with a comprehensive study of the changing market behavior. Our accuracy and data precision proves beneficial in terms of pricing and time management that assist the intending consultants in meeting their objectives in a cost-effective and timely manner (1/31/12, RNCOS, “US Leads Global Aerospace and Aviation Industry” http://www.avionics-intelligence.com/news/2012/01/1594542084/us-leads-global-aerospace-and-aviation-industry.html) CB

According to our research report, "Aerospace Industry Forecast to 2013", global aerospace industry has witnessed an impressive growth over the past few years, with civil aviation

 segment emerging as the major contributor. Increase in air traffic and considerable increase in military budget have provided the much required impetus to the industry. The US represents the biggest aerospace market and is anticipated to grow at a CAGR of around 3.2 during 2011-2013.
The US is the leader of aerospace and aviation industry as it is both the largest producer and marketplace for the industry. As per our findings, civil aircrafts account for a major share in the US aerospace market. Civil aircraft sales were mainly driven by the sales of large commercial jetliners in the past. Moreover, the positive growth expected from the market for large jetliners is likely to boost the civil aerospace market in the coming years.
Besides, the report covers the other major aerospace markets including both developed and emerging markets. The countries covered in the developed markets include, the US, Canada, UK, and many others, while the emerging markets are comprised of countries like the Middle East, China, India, and various others. Besides, overall growth in the global aerospace market is mainly driven by aircraft and aircraft part segments. These segments have witnessed a double digit growth during the last decade. Our report also contains information about the various MandA activities in the global aerospace industry.
It entails information of the key competitors in the market along with their business details and areas of expertise. The report shows a highly concentrated structure of the market, with the top players dominating the market. It provides segment-wise analysis of the industry along with emerging trends that may shape up with the betterment of economic conditions. The research will facilitate consultants, industry analysts, and vendors to obtain an in-depth knowledge of the current, past, and future performance of the industry. It provides an extensive research on the recent trends of the aerospace industry trends to provide cutting-edge market intelligence. 

2nc econ overview
DA outweighs and turns the case –
1). magnitude—
economic decline causes all global hotspots to escalate—Iran, North Korea, Russia, China—increases the incentive to challenge competitors with nuclear weapons—that’s Friedberg and Schoenfeld
2). timeframe—
debt ceiling is the only instantaneous impact b/c it’s based off of the action of US default—prefer it over their long systemic internal link chains
Turns case
1). prevents implementation—
government shutdown means that they can’t fund/initiate new programs

2). economic growth solves their war scenarios—
trade ties and interdependence eliminates rational incentives for war

Economic strength kt to deterrence/competitiveness
Khalilzad 1995 (Zalmay, chair of RAND’s project Air Force Security and Doctrine Program, “Losing the Moment,” Washington Quarterly, Sping, lexis)

The United States is unlikely to preserve its military and technological dominance if the U.S. economy declines seriously. In such an environment, the domestic economic and political base for global leadership would diminish and the United States would probably incrementally withdraw from the world, become inward-looking, and abandon more and more of its external interests. As the United States weakened, others would try to fill the Vacuum.

Chinese collapse.
Pethokoukis 9/22 (James, money and politics blogger for U.S. News and World Report , where he writes the monthly Capital Commerce magazine column. Pethokoukis is also the assistant managing editor of the magazine's Money and Business section, “Bailout Prevents Great Depression 2.0,” 2008, http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/09/22/bailout-prevents-great-depression-20.html)

Nope, I think they believed, and got Congress to believe, that the economy was on the verge of something far worse than the worst downturn in a generation. And that is why they went with the so-called nuclear option: the biggest financial bailout in history. In the words of JPMorgan Chase economist James Glassman, "Thankfully, we and our friends around the world who are watching the economic lights come on will never know where events would have led, if the clock had not stopped last Thursday afternoon.... Last week's events made the 1987 stock market crash look like child's play." As plumbers say about pricey repairs, "Sure, it costs money. It costs money because it saves you money." And plumber in chief Paulson had a pretty big pipe, loaded with toxic debt, to unclog. OK, let's run the numbers. Paulson is asking for $700 billion. But that massive amount doesn't include previous government actions to cure the credit crisis (like propping up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), nor does it take into account money the government may get back from selling the bad assets it will be purchasing. So let's say those situations cancel each other out, and we are really talking about $700 billion. Now that money is being borrowed. So you take $700 billion borrowed for 30 years at prevailing interest rates, and you are talking about $2.5 trillion. But as Paulson said last week, "I am convinced that this bold approach will cost American families far less than the alternative: a continuing series of financial institution failures and frozen credit markets unable to fund economic expansion." Now let's do the math on the "alternatives." What would doing nothing cost? 1) Scenario 1: Great Depression "Lite." This is supposed to be the worst financial crisis since the 1930s. So let's assume that the total freezing up of American and global credit markets caused something half as bad as the Great Depression. From 1930 through 1933, the U.S. economy shrank by about 25 percent. Now let's say that by doing nothing and letting Mr. Market do his worst, the $12 trillion U.S. economy shrinks by half that amount (12.5 percent), or around $1.5 trillion over four years. (Also, figure a near doubling in unemployment.) But there's also the opportunity cost of not returning to growth, even at a so-so 2.0 percent a year. Doing nothing costs $1.1 trillion more in lost growth. So now we are down $2.6 trillion. But wait: There's more. Let's assume the stock market drops an additional 25 percent or so. That's $3 trillion more in lost market capitalization. Plus, we are forgoing the opportunity to gain back what we have lost in the market, about $3 trillion. So, add the $6 million in lost market capitalization to the lost economic output, and we are at $8.6 trillion. Then there is housing, already down $5 trillion, or roughly 20 percent. Let's conservatively say that we lose another $5 trillion by doing nothing. Plus, we forgo a partial rebound, say, $2.5 trillion. Adding together further housing losses (plus the lost opportunity to recoup some losses), and we are talking about a total cost of doing nothing of $15 trillion in four years for the whole megillah. But it could be worse. 2) Scenario 2: Great Depression 2.0. The economy shrinks by 25 percent over four years, or $3.2 trillion, plus $1.1 trillion in lost opportunity growth. Economic cost: $4.3 trillion. The market falls two thirds from its peak, losing $7 trillion in value from its current level, plus $3 trillion from not getting a rebound. Stock market cost: $10 trillion. Housing falls an additional $10 trillion from current levels, plus the lost opportunity of $2.5 trillion from a rebound. Housing cost: $12.5 trillion. Total four-year financial and economic cost of doing nothing: $26.8 trillion. Now this is all a very rough guesstimate and doesn't include the costs of all sorts of other ramifications. Here is a fun one: the dissolution of China. Its economy is built for hypergrowth. A dramatically rising standard of living is both keeping the Communist Party in power and keeping the country together. Neither might survive a global economic meltdown. What is the economic impact of that? I don't know. My guesstimator just blew up.

Economic growth key to solve warming
Anderson 4 Terry L. professor of economics at Montana State University, Ph.D. in economics http://www.perc.org/articles/article446.php

Hansen's essay concludes on an optimistic note, saying "the main elements new technologies required to halt climate change have come into being with remarkable rapidity." This statement would not have surprised economist Julian Simon. He saw the "ultimate resource" to be the human mind and believed it to be best motivated by market forces. Because of a combination of market forces and technological innovations, we are not running out of natural resources. As a resource becomes more scarce, prices increase, thus encouraging development of cheaper alternatives and technological innovations. Just as fossil fuel replaced scarce whale oil, its use will be reduced by new technology and alternative fuel sources. Market forces also cause economic growth, which in turn leads to environmental improvements. Put simply, poor people are willing to sacrifice clean water and air, healthy forests, and wildlife habitat for economic growth. But as their incomes rise above subsistence, "economic growth helps to undo the damage done in earlier years," says economist Bruce Yandle. "If economic growth is good for the environment, policies that stimulate growth ought to be good for the environment."

2nc kt econ
Raising the debt ceiling is key to the economy
1). sovereign default—prevents US government from paying interest on bonds + creates a financial disaster
2). financial system collapse—decline of the dollar’s credibility kills trade flows and global economic growth
3). treasury bond sell-off—perceived by investors as unstable investment, increases interest rates on consumer borrowing and spending
4). systemic consequences
Schwarcz, 8/14/13 – professor of law at Duke, founding director of the Duke Global Capital Markets Center (Steven, “Rollover Risk: Ideating a U.S. Debt Default” SSRN)

A U.S. debt default153 would also have both microeconomic and macroeconomic, or systemic,154 consequences. Observers have argued that a default would likely result in stocks, bonds, and the dollar “plummeting in the immediate aftermath.”155 Credit markets would likely freeze,156 harming both companies and consumers.157 The downgrading of credit ratings on U.S. debt would also make it much more difficult and expensive for the country to borrow.158
Even a mere “technical” default, caused by illiquidity, could harm the real economy.159 The 1979 debt defaults, which were temporarily caused by a federal debt ceiling limit on new borrowings,160 resulted in a 60 basis point increase in the interest rate on Treasury bills161—an increase that appears to be permanent.162 Such a rate increase could also increase the cost of private borrowings. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has observed, for example, that a U.S. debt default would “raise all borrowing costs”163 because “US Treasuries set the benchmark borrowing rate” for private loans.164
Investment bank J.P. Morgan recently issued a report updating the potential economic impact of a technical default. The report assumes that the United States temporarily misses an interest or principal payment on its debt.165 Even if this temporary default does not reflect an actual deterioration of U.S. solvency, it still would “almost certainly have large systemic effects with long-term adverse consequences for Treasury finances and the U.S. economy.”166 At a minimum, the United States would likely see a one percent reduction in gross domestic product (GDP) due to higher interest rates and a likely equity selloff.167 Even worse, the report concluded, the default also “could leave lasting damage in its wake due to a permanent decline in foreign demand for U.S. Treasury securities, which will likely lead to continuing higher borrowing costs and larger deficits.”168

2nc wall

It will pass – 1nc Washington Post says the diplomatic response on Syria has freed up time and energy for a debt ceiling compromise – a deal will be difficult but maintaining focus will secure one, because it’s in the interest of both Obama and the GOP leadership
Obama is winning the debate now
Easley, 9/18/13 - spent four years as a political columnist and the politics editor at 411mania.com, where he covered such issues as the Iraq War, warrant less wiretapping, and the daily workings of the American legislative process. Jason has also written for the Blogger News Network, and saw his 2008 presidential election coverage quoted in over 300 newspapers worldwide. Jason has a Bachelor’s Degree in Political Science (Jason, “Obama’s Genius Labeling of GOP Demands Extortion Has Already Won The Debt Ceiling Fight” Politics USA, http://www.politicususa.com/2013/09/18/obamas-genius-labeling-gop-demands-extortion-won-debt-ceiling-fight.html)

President Obama effectively ended any Republican hopes of getting a political victory on the debt ceiling when he called their demands extortion. Nobody likes being extorted. The American people don’t like feeling like they are being shaken down. The White House knows this, which is why they are using such strong language to criticize the Republicans. Obama is doing the same thing to House Republicans that he has been doing to the entire party for the last few years. The president is defining them before they can define themselves.
Obama is taking the same tactics that he used to define Mitt Romney in the summer of 2012 and applying them to John Boehner and his House Republicans. While Republicans are fighting among themselves and gearing up for another pointless run at defunding Obamacare, the president is already winning the political battle over the debt ceiling. His comments today were a masterstroke of strategy that will pay political dividends now and in the future. If the president is successful anytime a Republican talks about defunding Obamacare, the American people will think extortion. Republicans keep insisting on unconstitutional plots to kill Obamacare, and the president is calling them out on it.
Republicans haven’t realized it yet, but while they are chasing the fool’s gold of defunding Obamacare they have already lost on the debt ceiling. By caving to the lunatic fringe in his party, John Boehner may have handed control of the House of Representatives back to Democrats on a silver platter.
While Republicans posture on Obamacare, Obama is routing them on the debt ceiling.

Business pressure will change minds – but Obama’s capital is key to mobilizing it
Sink, 9/18/13 (Justin, The Hill, “Amid fiscal fights, Obama courting business leaders”
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/322883-amid-fiscal-fights-obama-courting-business-leaders)

President Obama will address the Business Roundtable (BRT) on Wednesday as he works to get corporate leaders on his side during this fall’s fiscal showdowns with the GOP.
The White House is hoping that Obama can rally the influential organization, made up of conservative chief executives from the nation’s largest corporations, to help build pressure on congressional Republicans.
According to a White House official, the president will ask business leaders "to help send the message to Congress that a default would be disastrous for our economy and for businesses across the country."
"Some Republicans in Congress are playing a reckless political game by threatening to leave the economy hanging in the balance for an ideological agenda that has no chance of becoming law—a game that last time had real consequences, hurting growth and business confidence," the official said.
Obama is expected to note that during debt ceiling negotiations in the summer of 2011, the stock market decreased 17 percent, the nation's credit rating was downgraded, and consumer confidence dropped to its lowest level since the financial crisis. He'll argue to the assembled corporate executives that failure to strike a deal would again endanger the economy — and their bottom lines.
“The president’s focus, as is always the case when he meets with this group, is what we can do together to keep the American economy growing,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said on Tuesday.
But the sell will not be an easy one — the association’s officials have been critical of the president, and members of the group are wary of the administration’s aggressive regulatory push on labor and environmental issues.
And congressional Republicans are accusing the president of employing "scare tactics" to gain leverage.
"No one is threatening to default," said Brendan Buck, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio). "The president only uses these scare tactics to avoid having to show the courage needed to deal with our debt crisis. Every major deficit deal in the last 30 years has been tied to a debt limit increase, and this time should be no different."
Obama has leaned on the organization in the past. Shortly after the president’s last visit in December for a speech and closed-door discussion, the CEOs sent a letter to congressional leaders arguing all options — including tax increases — should be on the table as negotiators sought a “fiscal-cliff” deal.
That gesture, a reversal from the group’s stance just five months earlier, ratcheted up pressure on congressional Republicans. The GOP subsequently stumbled, and Obama struck a deal that many Democrats embraced.
PC will achieve a compromise
Langer, 9/18/13 (“Public Splits on Debt Limit Even with Fears of Damage” ABC News,
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/09/public-splits-on-debt-limit-even-with-fears-of-damage/)

COMPROMISE – Mixed emotions on the debt are reflected in sharply divided trust to handle the issue: Forty-three percent of Americans prefer Barack Obama’s approach, while 40 percent hold greater trust in the Republicans in Congress, with typical partisan and ideological divisions.
That said, Obama has the upper hand on another measure, perceived willingness to compromise. While 49 percent of Americans say Obama’s doing “too little” to compromise with Republican leaders in Congress on a budget plan, far more, 64 percent, say the Republicans are doing too little to compromise with Obama.
The difference is largely among political independents. Fifty-five percent of them say Obama is doing too little to compromise – but 72 percent say that about Republican leaders. The GOP, though, also has comparative trouble in its base. Among self-identified Republicans, 43 percent say their own party is doing too little to compromise. Just half as many Democrats say that about Obama.
The president may be seeking to press his advantage in perceived willingness to compromise vs. Republican leaders. At a speech today before the Business Roundtable, he reiterated that raising the debt ceiling is non-negotiable and accused the GOP of using the debt ceiling to “extort” concessions on “issues that have nothing to do with the budget and nothing to do with the debt.”

at: intrinsicness

Reject the team—create a strategic cost to instrinsicness or they will always make blips that end the round if we drop them, voting neg here deters future abuse

Anti-topical—our disad proves a bill IS an opportunity cost of the plan because they make it politically impossible, means they have to fiat passage of an extra-topical item which crushes all stable offense and makes them a moving target.

Neg ground—everything but impact turns can be fiated through, this hoses generic strategies that we need to have a shot even if they aren’t perfectly specific.

Not reciprocal—we get to test their internal links as a response to the fiat of the plan, letting them choose a plan AND blow off these disads is more biased towards them.

2nc politics link wall
Zero chance they will win a link turn while reading the border infrastructure AFF – the AFF is mired in political opposition to large federally funded construction projects – port of entry projects have gotten no money due to Congressional in-fighting – that’s Reilly 

gridlock link – the plan uniquely poisons the well on immigration reform — ensures GOP backlash over spending, and assumes their link turns
Irwin 13 — Neil Irwin, Washington Post columnist and the economics editor of Wonkblog, The Post’s site for policy news and analysis (Neil Irwin, Washington Post: Wonkblog, 02-11-2013, “Is Congress really going to miss its free lunch on infrastructure?”, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/11/is-congress-really-going-to-miss-its-free-lunch-on-infrastructure/, Accessed 08-01-2013 | AK)
*the plan is massively unpopular, our Irwin evidence serves as a gridlock link, we don’t have to win our PC links from the 1nc – bipartisan deal-making over immigration reform exists now however new proposals on border infrastructure spending signals a return to the ugly politics of the last decade – despite support in several distinct lobbies, support for the AFF continues to hit a massive blockade of Republican bickering who hate any new major federal funding projects on infrastructure – causes them to unify and gridlock Obama on immigration reform

Since the election, there have been hints that we could be entering a period with some actual productive, bipartisan dealmaking, most explicitly on immigration reform. But the Republican reaction to Obama’s expected proposals on infrastructure in Tuesday’s State of the Union address may be a better indicator of whether we are in for a year of real legislative give-and-take—or a return of the ugly politics of the last several years.
It will also be an indication of whether the U.S. government is going to let a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to rebuild the nation’s roads and bridges more or less for free slip through its fingers.
The early buzz from the White House is that while Obama will discuss the current legislative hot-buttons of immigration and gun control, the economy is a major focus of his speech. In particular, he will call for new infrastructure investment—roads, bridges, power grid, that sort of thing.
The big question on infrastructure is whether the White House is correctly reading the politics of the moment. Could Congressional Republicans be ready to sign on to some form of large-scale investment in the nation’s transportation and energy infrastructure? Or is Obama tilting at windmills (literally, in this case).
It comes as we may be approaching the end of a five year period in which investing in the nation’s physical infrastructure has been something close to a free lunch. With interest rates near all-time lows and millions of construction workers unemployed, the last few years have been a time that it would have been a historical bargain for the United States to do upgrades to roads, bridges, and airports that will eventually need to take place anyway. It has been a political breakdown—in particular conservatives’ view of almost any non-defense federal spending as wasteful—standing in the way.
This graph shows total private fixed investment relative to the nation’s potential GDP, going back to 1949. (That’s how much the private sector is spending on both houses and commercial installations). After averaging 15.5 percent from 1949 to 2007, private investment fell as low as 10.6 percent in the economic collapse starting in 2008 (it was 12.2 percent at the end of 2012).
In other words, for the last few years private construction activity has been far below its historic norms. And so long as the private sector isn’t building houses and office buildings and factories, the government can build without crowding out private investment.
But that window might not last much longer; at the current pace, private investment will be back to its historical average in another few years. It’s not now or never, exactly, but it very likely will be cheaper now to spruce up the nation’s transportation and energy infrastructure than it will be in the not-too-distant future.
In concept, this is an area where there should be room for the two parties to work together. Business interests tend to favor new infrastructure spending, for both the benefits it brings for the companies that would like faster and more efficient ways to ship their goods and the construction companies that stand to make money actually building the stuff. Even small government conservatives want to have quality roads in their districts. Wisely chosen infrastructure spending should not increase the national debt over time, as upfront expenditures are paid back either through tolls and user fees, greater economic development, or both.
Over the last few years, though, those facts have crashed headlong into a widespread view in the Republican caucus that any federal spending is wasteful. “Anything that is akin to the stimulus bill is not going to be acceptable to the American people,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said in September 2011, after Obama proposed a series of job-creation measures centered around new infrastructure.
But a few things have changed since then. First, Republicans have seen electoral damage by their image as an obstruction-at-all-cost party, losing the White House and seats in both houses of Congress in the 2012 elections. Cantor himself delivered a speech last week aimed at presenting a more pragmatic face to the party. Second, the president has been re-elected, so there is no longer the odd dynamic where bipartisan dealmaking could make Obama look more statesmanlike and help his re-election chances.
Much of the Republican opposition to infrastructure spending has been rooted in a conviction that all government spending is a boondoggle, taxing hard-working Americans to give benefits to a favored few, and exceeding any reasonable cost estimate in the process. That’s always a risk with new spending on infrastructure: that instead of the Hoover Dam and the interstate highway system, you end up with the Bridge to Nowhere and the Big Dig.

at: fiat solves the link

1. No it doesn’t—even if it happens immediately that doesn’t shield blame, if people dislike the plan they would be more upset they didn’t get to debate it.

2. Hoses neg ground—politics is a core generic an a measure of the opportunity cost of the plan, actions have political consequences and are perceived in congress 

at: syria thumper
Our uniqueness accounts for Syria – 1nc Washington Post says that the Syria deferral freed up capital for the debt ceiling – even if Congress is still pissed about Syria, our 1nc fully accounts for it
Obama’s political capital is key to the debt fight – Syrian costs were real, but are behind him now
Daniel Indiviglio, September 19, 2013. http://www.breakingviews.com/activist-would-contest-obamas-capital-allocation/21108651.article
In both politics and business, leaders have limited resources to produce results. In business, the key investment resource is cash; in government, it has more to do with time. In the White House, hours spent persuading the public or politicians, brokering deals and crafting strategy earn the president more capital, as expenditures should in boosting corporate returns. In this spirit, Breakingviews tried to pinpoint Obama’s capital allocation by analyzing news, speeches, and Oval Office blog posts. Though unscientific, the results are worth considering. Defense and security issues snagged the most attention, including the Syrian conflict, Afghanistan and Iraq, and leaks by a rogue National Security Agency contractor. The economy and jobs came in second, absorbing 16 percent of Obama’s output. Arguably these areas deserve significantly more capital – perhaps 25 percent or more of the president’s effort. Growth remains modest, and unemployment is too high at 7.3 percent. If he can get the economy cranking faster, it should make other things easier to tackle – like his third most significant talking point, education. Social issues like immigration and gun control garnered nearly the same 15 percent portion of Obama’s rhetorical pie as education. But spending and deficits, where potential emergencies loom, accounted for only 6 percent. Poorly constructed budget cuts threaten the tepid recovery. And Congress looks poised to make raising the federal debt limit as painful as it did two years ago. The broad economic risks make this an area demanding far more presidential attention. Capital also needs to be deployed effectively. Much was wasted on intervention in Syria, which is unpopular and has been avoided for now. Education and social reforms may be popular with the Democratic base, but capital has also been poorly spent there because they’re being blocked by today’s House of Representatives.

Obama’s handling of Syria preserved political capital – prefer our warrants over their rhetorically powerful cards – also issue specific trumps
Matthew Braun September 16, 2013. http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/9/16/obama-opinion-pollingsyria.html
In the span of two weeks, U.S. plans caromed from the seemingly imminent use of force to a surprise time-out for consultation with Congress to a full-throttled presidential media blitz on the need for military strikes to slamming on the brakes and calling off the congressional vote in favor of renewed diplomacy with Russia, the U.S.'s erstwhile nemesis on Syria.¶ The Obama administration undoubtedly dodged a very large domestic political bullet, at least in the short term. The president took a calculated but substantial risk when he decided to slow the seemingly inexorable march toward military action against Syria and invite Congress to weigh in on the matter. All available evidence suggests that even if he somehow managed to persuade a reluctant Senate to go along, House approval was improbable at best. Had he lost a congressional vote on a military strike, the costs in political capital at home and credibility abroad, as well as to the executive branch itself, could have been severe.

at: ww (theory)
doesn’t apply to the AFF – suddenly forcing a bill through doesn’t boost political capital – our links outweigh because the AFF overstretches
*fiat of the plan means you can’t access winners win – suddenly forcing a bill through Congress doesn’t boost political capital but obliterates Obama’s chance to use the bully pulpit to push controversial decisions
*fiat makes the plan sancrosanct – it circumvents the deliberative policymaking that is associated with passing contentious issues which is what all their “winners win” authors say is crucial to rebuilding capital
Ryan Lizza, 1/7/13, Will Hagel Spike the G.O.P.’s Fever?, www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/01/how-much-will-the-nomination-of-chuck-hagel-hurt-obamas-second-term-agenda.html

But Obama’s victory has made almost no difference in changing the psychology or incentives of the members of the G.O.P. who matter most: the House Republicans. The idea that a bloc of conservative, mostly Southern, Republicans would start to coöperate with the President on issues like tax policy and immigration may have rested on a faulty assumption.¶ The past few weeks of fiscal-cliff drama have taught us that “breaking the fever” was the wrong metaphor. There is no one event—even the election of a President—that can change a political party overnight. Congress is a co-equal branch of government, and House Republicans feel that they have as much of a mandate for their policies as Obama does for his. Shouldn’t House Republicans care that their views on Obama’s priorities, like tax cuts for the rich and immigration, helped cost Romney the White House and will make it difficult for their party’s nominee to win in 2016? In the abstract, many do, but that’s not enough to change the voting behavior of the average House Republican, who represents a gerrymandered and very conservative district.¶ A better metaphor for the coming battles with Congress may be what Woody Hayes, the college-football coach, famously called “three yards and a cloud of dust”: a series of grinding plays where small victories are earned only after lots of intense combat. While the fiscal-cliff showdown demonstrated that there’s potential for bipartisan deal-making in the Senate, passing any Obama priority through the House of Representatives is nearly impossible unless the political pressure is extremely intense.¶ The fiscal-cliff bill passed the House only when Speaker John Boehner’s members realized that their only alternative was blowing up the settlement negotiated by Joe Biden and Mitch McConnell—and accepting all the blame and consequences.¶ That episode offers the White House a general template for the coming fights over spending, immigration, and gun control—three issues where there is very little consensus between Obama and most House Republicans. Deals will have to be negotiated in the Senate and gain the imprimatur of some high-profile Republicans. Then a pressure campaign will have to be mounted to convince Boehner to move the legislation to the floor of the House under rules that allow it to pass with mostly Democratic votes. It’s easier to see how this could happen with the coming budgetary issues, which have deadlines that force action, than for the rest of Obama’s agenda, which is more likely than not to simply die in the House.¶ Err neg- their ev is hype and wishful thinking¶ Jackie Calmes, NYTimes, 11/12/12, In Debt Talks, Obama Is Ready to Go Beyond Beltway, mobile.nytimes.com/2012/11/12/us/politics/legacy-at-stake-obama-plans-broader-push-for-budget-deal.xml¶ That story line, stoked by Republicans but shared by some Democrats, holds that Mr. Obama is too passive and deferential to Congress, a legislative naïf who does little to nurture personal relationships with potential allies in short, not a particularly strong leader. Even as voters re-elected Mr. Obama, those who said in surveys afterward that strong leadership was the most important quality for a president overwhelmingly chose Mr. Romney.¶ George C. Edwards III, a leading scholar of the presidency at Texas A and M University who is currently teaching at Oxford University, dismissed such criticisms as shallow and generally wrong. Yet Mr. Edwards, whose book on Mr. Obama's presidency is titled "Overreach," said, "He didn't understand the limits of what he could do."¶ "They thought they could continuously create opportunities and they would succeed, and then there would be more success and more success, and we'd build this advancing-tide theory of legislation," Mr. Edwards said. "And that was very naïve, very silly. Well, they've learned a lot, I think."¶ "Effective leaders," he added, "exploit opportunities rather than create them."¶ The budget showdown is an opportunity. But like many, it holds risks as well as potential rewards.¶ "This election is the second chance to be what he promised in 2008, and that is to break the gridlock in Washington," said Kenneth M. Duberstein, a Reagan White House chief of staff, who voted for Mr. Obama in 2008 and later expressed disappointment. "But it seems like this is a replay of 2009 and 2010, when he had huge majorities in the House and Senate, rather than recognizing that 'we've got to figure out ways to work together and it's not just what I want.' "¶ For now, at least, Republican lawmakers say they may be open to raising the tax bill for some earners. "We can increase revenue without increasing the tax rates on anybody in this country," said Representative Tom Price, Republican of Georgia and a leader of House conservatives, on "Fox News Sunday." "We can lower the rates, broaden the base, close the loopholes."¶ The challenge for Mr. Obama is to use his postelection leverage to persuade Republicans or to help Speaker John A. Boehner persuade Republicans that a tax compromise is in their party's political interest since most Americans favor compromise and higher taxes on the wealthy to reduce annual deficits.¶ Some of the business leaders the president will meet with on Wednesday are members of the new Fix the Debt coalition, which has raised about $40 million to urge lawmakers and their constituents to support a plan that combines spending cuts with new revenue. That session will follow Mr. Obama's meeting with labor leaders on Tuesday.¶ His first trip outside Washington to engage the public will come after Thanksgiving, since Mr. Obama is scheduled to leave next weekend on a diplomatic trip to Asia. Travel plans are still sketchy, partly because his December calendar is full of the traditional holiday parties.¶ Democrats said the White House's strategy of focusing both inside and outside of Washington was smart. "You want to avoid getting sucked into the Beltway inside-baseball games," said Joel Johnson, a former adviser in the Clinton White House and the Senate. "You can still work toward solutions, but make sure you get out of Washington while you are doing that."¶ The president must use his leverage soon, some Democrats added, because it could quickly wane as Republicans look to the 2014 midterm elections, when the opposition typically takes seats from the president's party in Congress.

Winners don’t win, several reasons –
Obama cannot win – legislative wins don’t spillover
*prefer Obama specific evidence – even if other presidents are able to regenerate capital quickly, Obama cannot – every time Obama allocates political capital on unpopular legislation it turns into a journalistic convention of pointing fingers – makes it impossible to get legislation through
Todd Eberly 13 – is coordinator of Public Policy Studies and assistant professor in the Department of Political Science at St. Mary's College of Maryland. His email is teeberly@smcm.edu. This article is excerpted from his book, co-authored with Steven Schier, "American Government and Popular Discontent: Stability without Success," to published later this year by Routledge Press., 1-21-2013 http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-01-21/news/bs-ed-political-capital-20130121_1_political-system-party-support-public-opinion/2

As Barack Obama prepares to be sworn in for the second time as president of the United States, he faces the stark reality that little of what he hopes to accomplish in a second term will likely come to pass. Mr. Obama occupies an office that many assume to be all powerful, but like so many of his recent predecessors, the president knows better. He faces a political capital problem and a power trap.¶ In the post-1960s American political system, presidents have found the exercise of effective leadership a difficult task. To lead well, a president needs support — or at least permission — from federal courts and Congress; steady allegiance from public opinion and fellow partisans in the electorate; backing from powerful, entrenched interest groups; and accordance with contemporary public opinion about the proper size and scope of government. This is a long list of requirements. If presidents fail to satisfy these requirements, they face the prospect of inadequate political support or political capital to back their power assertions.¶ What was so crucial about the 1960s? We can trace so much of what defines contemporary politics to trends that emerged then. Americans' confidence in government began a precipitous decline as the tumult and tragedies of the 1960s gave way to the scandals and economic uncertainties of the 1970s. Long-standing party coalitions began to fray as the New Deal coalition, which had elected Franklin Roosevelt to four terms and made Democrats the indisputable majority party, faded into history. The election of Richard Nixon in 1968 marked the beginning of an unprecedented era of divided government. Finally, the two parties began ideologically divergent journeys that resulted in intense polarization 

in Congress, diminishing the possibility of bipartisan compromise. These changes, combined with the growing influence of money and interest groups and the steady "thickening" of the federal bureaucracy, introduced significant challenges to presidential leadership.¶ Political capital can best be understood as a combination of the president's party support in Congress, public approval of his job performance, and the president's electoral victory margin. The components of political capital are central to the fate of presidencies. It is difficult to claim warrants for leadership in an era when job approval, congressional support and partisan affiliation provide less backing for a president than in times past. In recent years, presidents' political capital has shrunk while their power assertions have grown, making the president a volatile player in the national political system.¶ Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush joined the small ranks of incumbents defeated while seeking a second term. Ronald Reagan was elected in two landslides, yet his most successful year for domestic policy was his first year in office. Bill Clinton was twice elected by a comfortable margin, but with less than majority support, and despite a strong economy during his second term, his greatest legislative successes came during his first year with the passage of a controversial but crucial budget bill, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the North American Free Trade Agreement. George W. Bush won election in 2000 having lost the popular vote, and though his impact on national security policy after the Sept. 11 attacks was far reaching, his greatest domestic policy successes came during 2001. Ambitious plans for Social Security reform, following his narrow re-election in 2004, went nowhere.¶ Faced with obstacles to successful leadership, recent presidents have come to rely more on their formal powers. The number of important executive orders has increased significantly since the 1960s, as have the issuance of presidential signing statements. Both are used by presidents in an attempt to shape and direct policy on their terms. Presidents have had to rely more on recess appointments as well, appointing individuals to important positions during a congressional recess (even a weekend recess) to avoid delays and obstruction often encountered in the Senate. Such power assertions typically elicit close media scrutiny and often further erode political capital.¶ Barack Obama's election in 2008 seemed to signal a change. Mr. Obama's popular vote majority was the largest for any president since 1988, and he was the first Democrat to clear the 50 percent mark since Lyndon Johnson. The president initially enjoyed strong public approval and, with a Democratic Congress, was able to produce an impressive string of legislative accomplishments during his first year and early into his second, capped by enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. But with each legislative battle and success, his political capital waned. His impressive successes with Congress in 2009 and 2010 were accompanied by a shift in the public mood against him, evident in the rise of the tea party movement, the collapse in his approval rating, and the large GOP gains in the 2010 elections, which brought a return to divided government.¶ By mid-2011, Mr. Obama's job approval had slipped well below its initial levels, and Congress was proving increasingly intransigent. In the face of declining public support and rising congressional opposition, Mr. Obama, like his predecessors, looked to the energetic use of executive power. In 2012, the president relied on executive discretion and legal ambiguity to allow homeowners to more easily refinance federally backed mortgages, to help veterans find employment and to make it easier for college graduates to consolidate federal student loan debt. He issued several executive orders effecting change in the nation's enforcement of existing immigration laws. He used an executive order to authorize the Department of Education to grant states waivers from the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act — though the enacting legislation makes no accommodation for such waivers. Contrary to the outcry from partisan opponents, Mr. Obama's actions were hardly unprecedented or imperial. Rather, they represented a rather typical power assertion from a contemporary president.¶ Many looked to the 2012 election as a means to break present trends. But Barack Obama's narrow re-election victory, coupled with the re-election of a somewhat-diminished Republican majority House and Democratic majority Senate, hardly signals a grand resurgence of his political capital. The president's recent issuance of multiple executive orders to deal with the issue of gun violence is further evidence of his power trap. Faced with the likelihood of legislative defeat in Congress, the president must rely on claims of unilateral power. But such claims are not without limit or cost and will likely further erode his political capital.¶ Only by solving the problem of political capital is a president likely to avoid a power trap. Presidents in recent years have been unable to prevent their political capital from 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 time received popular approval.¶ However, 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 heavily on the current president's mind today as he takes his second oath of office.

3. Jobs and productivity.
Hermann 11 – President American Society of Civil Engineers, P.E. SECB, F.ASCE (Andrew, 2011, “Impact Of Infrastructure Investment On The Manufacturing Sector,” lexisum-ef)

ASCE commends the Joint Economic Committee for holding a hearing today on how surface transportation investment is a key factor for continued economic recovery and job creation. The Society is pleased to present to the Committee our views on investing in the nation's infrastructure and the critical link to U.S manufacturing. An agenda that fosters economic growth and job creation through policies that strengthen U.S. manufacturing and infrastructure will allow the nation to remain competitive in the Twenty-First Century. Infrastructure Receives a Grade of "D" ASCE's 2009 Report Card for America's Infrastructure graded the nation's infrastructure a "D" based on 15 categories (the same overall grade as ASCE's 2005 Report Card). The report also concluded that the nation needs to invest approximately $2.2 trillion from 2009 - 2014 to bring our nation's infrastructure to a state of good repair. This number, adjusted for a three percent rate of inflation, represents capital spending at all levels of government and includes current expenditures. Even with current and planned investments from federal, state, and local governments from 2009 - 2014, the "gap" between the overall need and actual spending will exceed $1 trillion by the end of the five-year period. In the Report Card, the nation's surface transportation system included roads receiving a grade of "D-," bridges receiving a grade of "C," and transit receiving a grade of "D". With nearly one-third of roads in poor or mediocre condition, a quarter of the nation's bridges either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete, and transit use increasing to its highest levels in 50 years, the nation's surface transportation system is in a state of critical decline. Additionally, to bring just these three surface transportation categories up to an acceptable condition would require a five-year investment of $1.2 trillion, according to ASCE estimates. If the nation continues to under- invest in infrastructure and ignores this backlog until systems fail, we will incur even greater costs. While Congress is in the process of developing a comprehensive multi-year surface transportation authorization bill, and as President Obama emphasizes the infrastructure investment needs for the nation, our roads, bridges, and transit systems continue on in a state of decline. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the total of all federal spending for infrastructure has steadily declined over the past 30 years. The results of years of under investment can be seen in traffic and airport congestion, unsafe bridges and dams, deteriorating roads, and aging drinking water and wastewater infrastructure. Infrastructure Investment = Jobs Money invested in essential public works can create jobs, provide for economic growth, and ensure public safety through a modern, well-engineered national infrastructure. The nation's transportation infrastructure system has an annual output of $120 billion in construction work and contributes $244 billion in total economic activity to the nation's gross domestic product (GDP). In addition to the overarching economic benefits, the Federal Highway Administration estimates that every $1 billion invested in the nation's highways supports 27,823 jobs, including 9,537 on-site construction jobs, 4,324 jobs in supplier industries, and 13,962 jobs throughout the rest of the economy. Standard and Poor's has stated that highway investment has been shown to stimulate the economy more than any other fiscal policy, with each invested dollar in highway construction generating $1.80 toward the gross domestic product in the short term, while Cambridge Systematics estimates that every dollar taxpayers invest in public transportation generates $6 in economic returns. The transportation industry's experience with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 illustrated the strong job creation impact of dedicated transportation investment, with the $48 billion for transportation improvements in the legislation supporting tens of thousands of jobs in engineering, construction, and supporting industries. Infrastructure Investment = A Healthy Economy The job-creation potential of infrastructure investment is only one contributing factor of the interaction between surface transportation and the nation's ability to compete in the global marketplace. Equally important are the benefits to a region's long term growth and productivity. A significant challenge to this economic growth is increased congestion, which contributes to the deterioration of the nation's infrastructure. Therefore, the importance of freight movement and the impact of congestion on the nation's economy must be emphasized. ASCE is concerned with the increasing deterioration of America's infrastructure, reduced investment for the preservation and enhancement of our quality of life, and the threatened decline of U.S. competitiveness in the global marketplace. In response, ASCE has not only issued multiple Report Cards on the condition of infrastructure, but has also sought to advance policy solutions that provide for a clean and safe quality of life, as well as fuel economic growth. While taken for granted by most Americans, our infrastructure is the foundation on which the national economy depends. As the economy grows, we cannot only think in terms of repairing what we have, but of creating a modernized transportation system that addresses long-term needs. The current system was originally built in the 1950's and 1960's at a time when the country had different transportation needs and a smaller population. With an expanding population and a larger economy, the nation needs a transportation system that can keep pace. Unfortunately, due to the rapid growth of the country, highway and freight capacity failed to keep up. In July 2011, ASCE released an economic study that measures the potential impacts to the economy in 2020 and 2040 if the nation maintains current levels of surface transportation investments. The report is the first in a series of four reports that will focus on the correlation between the nation's infrastructure and the economy. Subsequent reports will detail the economic correlation to the nation's drinking and waste water systems, energy grid, and ports and airports. The first study, Failure to Act: the Economic Impact of Current Investment Trends in Surface Transportation Infrastructure, found that if investments in surface transportation are not made in conjunction with significant policy reforms, families will have a lower standard of living, businesses will be paying more and producing less, and our nation will lose ground in a global economy. The nation's deteriorating surface transportation will cost the American economy more than 876,000 jobs, and suppress the growth of the country's GDP by $897 billion in 2020.The study results estimate that more than 100,900 manufacturing jobs will be lost by 2020. Ultimately, Americans will also get paid less. While the economy will lose jobs overall, those who are able to find work will find their paychecks cut because of the ripple effects that will occur through the economy. In contrast, a study from the Alliance for American Manufacturing shows that roughly 18,000 new manufacturing jobs are created for every $1 billion in new infrastructure spending. These manufacturing jobs would be created in fabricated metals, concrete and cement, glass-rubber-plastics, steel, and wood product industries. Furthermore, the Alliance for American Manufacturing study shows that using American-made materials for these infrastructure projects yields a total of 77,000 additional jobs, based on a projected investment of $148 billion a year (including $93 billion of public investment). International Competitiveness Failure to Act also shows that failing infrastructure will drive the cost of doing business up by adding $430 billion to transportation costs in the next decade. Firms will spend more to ship goods, and the raw materials they buy will cost more due to increased transportation costs. Productivity costs will also fall, with businesses underperforming by $240 billion over the next decade; this in turn will drive up the costs of goods. As a result, U.S. exports will fall by $28 billion, including 79 of 93 tradable commodities. Ten sectors of the U.S. economy account for more than half of this unprecedented loss in export value - among them key manufacturing sectors like machinery, medical devices, and communications equipment. On the contrary, most of America's major economic competitors in Europe and Asia have already invested in and are reaping the benefits of improved competitiveness from their infrastructure systems. To illustrate further the correlation between transportation and a strong national economy, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in late 2010 released a transportation performance index that examines the overall contribution to economic growth from a well-performing transportation infrastructure. The index displays a decline in the nation's economic competitiveness due to a continued lack of investment in surface transportation systems on all levels. However, the results also indicate that a commitment to raising the performance of transportation infrastructure would provide long-term value for the U.S. economy. At this juncture, even Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner is underscoring the importance of investing in our nation's infrastructure and the value of export promotion for the competitiveness of U.S. businesses. On a recent trip to a North Carolina manufacturing plant, Secretary Geithner drew parallels between investment in infrastructure, jobs creation, and growth of the domestic manufacturing sector. While efforts such as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 have provided some short term relief to a struggling engineering and construction sector, a sustained economic recovery, will remain difficult without a new multi-year surface transportation bill. Five Key Solutions As part of ASCE's 2009 Report Card for America's Infrastructure, ASCE identified five Key Solutions that illustrate an ambitious plan to maintain and improve the nation's infrastructure: Increase federal leadership in infrastructure;

No large-scale wars over water sources
Yang ’11 – contributing columnist to The Dartmouth (Lorelei, “Water Wars,” The Dartmouth, November 22, 2011, http://thedartmouth.com/2011/11/22/opinion/water)//SS
Some policy analysts have predicted the outbreak of “water crises” caused by large, water-poor nations like China attacking smaller, water-rich areas like Tibet while seizing resources at a terrible cost to human life. However, formal water wars are unlikely. While water scarcity does result in regional conflict, even two bitter enemies such as India and Pakistan have a peaceful water partnership. What we should be concerned about instead is internationally sanctioned water privatization in the developing world.
Diplomacy checks.
Kevin Watkins and Anders Berntell International Herald Tribune, 8/23/06,  “a global problem: How to avoid  war over water”  http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/23/opinion/edwatkins.php#
The threats posed by competition for water are real enough - but for every threat there is an opportunity. Cooperation tends to attract less news than violent conflict. Perhaps that is why "water wars" get such exaggerated coverage. The agreement under which Lesotho provides water to the greater Johannesburg area in South Africa in return for watershed management finance does not make front page news. Nor does the Nile Basin Initiative, through which Egypt, Ethiopia and other countries are exchanging the benefits of cooperation on the Nile. And cooperation in West Africa between Senegal, Mali and Mauritania to share the Senegal River is not likely to make prime- time new slots in Europe. Yet cooperation over water is far more widespread than conflict.

Natural gas solves.
Matusky 8/27, Greg, 8/27/13, “How natural gas is helping shrink the U.S. manufacturing trade gap,” http://www.marcellusdelval.org/shale-news/how-natural-gas-is-helping-shrink-the-u-s-manufacturing-trade-gap/)//DR. H

The article cites data compiled by the Manufacturers Alliance for Productivity and Innovation showing that after years of losing manufacturing business to China, the U.S. trade deficit has finally started to shrink. In the first half of the year, this manufacturing trade gap went from $227 billion to $225 billion. The article moves on to point out that onshoring, or the return of manufacturing to U.S. shores, is spurring national economic activity and could generate anywhere from 2.5 to 5 million American jobs by 2020. That would go a long way toward reducing our stuttering unemployment rate, which has been stalled at 7.4 percent.
Dig deeper into the numbers and you’ll find that this reduction in the manufacturing trade gap is largely due to falling energy prices here in America, where shale-drilling technology is making U.S. manufacturing more cost-competitive against foreign players. In fact, the story quotes a Boston Consulting Group study that claims the U.S. is steadily becoming one of the lowest-cost countries for manufacturing in the developed world.
Their internal links all cite the Wilson report – that was full of contradictions.
The Economist 12 – (6/12/12, “Questions at the border,” http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/06/american-mexican-trade)JCP 

THE border between America and Mexico is perhaps best known for the illegal trade and people passing though it. But the growth in legitimate things crossing over is the far bigger story. Last year the value of bilateral trade reached half a trillion dollars by one measure, without any fanfare at all. But a stiffening of controls since 9/11 has led to congestion and unpredictable delays that cost both countries billions of dollars a year in trade, according to a report* released this month.
The study, by Erik Lee and Christopher E. Wilson of the Border Research Partnership, produces two interesting charts (which we have cut and pasted below). The problem is that they present a puzzling discrepency.
The first chart dramatically shows how the value of bilateral trade increased more than four-fold over the past two decades—almost entirely in manufactured goods; services have only increased a bit.
The second chart shows how personal vehicle and pedestrian traffic increased after the signing of the North American Free-Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1995, but retreated after 9/11.
The peculiarity is that lorry traffic, which the report states accounts for more than 70 of all bilateral trade, has actually grown slightly.
A reasonable chap might wonder why the value (albeit not volume) of trade can grow so tremendously while the number of border crossings to transport the goods has budged only barely.
How to square the seeming inconsistency? In short: more goods are crammed into lorries, and more valuable goods are flowing northward, particularly by other means than lorries. As Mr Wilson explains in response to our query:
"I take the growth in trade without a corresponding growth in truck traffic to be further evidence of the 'thickening' of the border. That is, with congestion and delays, there is an incentive to be as efficient as possible. Trucks are packing more value in the same space. As evidence, the number of loaded truck containers grew faster than the number of trucks crossings (since the 90s), and loaded containers increased much faster than the growth of empty truck containers.""
It also appear that trade by road has grown at a somewhat slower pace that trade by air, water, rail, or pipeline—again, likely related to the slowdown at the border crossings. Also, Mexico is moving away from industries like apparel and doing more things like flat screen tvs and medical devices. Seems likely that the value/volume ratio could be increasing. And, trade values are not inflation adjusted, so some growth of trade values without corresponding increases in vehicles or tonnage makes sense."
The point of the report is a call to invest more in infrastructure and revise procedures to improve the flow of traffic at border crossings—and thus trade between the countries. Yet what is subtly revealed by the data is that Mexico's economy is becoming more efficient and moving up the value chain. 

xt – squo solves
Their internal link is generic to renewables investment – NADBank funding solar energy solves.
EP 12 (Eagle Pass Business Journal, 1/11/12, “NAD Bank closes $77.4 million loan to support Solar Energy in California,” http://www.epbusinessjournal.com/2012/01/nad-bank-closes-77-4-million-loan-to-support-solar-energy-in-california/)//DR. H

The North American Development Bank (NADB) has signed a US$77.4 million loan agreement with Imperial Valley Solar Company 1, LLC, for the construction of a 23-megawatt (MW) solar energy generation plant in Niland, California. The project, which will generate enough energy to power approximately 14,000 homes, consists of building a solar park using fixed-tilt polycrystalline silicon photovoltaic (PV) modules. The solar park will be constructed on a 123-acre lot located within the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) and adjacent to the Niland electric substation. The project was certified by NADB’s sister institution, the Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC) on June 6, 2011. IID will purchase 20 MW of the energy generated by the solar park. The District currently serves roughly 146,000 electricity customers in Imperial County and parts of Riverside and San Diego Counties, making it the sixth largest electrical utility in California. Last year, IID reached its highest peak demand of 1,104 MW, so this solar project has the potential of providing approximately 1.2 of the total energy requirements. This project is part of IID’s plan to comply with California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), which requires electricity service providers to adopt the new RPS goals of 20 percent of retails sales from renewable by the end of 2013, 25 percent by the end of 2016, and the 33 percent requirement being met by the end of 2020. The estimated environmental impact for the expected life of the project over the next 40 years is equivalent to a carbon dioxide (CO2) reduction of nearly 1 million metric tons. The solar park will displace greenhouse gas emissions produced by traditional fossil-fuel based energy generation thus improving air quality, while providing the citizens of Imperial County with a reliable energy alternative. “We are very pleased to participate in this project that will provide a cleaner energy alternative to citizens in southern California,” stated NADB Managing Director Gerónimo Gutiérrez. “We have been working to build partnerships in the renewable energy sector, with both public entities and private companies and with the signing of this loan we are opening a new chapter in the evolution of the Bank that will help us move forward in the development of renewable energy projects.” Imperial Valley Solar Company 1, LLC is a subsidiary of the California-based SunPeak Solar, LLC, a privately-held solar energy project developer and asset manager with extensive experience in the development, financing, construction and operation of renewable energy projects. SunPeak is focused exclusively on providing utility clientele with custom-tailored solar energy solutions. NADB’s previous work in support of IID includes having provided US$3.76 million in grants for two water conservation projects that are estimated to be saving more than 3,700 acre/feet per year. To date, NADB is helping finance 150 infrastructure projects throughout the U.S.-Mexico border region worth more than US$3.26 billion. NADB is providing approximately US$1.31 billion in loans and grants for these projects that are benefiting an estimated 13 million people in the border region.
So are border key cards.
Hendricks 12, David, 11/8/13, “NADBank expands renewable energy portfolio,” http://www.mysanantonio.com/business/article/NADBank-expands-renewable-energy-portfolio-4021606.php)//DR. H

Directors of the San Antonio-based North American Development Bank on Thursday expanded the bank's portfolio of renewable energy projects with loans to a wind farm project in Imperial County, Calif., and a solar park project planned for Pima County, Ariz. NADBank executives also signed a 12-year, $50 million line-of-credit agreement with a German development bank that will be used to lend money to water and sewage projects in Mexico's border zone. NADBank is lending up to $110 million to the Ocotillo Express Wind Energy Project for a wind farm in Imperial County, Calif. Power from the 112 wind turbines will be sold to San Diego Gas and Electric. NADBank is lending up to $45 million to Davis-Monthan AFB Solar Park, which will provide electricity to the Tucson Electric Power Co. The two renewable energy loans are among five loans totaling more than $158 million in loans and grants approved at the joint annual meeting Thursday in San Antonio of the NADBank and the Border Environment Cooperation Commission, based in Ciudad Juárez, Mexico. The BECC certifies border projects for NADBank financing. NADBank, founded in 1994, only started lending to renewable energy projects in the last several years after devoting its first decade toward financing water, sewage, landfill and road-paving projects. Renewable energy projects now account for 29 percent of the bank's loan portfolio. The other projects approved for financing Thursday involve water and sewage. A $792,440 grant is being made to assist in water and sewage construction in San Agustín, a municipality within Ciudad Juárez. A loan of about $1.65 million was approved for a sewage collection system in Tijuana, Mexico. A $761,309 grant is being made for a sewage collection system in Bisbee, Ariz. NADBank will draw on its new $50 million line of credit from Germany's Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau, or KfW, over the next 12 years at an interest rate of 1.9 percent. The rate is lower than the 2.4 percent NADBank is paying for its most recent bond sales, which were conducted to raise more capital for loans, said Juan Antonio Flores, NADBank spokesman. The German bank's line of credit is accompanied by a grant fund of about $1.3 million that will be used for technical assistance with the projects financed by the loans. The grant fund will be administered by the BECC. NADBank currently has $504.45 million in outstanding loans for border projects. Ten projects with pending loans valued at a total of $27.7 million are in the pipeline through 2013, said NADBank Managing Director Gerónimo Gutiérrez.

Tournament: Greenhill | Round: 3 | Opponent: Alpharetta HM | Judge: Sam Shore
1nc- da

The debt ceiling will pass but it will be a fight
Washington Post, 9/15/13 (“Congress can turn back to the budget now” http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/congress-can-turn-back-to-the-budget-now/2013/09/15/e05c975c-1ca5-11e3-82ef-a059e54c49d0_story.html)

WITH PRESIDENT Obama’s bid for congressional support for a military strike against Syria on hold for the time being, members of the House and Senate can devote their attention to what was previously supposed to have been their priority for September: avoiding a potential political and economic train wreck over the federal government’s finances.
Specifically, Congress needs to fund the government after the current spending law expires on Sept. 30, and it needs to raise the $16.7 trillion debt limit, which will be reached sometime in the second half of October, and which must be increased to avoid the possibility of a U.S. default.
Alas, these two pieces of what should be routine business have become entangled in the politics of Obamacare, which is to say the decreasingly comprehensible politics of the House Republican caucus. A sizable minority of GOP members insists on “defunding” the health care law before the major parts of it begin to take effect in January. According to a recent Congressional Research Service analysis, this is an operationally futile goal. It would be bad policy even if it were possible.
What’s more, it’s bad politics for the GOP to risk a government shutdown in pursuit of this chimera — a fact Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) recognizes but which has, so far, failed to sway his back-benchers. This is why Democrats are content, for now, to sit back and cheer on the Republicans’ internal feud. Also, that’s easier than countering the Republicans’ anti-Obamacare crusade with realistic budget alternatives.
How this latest impasse plays out is anyone’s guess, though there are plausible scenarios under which Mr. Boehner can give the ultras in his caucus a chance to vote one more time against Obamacare, while engineering Democratic acquiescence in a short-term continuation of the current $988 billion annual spending rate. Such a result would avoid a partial government shutdown — for a few months.
The debt ceiling, too, probably can be finessed, as it has been in the past. Exactly how is admittedly difficult to predict given Mr. Obama’s insistence that raising it is not negotiable and Mr. Boehner’s seemingly incompatible insistence that he won’t increase Washington’s borrowing capacity except in return for progress on deficit reduction. But a default would not be in either side’s political interest.

Drains capital – Backlash and hostage taking on unrelated priority legislation is empirically proven, likely in future and specifically true for Rubio  – Cuba policy is totally unique
LeoGrande, 12
William M. LeoGrande School of Public Affairs American University, Professor of Government and a specialist in Latin American politics and U.S. foreign policy toward Latin America, Professor LeoGrande has been a frequent adviser to government and private sector agencies, 12/18/12, http://www.american.edu/clals/upload/LeoGrande-Fresh-Start.pdf

The Second Obama Administration Where in the executive branch will control over Cuba policy lie? Political considerations played a major role in Obamaand#39;s Cuba policy during the first term, albeit not as preeminent a consideration as they were during the Clinton years. In 2009, Obamaand#39;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 presidentand#39;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 Democratsand#39; 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 Rubioand#39;s demand that it limit the licensing of travel providers in exchange for him dropping his hold on the appointment of Valenzuelaand#39;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 Obamaand#39;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 and#34;democracy promotionand#34; 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.

Capital is finite and spending it elsewhere prevents a debt ceiling deal
Moore, 9/10/13 - Guardianand#39;s US finance and economics editor. (Heidi, “Syria: the great distraction” The Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/10/obama-syria-what-about-sequester)

The country will crash into the debt ceiling in mid-October, which would be an economic disaster, especially with a government shutdown looming at the same time. These are deadlines that Congress already learned two years ago not to toy with, but memories appear to be preciously short.
The Federal Reserve needs a new chief in three months, someone who will help the country confront its raging unemployment crisis that has left 12 million people without jobs. The president has promised to choose a warm body within the next three weeks, despite the fact that his top pick, Larry Summers, would likely spark an ugly confirmation battle – the and#34;fight of the century,and#34; according to some – with a Congress already unwilling to do the Presidentand#39;s bidding.
Congress was supposed to pass a farm bill this summer, but declined to do so even though the task is already two years late. As a result, the country has no farm bill, leaving agricultural subsidies up in the air, farmers uncertain about what their financial picture looks like, and a potential food crisis on the horizon.
The two main housing agencies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, have been in limbo for four years and are desperately in need of reform that should start this fall, but there is scant attention to the problem.
These are the problems going unattended by the Obama administration while his aides and cabinet members have been wasting the nationand#39;s time making the rounds on television and Capitol Hill stumping for a profoundly unpopular war. The fact that all this chest-beating was for naught, and an easy solution seems on the horizon, belies the single-minded intensity that the Obama White House brought to its insistence on bombing Syria.
More than one wag has suggested, with the utmost reason, that if Obama had brought this kind of passion to domestic initiatives, the country would be in better condition right now. As it is, public policy is embarrassingly in shambles at home while the administration throws all of its resources and political capital behind a widely hated plan to get involved in a civil war overseas.
The upshot for the president may be that itand#39;s easier to wage war with a foreign power than go head-to-head with the US Congress, even as America suffers from neglect.
This is the paradox that President Obama is facing this fall, as he appears to turn his back on a number of crucial and urgent domestic initiatives in order to spend all of his meager political capital on striking Syria.
Syria does present a significant humanitarian crisis, which has been true for the past two years that the Obama administration has completely ignored the atrocities of Bashar al-Assad.
Two years is also roughly the same amount of time that key domestic initiatives have also gone ignored as Obama and Congress engage in petty battles for dominance and leave the country to run itself on a starvation diet imposed by sequestration cuts. Leon Panetta tells the story of how he tried to lobby against sequestration only to be told:
Leon, you donand#39;t understand. The Congress is resigned to failure.
Similarly, those on Wall Street, the Federal Reserve, those working at government agencies, and voters themselves have become all too practiced at ignoring the determined incompetence of those in Washington.
Political capital – the ability to horse-trade and win political favors from a receptive audience – is a finite resource in Washington. Pursuing misguided policies takes up time, but it also eats up credibility in asking for the next favor. Itand#39;s fair to say that congressional Republicans, particularly in the House, have no love for Obama and are likely to oppose anything he supports. Thatand#39;s exactly the reason the White House should stop proposing policies as if it is scattering buckshot and focus with intensity on the domestic tasks it wants to accomplish, one at a time.
Default will destroy the U.S. and global economy
Davidson, 9/10/13 – co-founder of NPR’s Planet Money (Adam, “Our Debt to Society” New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/magazine/our-debt-to-society.html?pagewanted=all)

If the debt ceiling isn’t lifted again this fall, some serious financial decisions will have to be made. Perhaps the government can skimp on its foreign aid or furlough all of NASA, but eventually the big-ticket items, like Social Security and Medicare, will have to be cut. At some point, the government won’t be able to pay interest on its bonds and will enter what’s known as sovereign default, the ultimate national financial disaster achieved by countries like Zimbabwe, Ecuador and Argentina (and now Greece). In the case of the United States, though, it won’t be an isolated national crisis. If the American government can’t stand behind the dollar, the world’s benchmark currency, then the global financial system will very likely enter a new era in which there is much less trade and much less economic growth. It would be, by most accounts, the largest self-imposed financial disaster in history.
Nearly everyone involved predicts that someone will blink before this disaster occurs. Yet a small number of House Republicans (one political analyst told me it’s no more than 20) appear willing to see what happens if the debt ceiling isn’t raised — at least for a bit. This could be used as leverage to force Democrats to drastically cut government spending and eliminate President Obama’s signature health-care-reform plan. In fact, Representative Tom Price, a Georgia Republican, told me that the whole problem could be avoided if the president agreed to drastically cut spending and lower taxes. Still, it is hard to put this act of game theory into historic context. Plenty of countries — and some cities, like Detroit — have defaulted on their financial obligations, but only because their governments ran out of money to pay their bills. No wealthy country has ever voluntarily decided — in the middle of an economic recovery, no less — to default. And there’s certainly no record of that happening to the country that controls the global reserve currency.
Like many, I assumed a self-imposed U.S. debt crisis might unfold like most involuntary ones. If the debt ceiling isn’t raised by X-Day, I figured, the world’s investors would begin to see America as an unstable investment and rush to sell their Treasury bonds. The U.S. government, desperate to hold on to investment, would then raise interest rates far higher, hurtling up rates on credit cards, student loans, mortgages and corporate borrowing — which would effectively put a clamp on all trade and spending. The U.S. economy would collapse far worse than anything we’ve seen in the past several years.

Nuclear war
Friedberg and Schoenfeld 8
Aaron, Prof. Politics. And IR @ Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School and Visiting Scholar @ Witherspoon Institute, and Gabriel, Senior Editor of Commentary and Wall Street Journal, “The Dangers of a Diminished America”, 10-28, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122455074012352571.html
Then there are the dolorous consequences of a potential collapse of the worldand#39;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. Russiaand#39;s new militancy and Chinaand#39;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.

1nc –da
Plan kills Brazil’s sugar industry.
Miami Herald 02 (6/26/02, “Cuba embargo under fire - Sally Grooms Cowaland#39;s Group cites benefits for U.S.,” http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/706185/posts)//DR. H

4. The next reason in favor of doing away with the embargo runs as follows: Look here, there is money to be made in Cuba. Remember Coolidge’s, the and#34;business of America is business?and#34; If everything else fails, appeal to greed . There are some salivating mouths claiming that 6 billion dollars worth of goods and commodities could be sold to Cuba. But unless the U.S. takes the place of the Soviet Union and initially subsidizes the Cuban economy with credits and loans (coming out of American tax paying pockets), and rebuild its shattered infrastructure at a cost of billions upon billions of dollars, the U.S. would have to buy Cuban sugar produced by workers paid now 10 dollars per month in order to enable Cubans to have money to pay for all these goodies, without any guarantees that the large portion of the profits made would not go first to the apparatus of repression (armed forces, secret police and Communist Party cadres) and to the modernization of its weapons systems and only lastly, to the Cuban people. Moreover, one must ask: what happens to the sugar industry of Florida now producing 25 of the sugar consumed in the U.S.?. Furthermore, according to the American Sugar Alliance, 80-85 of the sugar produced in the U.S. is consumed here. The remainder 15 is imported from 40 foreign countries--about 1,5 million tons. Under WTO and NAFTA rules the U.S. is required to bring in AT LEAST that amount, even if the U.S. does not need it now! Any sale of Cuban sugar to a sugar producing country like the U.S. would mean that there would be less of the market for the American sugar industry to go around.
In addition, what would happen abroad to Brazil’s sugar market, one of the largest producers of sugar, (even if a significant amount of that countryand#39;s sugar is used to produce ethanol)? and to the Dominican Republic’s or Mexicoand#39;s market? to mention only three sugar producing countries in our hemisphere. We should ponder, in this context, the following statement issued on August 10, 2000 by Joseph Terrell, Director of Public Affairs of the American Sugar Alliance: and#34;We are well aware of the challenges lifting the Cuban embargo could have on the US sugar industry. Also, quota holders in other countries are monitoring the situation closely as well because they could stand to lose…we are monitoring this closely.and#34; A similar view has been advanced by the general manager of the Louisiana Sugar Cane Cooperative and secretary/treasurer of the Louisiana Farm Bureau Foundation, Jackie Theriot, who said: Lifting the embargo -- without holding Cuba to production limits -- would flood the U.S. market with sugar, dropping the prices and bankrupting the domestic industry. (quoted by Kevin Blanchard in his article and#34;Now no Time to Help Cuba,and#34; The Advocate ONLINE (April 11, 2002) However, it is unlikely that Castroand#39;s Cuba would accept being hamstrung by production limits and it would go against the free trade ideology espoused by Washington these days.
Is the U.S. going to harden the grip of Castro by granting him even a significantly diminished market opening at the expense of its own sugar industry? Imperil the Brazilian sale of sugar to the U.S. just to please Castro? Is the U.S. going to finance the the conversion of Cuban sugar into ethanol, as means to reduce the worldwide glut of sugar even though the prospects of creating a large U.S. ethanol market is still an economic entelechy? Moreover, consider that during one year, in the decade of the 50’s (1959, for example) Cuba’s sugar quota in the U.S. totaled 1.256 million metric tons, roughly the same amount that the U.S. now imports from 40 countries! It is well known that when Cuba lost its generous American sugar quota in the 60’s this amount was allocated to other countries. which used the allocation to maintain their sugar industry and increase their production. What would be the ripple effect of the Cuban re-intervention in the American sugar market, given that it will be considerably less than what it sold in the 50’s and will offer sugar at a low price to gain a foothold in the market? This macroeconomic assessment has not been addressed in the public arena by Castro’s acolytes and foot soldiers in this country. In addition, in the case Dominican Republic, the European Union subsidized exports have already caused a 20 income loss of income in that country. If Cuba’s sales of sugar take a slice of the American market, both the domestic and international suppliers, such as the Dominican Republic, Brazil, and Mexico (who incidentally, has been encouraged to develop an ethanol industry) are going to feel even more severely impacted. Even if Cuba did not make efforts to create a capital intensive industry, as the cane sugar producers in the U.S and producers of sugar in the world have done it, Cuban sugar would be produced more cheaply, as already indicated, doubtlessly, with Communist government subsidies in order to retain a share of the American market.
That causes Brazilian economic instability.
SC 12 (Sugarcane.org, AT: Website’s Bias!!! – Cites objective data…, 6/19/12, “Impact on Braziland#39;s Economy,” http://sugarcane.org/the-brazilian-experience/impact-on-brazils-economy)//DR. H

The sugarcane industry – including cultivation, processing and refined products – represents an important segment of the Brazilian economy.
Economic Contribution
In 2010, the sugarcane sector contributes US$50 billion to Brazil’s gross domestic product (GDP) – equivalent to almost 2.4 of the entire Brazilian economy and comparable to the GDP of a European country like Slovenia (US$47.7 billion).
When you add in the various suppliers and stakeholders who depend on Brazil’s sugarcane industry, the entire sugarcane agro-industrial system generates gross revenues totaling more than US$86 billion annually.
Good Jobs
The sugarcane industry employs 1.28 million workers, according to 2008 data from the Ministry of Labor and Employment’s Annual Report of Social Information (RAIS).

Nuclear war.
Shulz 2k (Donald, Research Professor of National Security Policy at the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College THE UNITED STATES AND LATIN AMERICA: SHAPING AN ELUSIVE FUTURE, March) 

While we are in a speculative mode, it may be useful to raise the issue of whether, two or three decades from now, the United States might have to deal with a regional hegemon or peer competitor. The most obvious candidate for such a role would be Brazil, which already accounts for almost half of Latin America’s economic production and has by far the largest armed forces in the region (313,250 active troops).53 That country could very well assume a more commanding political and military role in the decades ahead. Until recently, the primary U.S. concern about Brazil has been that it might acquire nuclear weapons and delivery systems. In the 1970s, the Brazilian military embarked on a secret program to develop an atom bomb. By the late 1980s, both Brazil and Argentina were aggressively pursuing nuclear development programs that had clear military spin-offs.54 There were powerful military and civilian advocates of developing nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles within both countries. Today, however, the situation has changed. As a result of political leadership transitions in both countries, Brazil and Argentina now appear firmly committed to restricting their nuclear programs to peaceful purposes. They have entered into various nuclear-related agreements with each other—most notably the quadripartite comprehensive safeguards agreement (1991), which permits the inspection of all their nuclear installations by the International Atomic Energy Agency—and have joined the Missile Technology Control Regime. Even so, no one can be certain about the future. As Scott Tollefson has observed: . . . the military application of Brazil’s nuclear and space programs depends less on technological considerations than on political will. While technological constraints present a formidable barrier to achieving nuclear bombs and ballistic missiles, that barrier is not insurmountable. The critical element, therefore, in determining the applications of Brazil’s nuclear and space technologies will be primarily political.55 Put simply, if changes in political leadership were instrumental in redirecting Brazil’s nuclear program towards peaceful purposes, future political upheavals could still produce a reversion to previous orientations. Civilian supremacy is not so strong that it could not be swept away by a coup, especially if the legitimacy of the current democratic experiment were to be undermined by economic crisis and growing poverty/inequality. Nor are civilian leaders necessarily less militaristic or more committed to democracy than the military. The example of Peru’s Fujimori comes immediately to mind. How serious a threat might Brazil potentially be? It has been estimated that if the nuclear plant at Angra dos Reis (Angra I) were only producing at 30 percent capacity, it could produce five 20-kiloton weapons a year. If production from other plants were included, Brazil would have a capability three times greater than India or Pakistan. Furthermore, its defense industry already has a substantial missile producing capability. On the other hand, the country has a very limited capacity to project its military power via air and sealift or to sustain its forces over long distances. And though a 1983 law authorizes significant military manpower increases (which could place Brazil at a numerical level slightly higher than France, Iran and Pakistan), such growth will be restricted by a lack of economic resources. Indeed, the development of all these military potentials has been, and will continue to be, severely constrained by a lack of money. (Which is one reason Brazil decided to engage in arms control with Argentina in the first place.) 56 In short, a restoration of Brazilian militarism, imbued with nationalistic ambitions for great power status, is not unthinkable, and such a regime could present some fairly serious problems. That government would probably need foreign as well as domestic enemies to help justify its existence. One obvious candidate would be the United States, which would presumably be critical of any return to dictatorial rule. Beyond this, moreover, the spectre of a predatory international community, covetous of the riches of the Amazon, could help rally political support to the regime. For years, some Brazilian military officers have been warning of “foreign intervention.” Indeed, as far back as 1991 General Antenor de Santa Cruz Abreu, then chief of the Military Command of the Amazon, threatened to transform the region into a “new Vietnam” if developed countries tried to “internationalize” the Amazon. Subsequently, in 1993, U.S.-Guyanese combined military exercises near the Brazilian border provoked an angry response from many high-ranking Brazilian officers. 57 Since then, of course, U.S.-Brazilian relations have improved considerably. Nevertheless, the basic U.S./ international concerns over the Amazon—the threat to the region’s ecology through burning and deforestation, the presence of narcotrafficking activities, the Indian question, etc.—have not disappeared, and some may very well intensify in the years ahead. At the same time, if the growing trend towards subregional economic groupings—in particular, MERCOSUR—continues, it is likely to increase competition between Southern Cone and NAFTA countries. Economic conflicts, in turn, may be expected to intensify political differences, and could lead to heightened politico-military rivalry between different blocs or coalitions in the hemisphere. Even so, there continue to be traditional rivalries and conflicts within MERCOSUR, especially between Brazil and its neighbors, and these will certainly complicate the group’s evolution. Among other things, the past year witnessed a serious deterioration of relations between Brazil and Argentina, the product partly of the former’s January 1999 currency devaluation, which severely strained economic ties between the two countries. In part, too, these conflicts were aggravated by Argentina’s (unsuccessful) bid to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which Brazilians interpreted as an attempt to gain strategic advantage. The upshot was that relations soured to the extent where questions have been raised as to the continued viability of MERCOSUR itself. In light of these problems, one cannot but wonder what impact a resurgence of Brazilian authoritarianism, combined with a push for regional hegemonic status, would have on Argentina, currently a “non-NATO ally” of the United States.
1nc – t
The plan engages with non-governmental organizations.
Daga, 13 - director of research at Politicas Publicas para la Libertad, in Bolivia, and a visiting senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation (Sergio, “Economics of the 2013-2014 Debate Topic: U.S. Economic Engagement Toward Cuba, Mexico or Venezuela”, National Center for Policy Analysis, 5/15, http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Message_to_Debaters_6-7-13.pdf)

Economic engagement between or among countries can take many forms, but this document will focus on government-to-government engagement through 1) international trade agreements designed to lower barriers to trade; and 2) government foreign aid; next, we will contrast government-to-government economic engagement with private economic engagement through 3) international investment, called foreign direct investment; and 4) remittances and migration by individuals. All of these areas are important with respect to the countries mentioned in the debate resolution; however, when discussing economic engagement by the U.S. federal government, some issues are more important with respect to some countries than to others.

That violates the word “its”.
Glossary of English Grammar Terms, 05  
(http://www.usingenglish.com/glossary/possessive-pronoun.html)

Mine, yours, his, hers, its, ours, theirs are the possessive pronouns used to substitute a noun and to show possession or ownership.
EG. This is your disk and thatand#39;s mine. (Mine substitutes the word disk and shows that it belongs to me.)

That’s a voting issue – 

1. Limits – infinite non-governmental organizations that can be engaged become topical – makes it impossible to predict the aff killing clash, decisionmaking, and research.
   2. Ground – core topic education generics like relations disads are nullified.
   1nc – da
   Plan shifts oil reliance to Cuba.
   Padgett ‘8
   Tim Padgett joined TIME in 1996 as Mexico City bureau chief covering Latin America. In 1999 he moved to Florida to become TIME’s Miami and Latin America bureau chief, reporting on the hemisphere from Tallahassee to Tierra del Fuego. He has chronicled Mexico’s democratization and drug war as well as the rise of Latin leaders like Lula and Hugo Chavez, “How Cuba’s Oil Find Could Change the US Embargo”¶ Time Magazine – Oct. 23, 2008 – internally quoting Jonathan Benjamin-Alvarado, a Cuba oil analyst at the University of Nebraska-Omaha.
   http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,¶ 1853252,00.html#ixzz13Li5cosN 

The Spanish energy company Repsol-YPF has entered into a production-sharing agreement with Cupet and is scheduled to start drilling the first real well in the EEZ next year. Other international firms, including Norwayand#39;s StatoilHidro and Indiaand#39;s Oil and Natural Gas Corp., are part of the Repsol-led consortium. Venezuelaand#39;s state-run Petroleos de Venezuela is considered a lesser player because it has little deep-water drilling experience. (China is also interested but so far only involved in onshore drilling in Cuba.) Cuba is now in important negotiations with Braziland#39;s Petrobras, which just made its own multibillion-barrel oil find off its coast near Rio de Janeiro and could, analysts say, be the major offshore drilling partner for Cuba if it jumps in.¶ Still, the concessions so far represent less than a quarter of the 59 drilling blocks that Cuba hopes to exploit in the 43,000-sq.-mi. (112,000 sq km) EEZ. Analysts say one reason is the daunting infrastructural difficulties facing any company that drills in Cuba: firms have to bring much more of their own capital, equipment, technology and on-the-ground know-how than usual. This yearand#39;s severe hurricane damage in Cuba has made the situation worse. Canadaand#39;s Sherritt, in fact, recently dropped out of its four-block contract. and#34;Who else is going to be willing to actually come in and take the risk in Cuba?and#34; says Benjamin-Alvarado. and#34;In terms of proximity and technology, the only people really able to do it to the extent the Cubans need are the Americans.and#34;

That trades-off with US- Mid-East oil ties.
Alhaiji and Maris ‘4
Dr. A. F. Alhajji is an energy economist and George Patton Chair of Business and Economics at the College of Business Administration at Ohio Northern, Terry L. Maris is the founding executive director of the Center for Cuban. Business Studies and professor of management, “The Future of Cuba’s Energy Sector,” Cuba Today, 2004, http://web.gc.cuny.edu/dept/bildn/publications/cubatodaybookcomplete.pdf#page=105

The current economic, political, and social trends in Cuba indicate that¶ energy consumption will increase substantially in the future. Transition to a¶ market economy would accelerate this trend. In this article the word “transition”¶ refers to any movement towards a market economy. It does not necessarily¶ mean regime change.¶ The proximity of Cuba to the United States and the possibility of massive¶ oil deposits in Cuban waters will have a tangible impact on political, economic,¶ and social environments, not only in Cuba, but in the whole region.¶ The discovery of commercial deposits of oil would affect Cuba’s economy on¶ one hand and US energy policy and energy security on the other. If US-Cuba¶ relations improve in the future, discovery of large oil deposits could affect the¶ energy trade patterns between the two countries and affect oil trade between¶ the US and other oil producing countries, especially in the Middle East.

That causes Saudi Prolif.
Guzansky ‘13
Yoel Guzansky is a fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies, Tel Aviv University. His main research area is Gulf security. He has also served as Iran coordinator at Israeland#39;s National Security Council. His recent publications include The Gulf States in a Changing Strategic Environment (2012), One Year of the Arab Spring: Global and Regional Implications, and The Gulf States: Between Iran and the West – Middle East Quarterly¶ Spring 2013, pp. 59-64 – available at: http://www.meforum.org/3512/saudi-arabia-pakistan-nuclear-weapon

Continued Iranian progress toward a nuclear weapon, Iraqand#39;s increasing alignment with Tehran, and an expedited U.S. exit from Afghanistan are all changing the Saudi strategic landscape. The Obama administrationand#39;s and#34;lead from behindand#34; approach in Libya and its hesitation to get involved in the Syrian civil war all contribute to a reassessment of U.S. commitments. With the U.S. and#34;pivot to Asiaand#34;—taking the form of a series of military, economic, commercial, and diplomatic initiatives aimed at contending with the rising power of China—and a changing global energy map due to expansion of oil and natural gas production in the United States, Riyadh and others are beginning to prepare for a post-U.S. Middle East.¶ According to recent reports, Washington is considering expanding its nuclear cooperation with Riyadh on the basis of a 2008 memorandum of understanding: In exchange for foregoing the operation of nuclear fuel cycles on its soil, Saudi Arabia was to receive nuclear assistance.33 Such a move, should it come to pass, may be meant to persuade Riyadh to abandon its strategic goals, prevent other players from gaining a foothold in the attractive Saudi market, and challenge Tehranand#39;s nuclear policy. The United States is still Saudi Arabiaand#39;s most effective security support, but if Washington distances itself from regional matters, the gradual entrance of new players into the Gulf is inevitable.¶ The question of Saudi acquisition of a nuclear deterrent is more relevant than ever when both enemies and friends of the United States are looking at a possible regional drawdown on Washingtonand#39;s part as well as a lack of support for the pro-Western regimes that remain in place. If the U.S. government provides Riyadh with formal security guarantees, it would be natural for it to demand that the kingdom forego its strategic goals. But Riyadhand#39;s inclusion under a U.S. defense umbrella is not a given and depends both on the quality of relations between the two countries and other Saudi considerations. Riyadh remains skeptical over Washingtonand#39;s willingness to come to its aid and may thus seek to purchase a nuclear deterrent, which would provide it with more freedom vis-à-vis its stronger ally. Under present circumstances, it is not unreasonable for Riyadh to rely on other states for its defense in addition to Washington for the simple reason that it has done so in the past. Likewise, it is more than likely that the Saudis will not act transparently because they have acted in secret previously.¶ After Iran, Saudi Arabia is the number one candidate for further nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. Open source evidence remains circumstantial, but perhaps more than any other regional player, Riyadh has the requisite ideological and strategic motives as well as the financial wherewithal to act on the option.¶ The kingdom may conclude that its security constraints as well as the attendant prestige and influence generated by having a bomb outweigh the political and economic costs it will pay. The difficulty in stopping Tehranand#39;s dogged quest for a nuclear capability coupled with Riyadhand#39;s doubts about the reliability of Washington is liable to encourage Riyadh to shorten timetables for developing an independent nuclear infrastructure, as well as to opt to purchase a turnkey nuclear system, an off-the-shelf product, or to enter into a security compact of one sort with another power. Sunni-majority Pakistan has emerged as the natural candidate for such an arrangement.¶ Heavy U.S. pressure is likely to be brought to bear on the Saudis not to acquire nuclear capabilities. Indeed, it seems that, at present, the price Riyadh is likely to pay should it acquire military nuclear capabilities might outweigh the advantages of such a move. But strategic interest, motivated by considerations of survival, could have the upper hand. Should it seem that the kingdomand#39;s vital security interests are threatened, it may prefer to take a series of steps, including obtaining a nonconventional arsenal, to reduce risks and ensure the continuity of the House of Saud.

Saudi prolif causes nuclear war.
Edelman ‘11
(Eric –Distinguished Fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments and Former U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Foreign Affairs, Jan/Feb, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67162/eric-s-edelman-andrew-f-krepinevich-jr-and-evan-braden-montgomer/the-dangers-of-a-nuclear-iran)
There is, however, at least one state that could receive significant outside support: Saudi Arabia. And if it did, proliferation could accelerate throughout the region. Iran and Saudi Arabia have long been geopolitical and ideological rivals. Riyadh would face tremendous pressure to respond in some form to a nuclear-armed Iran, not only to deter Iranian coercion and subversion but also to preserve its sense that Saudi Arabia is the leading nation in the Muslim world. The Saudi government is already pursuing a nuclear power capability, which could be the first step along a slow road to nuclear weapons development. And concerns persist that it might be able to accelerate its progress by exploiting its close ties to Pakistan. During the 1980s, in response to the use of missiles during the Iran-Iraq War and their growing proliferation throughout the region, Saudi Arabia acquired several dozen css-2 intermediate-range ballistic missiles from China. The Pakistani government reportedly brokered the deal, and it may have also offered to sell Saudi Arabia nuclear warheads for the css-2s, which are not accurate enough to deliver conventional warheads effectively. There are still rumors that Riyadh and Islamabad have had discussions involving nuclear weapons, nuclear technology, or security guarantees. This “Islamabad option” could develop in one of several different ways. Pakistan could sell operational nuclear weapons and delivery systems to Saudi Arabia, or it could provide the Saudis with the infrastructure, material, and technical support they need to produce nuclear weapons themselves within a matter of years, as opposed to a decade or longer. Not only has Pakistan provided such support in the past, but it is currently building two more heavy-water reactors for plutonium production and a second chemical reprocessing facility to extract plutonium from spent nuclear fuel. In other words, it might accumulate more fissile material than it needs to maintain even a substantially expanded arsenal of its own. Alternatively, Pakistan might offer an extended deterrent guarantee to Saudi Arabia and deploy nuclear weapons, delivery systems, and troops on Saudi territory, a practice that the United States has employed for decades with its allies. This arrangement could be particularly appealing to both Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. It would allow the Saudis to argue that they are not violating the NPT since they would not be acquiring their own nuclear weapons. And an extended deterrent from Pakistan might be preferable to one from the United States because stationing foreign Muslim forces on Saudi territory would not trigger the kind of popular opposition that would accompany the deployment of U.S. troops. Pakistan, for its part, would gain financial benefits and international clout by deploying nuclear weapons in Saudi Arabia, as well as strategic depth against its chief rival, India. The Islamabad option raises a host of difficult issues, perhaps the most worrisome being how India would respond. Would it target Pakistan’s weapons in Saudi Arabia with its own conventional or nuclear weapons? How would this expanded nuclear competition influence stability during a crisis in either the Middle East or South Asia? Regardless of India’s reaction, any decision by the Saudi government to seek out nuclear weapons, by whatever means, would be highly destabilizing. It would increase the incentives of other nations in the Middle East to pursue nuclear weapons of their own. And it could increase their ability to do so by eroding the remaining barriers to nuclear proliferation: each additional state that acquires nuclear weapons weakens the nonproliferation regime, even if its particular method of acquisition only circumvents, rather than violates, the NPT. Were Saudi Arabia to acquire nuclear weapons, the Middle East would count three nuclear-armed states, and perhaps more before long. It is unclear how such an n-player competition would unfold because most analyses of nuclear deterrence are based on the U.S.- Soviet rivalry during the Cold War. It seems likely, however, that the interaction among three or more nuclear-armed powers would be more prone to miscalculation and escalation than a bipolar competition. During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union only needed to concern themselves with an attack from the other. Multi- polar systems are generally considered to be less stable than bipolar systems because coalitions can shift quickly, upsetting the balance of power and creating incentives for an attack. More important, emerging nuclear powers in the Middle East might not take the costly steps necessary to preserve regional stability and avoid a nuclear exchange. For nuclear-armed states, the bedrock of deterrence is the knowledge that each side has a secure second-strike capability, so that no state can launch an attack with the expectation that it can wipe out its opponents’ forces and avoid a devastating retaliation. However, emerging nuclear powers might not invest in expensive but survivable capabilities such as hardened missile silos or submarine- based nuclear forces. Given this likely vulnerability, the close proximity of states in the Middle East, and the very short flight times of ballistic missiles in the region, any new nuclear powers might be compelled to “launch on warning” of an attack or even, during a crisis, to use their nuclear forces preemptively. Their governments might also delegate launch authority to lower-level commanders, heightening the possibility of miscalculation and escalation. Moreover, if early warning systems were not integrated into robust command-and-control systems, the risk of an unauthorized or accidental launch would increase further still. And without sophisticated early warning systems, a nuclear attack might be unattributable or attributed incorrectly. That is, assuming that the leadership of a targeted state survived a first strike, it might not be able to accurately determine which nation was responsible. And this uncertainty, when combined with the pressure to respond quickly, would create a significant risk that it would retaliate against the wrong party, potentially triggering a regional nuclear war. Most existing nuclear powers have taken steps to protect their nuclear weapons from unauthorized use: from closely screening key personnel to developing technical safety measures, such as permissive action links, which require special codes before the weapons can be armed. Yet there is no guarantee that emerging nuclear powers would be willing or able to implement these measures, creating a significant risk that their governments might lose control over the weapons or nuclear material and that nonstate actors could gain access to these items. Some states might seek to mitigate threats to their nuclear arsenals; for instance, they might hide their weapons. In that case, however, a single intelligence compromise could leave their weapons vulnerable to attack or theft. Meanwhile, states outside the Middle East could also be a source of instability. Throughout the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union were engaged in a nuclear arms race that other nations were essentially powerless to influence. In a multipolar nuclear Middle East, other nuclear powers and states with advanced military technology could influence—for good or ill—the military competition within the region by selling or transferring technologies that most local actors lack today: solid-fuel rocket motors, enhanced missile-guidance systems, war- head miniaturization technology, early warning systems, air and missile defenses. Such transfers could stabilize a fragile nuclear balance if the emerging nuclear powers acquired more survivable arsenals as a result. But they could also be highly destabilizing. If, for example, an outside power sought to curry favor with a potential client state or gain influence with a prospective ally, it might share with that state the technology it needed to enhance the accuracy of its missiles and thereby increase its ability to launch a disarming first strike against any adversary. The ability of existing nuclear powers and other technically advanced military states to shape the emerging nuclear competition in the Middle East could lead to a new Great Game, with unpredictable consequences.

1nc – cp

The United States federal government should establish a Presidential Bipartisan Commission on Cuba to study current U.S. policy on Cuba.  The Commission should recommend that the The United States federal government should substantially ease its economic restrictions with the Republic of Cuba.

A Bipartisan Commission on Cuba solves the case but avoids politics
Ratliff, 13 - research fellow and former curator of the Americas Collection at the Hoover Institution. He is also a research fellow of the Independent Institute. An expert on Latin America, China, and US foreign policy, he has written extensively on how traditional cultures and institutions influence current conditions and on prospects for economic and political development in East/Southeast Asia and Latin America (William, “Cubaand#39;s Tortured Transition” 1/30, http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/139281

A New Policy to Cuba
Since the early 1990s U.S. “proactive” policies have done more to stoke than reduce domestic tensions in Cuba, though we profess to seek a “peaceful transition.” Most U.S. legislators have supported pro-embargo Cuban-Americans even though Gallup polls have long shown that most Americans favor diplomatic relations with Havana and lifting the embargo. On balance, politicians don’t think Cuba policy is important enough to be worth stirring up the hornets in the still fairly militant and well-financed pro-embargo lobby. Not only have all presidential candidates including Obama supported the embargo, most have resisted even seriously discussing it.
This U.S. commitment to a failed policy has given Washington a and#34;special stake” in the island’s so-called “independent” sector whose goals appeal to Americans. But tragically, paraphrasing journalist Scotty Reston, Americans will do anything for these dissidents except listen to them. My talks with many in Cuba and abroad suggest that most oppose the embargo and three have co-authored articles with me saying so. If these dissidents come under focused government fire in the years ahead, many Americans will feel compelled to intervene even more directly—perhaps militarily—on their behalf.
Two points stand out: Cuba is not the security threat that our current policy treats it as; and our sanctions do not advance the desirable political, economic, and humanitarian improvements that we say we seek on the island. The bottom line is that we must base our policy on national security interests and realities, not unattainable dreams, however noble those dreams may seem.
During his second and final term, and after having drawn unprecedented electoral support as a Democrat from Cuban-Americans in Miami, President Obama is in a position to make serious reforms, if he has the will to do so. He might begin by resurrecting a 1998-99 proposal—then endorsed by former secretaries of state Kissinger and George Shultz, but killed by President Clinton—for convening a Presidential Bipartisan Commission on Cuba to seriously examine the pros and cons of the policy. It would certainly see the need for change and its findings would give Obama cover for action.

1nc – k

Disorder and insecurity are inevitable because we live in a dangerous world. Efforts to control this fear have resulted in the deaths of millions and the creation of WMDs.  The alternative is a negative gesture of indifference—we must learn to live with the world as it is.  This allows us to break out of the death cycle.
Der Derian, 98 (James, (Political Science Professor, University of Massachusetts) On Security, ed: Lipschitz, The Value of Security: Hobbes, Marx, Nietzsche, and Baudrillard, Decentering Security).  

No other concept in international relations packs the metaphysical punch, nor commands the disciplinary power of and#34;security.and#34; In its name, peoples have alienated their fears, rights and powers to gods, emperors, and most recently, sovereign states, all to protect themselves from the vicissitudes of nature--as well as from other gods, emperors, and sovereign states. In its name, weapons of mass destruction have been developed which have transfigured national interest into a security dilemma based on a suicide pact. And, less often noted in international relations, in its name billions have been made and millions killed while scientific knowledge has been furthered and intellectual dissent muted. We have inherited an ontotheology  of security, that is, an a priori  argument that proves the existence and necessity of only one form of security because there currently happens to be a widespread, metaphysical belief in it. Indeed, within the concept of security lurks the entire history of western metaphysics, which was best described by Derrida and#34;as a series of substitutions of center for centerand#34; in a perpetual search for the and#34;transcendental signified.and#34; Continues... 7  In this case, Walt cites IR scholar Robert Keohane on the hazards of and#34;reflectivism,and#34; to warn off anyone who by inclination or error might wander into the foreign camp: and#34;As Robert Keohane has noted, until these writers `have delineated . . . a research program and shown . . . that it can illuminate important issues in world politics, they will remain on the margins of the field.and#39; and#34; 8  By the end of the essay, one is left with the suspicion that the rapid changes in world politics have triggered a and#34;security crisisand#34; in security studies that requires extensive theoretical damage control. What if we leave the desire for mastery to the insecure and instead imagine a new dialogue of security, not in the pursuit of a utopian end but in recognition of the world as it is, other than us ? What might such a dialogue sound like? Any attempt at an answer requires a genealogy: to understand the discursive power of the concept, to remember its forgotten meanings, to assess its economy of use in the present, to reinterpret--and possibly construct through the reinterpretation--a late modern security comfortable with a plurality of centers, multiple meanings, and fluid identities. The steps I take here in this direction are tentative and preliminary. I first undertake a brief history of the concept itself. Second, I present the and#34;originaryand#34; form of security that has so dominated our conception of international relations, the Hobbesian episteme of realism. Third, I consider the impact of two major challenges to the Hobbesian episteme, that of Marx and Nietzsche. And finally, I suggest that Baudrillard provides the best, if most nullifying, analysis of security in late modernity. In short, I retell the story of realism as an historic encounter of fear and danger with power and order that produced four realist forms of security: epistemic, social, interpretive, and hyperreal. To preempt a predictable criticism, I wish to make it clear that I am not in search of an and#34;alternative security.and#34; An easy defense is to invoke Heidegger, who declared that and#34;questioning is the piety of thought.and#34; Foucault, however, gives the more powerful reason for a genealogy of security: I am not looking for an alternative; you canand#39;t find the solution of a problem in the solution of another problem raised at another moment by other people. You see, what I want to do is not the history of solutions, and thatand#39;s the reason why I donand#39;t accept the word alternative . My point is not that everything is bad, but that everything is dangerous, then we always have something to do. The hope is that in the interpretation of the most pressing dangers of late modernity we might be able to construct a form of security based on the appreciation and articulation rather than the normalization or extirpation of difference. Nietzsche transvalues both Hobbesand#39;s and Marxand#39;s interpretations of security through a genealogy of modes of being. His method is not to uncover some deep meaning or value for security, but to destabilize the intolerable fictional identities of the past which have been created out of fear, and to affirm the creative differences which might yield new values for the future. Originating in the paradoxical relationship of a contingent life and a certain death, the history of security reads for Nietzsche as an abnegation, a resentment and, finally, a transcendence of this paradox. In brief, the history is one of individuals seeking an impossible security from the most radical and#34;otherand#34; of life, the terror of death which, once generalized and nationalized, triggers a futile cycle of collective identities seeking security from alien others--who are seeking similarly impossible guarantees. It is a story of differences taking on the otherness of death, and identities calcifying into a fearful sameness. 

1nc transition adv
No impact to Cuba’s economy – (chances are the card is terrible).
Cuba’s economy is growing now
Havana Times 7/7 (7/7/13 “Cuban Gov. Presents “Favorable” Stats” http://www.havanatimes.org/?p=95985 7-7-13)

The economy showed an overall a “favorable performance”, said Yzquierdo. Almost all sectors recorded growth, “including trade, transport, communications and manufacturing,” he noted.¶ Yzquierdo said the Cuban trade balance was positive at the end of the first quarter and pointed to a similar trend for year-end. At the same time, he spoke of a “slowdown” in the global economic situation.¶ Cuba recently reduced its forecasts for annual growth in 2013 from the 3.6 percent initially estimated to somewhere between 2.5 and 3.0 percent. He emphasized that the evolution of gross domestic product (GDP) has been influenced by the crisis in the international arena.¶ In the first semester, the island’s economy grew 2.3 percent, according Yzquierdo, despite “external stress”, the “internal weaknesses” and the effects of Hurricane “Sandy”, which swept across the east of Cuba in October 2012.¶ “Sandy” affected 11 provinces and caused losses of almost 7 billion dollars, according to the minister.¶ The inaugural session of the eighth legislature of the National Assembly of People’s Power closes on, Sunday. Raul Castro is expected to pronounce in a speech to the parliament.¶ In a Communist Party Central Committee meeting last week, Castro came down hard on what he called “indiscipline and illegalities” in the State apparatus. He will most likely refer to the fight against corruption, one of the banner efforts of his administration.
Impacts empirically denied – Cuba’s economy should’ve collapse by now since the embargo’s been in place for so long.
Internal Link Turn – Lifting the embargo makes the situation worse for a laundry list of reasons
Suchlicki 2k, Director of the Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies at the University of Miami, 00 (Jaime, 6/2000, University of Miami, “The U.S. Embargo of Cuba,” http://www6.miami.edu/iccas/USEmbargo.pdf, p. 2-4, accessed 6/24/13, IC)

Introduction ¶ Opponents of U.S. policy toward Cuba claim that if the embargo and ¶ the travel ban are lifted, the Cuban people would benefit economically; ¶ American companies will penetrate and influence the Cuban market; the ¶ Communist system would begin to crumble and a transition to a democratic ¶ society would be accelerated. ¶ These expectations are based on several incorrect assumptions. First, ¶ that Castro and the Cuban leadership are naïve and inexperienced and, ¶ therefore, would allow tourists and investments from the U.S. to subvert the ¶ revolution and influence internal developments in the island. Second, that ¶ Cuba would open up and allow U.S. investments in all sectors of the ¶ economy, instead of selecting which companies could trade and invest. ¶ Third, that Castro is so interested in close relations with the U.S. that he is ¶ willing to risk what has been upper-most in his mind for 40 years – total ¶ control of power and a legacy of opposition to “Yankee imperialism,” – in ¶ exchange for economic improvements for his people. During the Fifth ¶ Communist Party Congress in 1997, Castro emphasized “We will do what is ¶ necessary without renouncing our principles. We do not like capitalism and ¶ we will not abandon our Socialist system.” ¶ Castro also reiterated his long-standing anti-American posture, ¶ accusing the U.S. of waging economic war against his government and ¶ calling for “military preparedness against imperialist hostility.” A change in U.S. policy toward Cuba may have different and ¶ unintended results. The lifting of the embargo and the travel ban without ¶ meaningful changes in Cuba will: ¶  Guarantee the continuation of the current totalitarian structures. ¶  Strengthen state enterprises, since money will flow into businesses ¶ owned by the Cuban government. Most businesses are owned in ¶ Cuba by the state and, in all foreign investments, the Cuban ¶ government retains a partnership interest. ¶  Lead to greater repression and control since Castro and the ¶ leadership will fear that U.S. influence will subvert the revolution ¶ and weaken the Communist party’s hold on the Cuban people. ¶  Delay instead of accelerate a transition to democracy on the island. ¶  Allow Castro to borrow from international organizations such as ¶ the IMF, the World Bank, etc. Since Cuba owes billions of dollars ¶ to the former Soviet Union, to the Club of Paris, and to others, and ¶ has refused in the past to acknowledge or pay these debts, new ¶ loans will be wasted by Castro’s inefficient and wasteful system, ¶ and will be uncollectible. The reason Castro has been unable to pay ¶ back loans is not because of the U.S. embargo, but because his ¶ economic system stifles productivity and he continues to spend on ¶ the military, on adventures abroad, and on supporting a bankrupt ¶ welfare system on the island.  Perpetuate the rather extensive control that the military holds over ¶ the economy and foster the further development of “Mafia type” ¶ groups that manage and profit from important sectors of the ¶ economy, particularly tourism, biotechnology, and agriculture. ¶  Negate the basic tenets of U.S. policy in Latin America which ¶ emphasize democracy, human rights, and market economies. ¶  Send the wrong message to the enemies of the U.S.: that a foreign ¶ leader can seize U.S. properties without compensation; allow the ¶ use of his territory for the introduction of nuclear missiles aimed at ¶ the U.S.; espouse terrorismand anti-U.S. causes throughout the ¶ world; and eventually the U.S. will “forget and forgive,” and ¶ reward him with tourism, investments, and economic aid. ¶
no advantage—normalization happens by 2018—you have to win that bioterror causes exintction
Afghanistan withdrawal solves overstretch internal link
Tapper, 2/13 CNN Chief Washington Correspondent (Jake, “Obama announces 34,000 troops to come home” February 13, 2013 CNN News http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/12/politics/obama-sotu-afghanistan-troops)  czhang

Washington (CNN) -- President Barack Obama announced in his State of the Union speech on Tuesday night that some 34,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan will have returned home by this time next year.¶ The move will reduce the number of U.S. forces in the country by more than half. There are now about 66,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan.¶ A Washington Post poll on Tuesday showed that 80 of registered voters support the presidentand#39;s policy to end the war in Afghanistan.¶ In January, Obama met with Afghan President Hamid Karzai in Washington, where they agreed to accelerate the military transition in Afghanistan.¶ Afghan forces will take the lead in combat missions throughout the country starting in the spring, instead of mid-year, as was previously expected.¶ 5 things we learned¶ Afghan forces are ready¶ Zahir Azimi, a spokesman for the Afghan Defense Ministry, said National Army forces are and#34;completely readyand#34; to take over the countryand#39;s security responsibilities.¶ and#34;We welcome the announcement of the withdrawal ... and we (will) always remember their efforts and sacrifice,and#34; he said. and#34;We are very happy that these soldiers are returning home to their families.and#34;¶ The Taliban also welcomed the news, saying Western governments and#34;must salvage themselves from the protracted and pointless war in Afghanistan.and#34;¶ But as expected, the militants continued their call for a complete withdrawal of outside forces.¶ and#34;The Afghans should be granted control, choice of government and sovereignty of their country,and#34; the Taliban statement said. and#34;If not such then our sacred Jihad will intensify and forge ahead successfully even if one foreign soldier is present in our country ...and#34;

I really don’t have to read defense to any of the terminal impact scenarios because they have no reverse causal internal link- just because Cuban instability prevents the US from addressing war or terrorism does not mean that solving Cuba is sufficient to prevent global wars
No impact to bioterror.
Soligenex 13 (Soligenex Inc. is a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company focused on developing products to treat inflammatory diseases and biodefense countermeasures, BioDefense and Emerging Diseases, http://www.soligenix.com/prod_def.shtml, Website last updated 2013)

Since 2001, a new sense of vulnerability to radiation, infectious diseases, toxins and chemical agents has generated significant research and development efforts to identify and produce innovative therapies and means to protect against threats that could be used as biological weapons. There is a growing need for products that protect the population against such agents of bioterrorism, as well as against emerging infectious diseases that could arise through natural epidemics. With very few exceptions, such products do not exist, and those that are available for current deployment are based on outdated and sometimes ineffective technologies. Many of these products will only be used in the event of an emergency. Products to combat biological warfare or bioterrorism will be supplied to the population from medicines stored in the US Strategic National Stockpile (SNS). The federal government has previously established a special fund to acquire biological warfare countermeasures (termed Project Bioshield), which allocated $5.6 billion over a 10-year period to acquire products for the SNS. Realizing that many of these countermeasures do not yet exist, the US government has recently established the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA). The existence of BARDA creates a situation in which products arising from research, primarily sponsored by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Department of Defense (DoD), can be prioritized and then developed for large-scale manufacturing and clinical evaluation, and ultimately acquisition of the product for the SNS. Soligenix, Inc. is addressing the development of products and technologies that can be used to protect against several biological threats considered agents of bioterrorism, consistent with biological warfare threats and emerging diseases that the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), a division of the NIH, has identified as high priorities. Soligenix is developing several potential products to prevent morbidity and mortality due to the threat of biological toxins for which preventive vaccination is the most feasible means to protect a susceptible population. This approach is being taken because the known mechanism of protection against toxin exposure is mediated through antibodies in the serum or present on mucosal surfaces that can be elicited by vaccination with subunit immunogens. Soligenixand#39;s process for product development of biodefense products is highly cooperative with government funding, since the government itself will be the final supplier of the products. Currently, Soligenix is operating under a $9.4 million grant award from NIAID, which will fund, over a five-year period, the development of formulation and manufacturing processes for vaccines, including RiVax™ (ricin toxin vaccine), and VeloThrax™ (anthrax vaccine) that are stable at elevated temperatures. The grant will also fund the development of improved thermostable adjuvants expected to result in rapidly acting vaccines that can be given with fewer injections over shorter intervals. In addition, Soligenix is expanding the range of applicability of its lead product, oral beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP), referred to as OrbeShield™, for gastrointestinal Acute Radiation Syndrome (ARS).

Current security is sufficient to prevent major blowout
Lloyd’s Register 2004 (“Statement on LNG risks from Lloydand#39;s Register North America, Inc,” http://www.lr.org/News+and+Events/News+Archive/2004/Statement+on+LNG+risks+from+Lloyds+Register+North+America+Inc.htm)

LNG is transported globally in insulated tanks on specialised ships. These tanks provide four physical barriers and two layers of insulation between the LNG and the outside environment. Further, the separation between the inner and outer hulls of an LNG carrier is typically over two meters. These two factors combined mean that LNG cargo carried at sea has a very high in-built level of protection from external blast sources. In the event of an attack, even if a one-meter hole were to be formed in the inner hull, the resultant holes in the primary containment barrier would be significantly smaller due to the increased separation distance from the blast source combined with the pressure absorption properties of the secondary containment barrier and insulation materials. It is unrealistic to imagine that the entire cargo of any ship can be instantaneously released. To mount an attack on an LNG carrier that would result in the instantaneous release of all of its cargo would require the equivalent of a full scale military operation, not a clandestine terrorist operation like those carried out against the USS Cole and the Limburg. The idea that LNG carriers are potential nuclear devices is erroneous. There is a lot of energy in LNG and natural gas, as in any hydrocarbon. However, the and#39;nuclear explosionand#39; statement describes the total energy an LNG carrier contains, not the rate at which the energy would be released in an incident. For example, a lump of coal contains lots of energy, but when set on fire, its energy doesnand#39;t all come out instantly like a bomb. Instead, the coal burns over a period of time releasing its energy as it goes. Similarly, LNG carriers contain large quantities of energy, but the energy can only be released slowly in the event of a spill or a fire. An LNG spill in open air will not result in a bomb-like explosion. This has been consistently demonstrated in experiments. Not everything that is ignited explodes like a bomb. For example, when a match is lit, it burns but does not explode. Similarly, the natural gas vapour that could result from an LNG carrier spill also falls under the category of substances that will burn but not explode like a bomb. Reason and caution Paul Huber, Director of LRNA, says: and#34;There are risks associated with the transport and storage of LNG, as there are with any hydrocarbon energy source, and these are precisely the reasons that the LNG industry operates with extensive international and national regulations which govern the safety of LNG transport and storage. The effectiveness of these regulations is apparent in the LNG shipping sector, which has an unblemished safety record spanning 40 years - a track record which is unrivalled by any other maritime sector and most land-based industries. It should also be remembered that LNG itself is one of the cleanest-burning and most environmentally friendly energy sources currently available on a global scale.  and#34;While the shadow of terrorism hangs over us, we have to do as much as we can to protect ourselves and our borders, but it is misleading to state, as some have, that an attack on an LNG carrier would be similar to a nuclear event. It is difficult for us to know the rationale behind the assertion contained in the speech to the Houston Forum, but it is clear that it is not supported by fact.

Empirically denied and no escalation
Gettleman, ‘10 Jeffrey, East Africa bureau chief for the New York Times, March/April, “Africaand#39;s Forever Wars: Why the continentand#39;s conflicts never end.” http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/02/22/africas_forever_wars
There is a very simple reason why some of Africaand#39;s bloodiest, most brutal wars never seem to end: They are not really wars. Not in the traditional sense, at least. The combatants donand#39;t have much of an ideology; they donand#39;t have clear goals. They couldnand#39;t care less about taking over capitals or major cities -- in fact, they prefer the deep bush, where it is far easier to commit crimes. Todayand#39;s rebels seem especially uninterested in winning converts, content instead to steal other peopleand#39;s children, stick Kalashnikovs or axes in their hands, and make them do the killing. Look closely at some of the continentand#39;s most intractable conflicts, from the rebel-laden creeks of the Niger Delta to the inferno in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and this is what you will find. What we are seeing is the decline of the classic African liberation movement and the proliferation of something else -- something wilder, messier, more violent, and harder to wrap our heads around. If youand#39;d like to call this war, fine. But what is spreading across Africa like a viral pandemic is actually just opportunistic, heavily armed banditry. My job as the New York Timesand#39; East Africa bureau chief is to cover news and feature stories in 12 countries. But most of my time is spent immersed in these un-wars. Iand#39;ve witnessed up close -- often way too close -- how combat has morphed from soldier vs. soldier (now a rarity in Africa) to soldier vs. civilian. Most of todayand#39;s African fighters are not rebels with a cause; theyand#39;re predators. Thatand#39;s why we see stunning atrocities like eastern Congoand#39;s rape epidemic, where armed groups in recent years have sexually assaulted hundreds of thousands of women, often so sadistically that the victims are left incontinent for life. What is the military or political objective of ramming an assault rifle inside a woman and pulling the trigger? Terror has become an end, not just a means. This is the story across much of Africa, where nearly half of the continentand#39;s 53 countries are home to an active conflict or a recently ended one. Quiet places such as Tanzania are the lonely exceptions; even user-friendly, tourist-filled Kenya blew up in 2008. Add together the casualties in just the dozen countries that I cover, and you have a death toll of tens of thousands of civilians each year. More than 5 million have died in Congo alone since 1998, the International Rescue Committee has estimated. Of course, many of the last generationand#39;s independence struggles were bloody, too. South Sudanand#39;s decades-long rebellion is thought to have cost more than 2 million lives. But this is not about numbers. This is about methods and objectives, and the leaders driving them. Ugandaand#39;s top guerrilla of the 1980s, Yoweri Museveni, used to fire up his rebels by telling them they were on the ground floor of a national peopleand#39;s army.Museveni became president in 1986, and heand#39;s still in office (another problem, another story). But his words seem downright noble compared with the best-known rebel leader from his country today, Joseph Kony, who just gives orders to burn.

The warrant for Caucasus war= Russian sphere of influence—Russia has no incentive to go to war
Aron 06 – (Leon, Director of Russian Studies – American Enterprise Institute, “The United States and Russia”, 6-29,
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.24606/pub_detail.asp)

Yet the probability of a frontal confrontation and a new Cold War remains very remote for at least three reasons. First, despite the erosion, the countries’ geopolitical assets are still very weighty, as the bedrock issues of anti-terrorism, nuclear nonproliferation, and energy will continue to force them to seek common ground and at least limited partnership.17
Second, the “restorationist” foreign policy notwithstanding, the three basic elements of the 1992-1993 national consensus on the foreign policy and defense doctrine remain largely the same. Russia is to stay a nuclear superpower and the regional superpower, but it seems to have settled for the role of one of the world’s great states, rather than a global superpower engaged in a worldwide competition with the United States. While these desiderata will continue to cause occasional sparring with the United States, they are no longer dedicated to the attainment of goals inimical to the vital interests of the United States and are not likely to ignite a relentless antagonistic struggle to the bitter end.
Lastly, despite the muscular rhetoric emanating of late from the Kremlin, unlike the Soviet Union twenty years ago and China today, Russia is not a “revisionist” power. It does not seek radically to reshape the geopolitical “balance of forces” in its favor. Moscow may rail at the score, but it is unlikely to endeavor to change the rules of the game. For that, one needs a different ideology and, as a result, a different set of priorities. Yet even in today’s Russia flush with petrodollars, the share of GDP devoted to defense (around 3 percent) is not only at least ten times smaller than in the Soviet Union, but also below the 1992-1997 average in a Russia that inherited an empty treasury from the Soviet Union and that was, like every revolutionary government, unable to collect taxes. Calculated in purchasing power parity, Russia’s defense expenditures in 2005 ($47.77 billion) were less than one-eleventh of what the U.S. spent ($522 billion).18

1nc – agriculture adv
the only terminal impact= warming—delay 5 years of normalization
Years and years of data prove no impact—pesticides are low and natural chemicals are worse
Trewavas 2004 (Anthony, Prof. U. Edinburgh Studying Plant Physiology and Molecular Biology, Crop Protection, “A critical assessment of organic farming-and-food assertions with particular respect to the UK and the potential environmental benefits of no-till agriculture”, 23:9, ScienceDirect)

Chemophobia, the unreasonable fear of chemicals, is a common public reaction to scientific or media reports suggesting that exposure to various environmental contaminants may pose a threat to health (Safe, S.H., 1995. Xeno-oestrogens and breast cancer. New Engl. J. Med. 337, pp. 1303–1304.Safe, 1995). The spectre of cancer birth defects and irreversible effects invariably scares people and various groups that campaign on environmental issues find the anxiety raised a useful source of political issue. Virtually all chemicals can be shown to be dangerous at high doses and this includes the thousands of natural chemicals that are consumed every day in food but most particularly in fruit and vegetables.    The assessment of chemical safety normally requires determination of the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) in rodents. Doses slightly lower than this figure are used to extrapolate linearly to a concentration at which observed effects would be limited to one in a million of the population and a “safe” exposure for the public set at figures 100-fold lower than this. Thus the safe level is frequently 10?5–10?6 the MTD and on theoretical grounds it is very unlikely that the same cellular receptor (binding) sites could be occupied and the same effect induced, varying only in degree. Most cellular binding sites go from null saturation to full saturation over a 30–50-fold change in dose, not one million. The effects at high dose are therefore a priori expected to be qualitatively different from low dose and the effects of toxicity or cancer of little consequence to public exposure (Ames and Gold, 2000). Ames and Gold (1999) indicate that the carcinogenic effects of many chemicals at MTD are really the result of induction of cell division which normally occurs only at high dose.    The public attitude towards synthetic pesticides derives from the views of Rachel Carson (1962). Unfortunately anecdotal evidence forms much of the basis of Carsonand#39;s book and a number of simple errors have been identified ( Van Embden and Peakall, 1996). While Carsonand#39;s book helped alert to the impact of agricultural techniques at the time on the environment, her primary misunderstanding resulted from the claim that “for the first time” the human population was exposed to chemicals (pesticides) from birth to death. Plants synthesise an estimated 10,000 chemicals whose function is to kill or deter insect pests and occasionally larger herbivores. These natural pesticides are found in all fruit and vegetables; when tested at MTD they prove to be equally as damaging as synthetic pesticides ( Ames and Gold (1999) and Ames and Gold (2000)). Furthermore the daily consumption of natural pesticides or carcinogens outweighs the traces of synthetic pesticides consumed by the public by many thousands to one. Mankind has always been exposed to “dangerous” chemicals and since many current crops have only recently been used as food and are also the result of extensive plant breeding, the kinds of natural chemical to which we are now exposed is too recent to allow for biological evolution to have ensured safe consumption ( Ames and Gold, 1999). Solanine, chaconine, cucurbitacin, psoralen and genestein in potato, cucurbits, celery and soy have all been shown to have physiological effects if slightly elevated in food ( Trewavas and Stewart, 2003).    Carson (1962) alerted in her book to the potential effects of DDT accumulation through food chains, to observed eggshell thinning and thus brood failure of predatory birds. Attempts to repeat these observations in the laboratory failed ( Wildavsky, 1995). However because organochlorines like DDT are environmentally stable, bans on its use were instituted in the early 70and#39;s. In western countries DDT was replaced by effective but far less stable pesticides. But pressure on developing countries to do the same led to enormous increases in malaria, a disease that particularly kills young children ( Attaran and Maharaj, 2000; Simon, 1996). In developing countries, cheap DDT also killed many crop and other human disease insect vectors and lowered food prices that benefited the poorest most. Recent evidence has revealed that organochlorines are formed in substantial amounts (mg/kg) in decaying plant materials such as crop roots in soil ( Myeni, 2002). Because organochlorines are fat soluble, they will be found in all plant food materials and mankind has therefore been exposed to these stable chemicals probably throughout evolutionary history and so far as is known without effect. In fact any natural pesticide can bio-concentrate like DDT if it is fat soluble. Potato contains the fat soluble neurotoxins, solanine and chaconine, and high doses of these have been shown to cause birth defects ( Ames and Gold, 1999).    However chemophobia is the commonest reason for the public to buy organic food on the assumption that such food is free of synthetic pesticides. Organic food contains synthetic pesticide traces although understandably the amounts are lower than in conventional produce (Baker et al., 2002).    Life expectancy continues to increase unabated (Oeppen and Vaupel, 2002) and figures specific for the UK are to be found in Lomborg (2001). Centenarians are now ten times more common in the UK than they were 50 years ago. There has been no obvious effect of the introduction of pesticides and use through 50 years on life expectancy or on general public health ( Coggon and Inskip, 1994).
Even if the model spills over – the system is unsustainable
Kost, 4 – agricultural economist, Specialty Crops Branch, Economic Research. Service, US Department of Agriculture (William, “CUBAN AGRICULTURE: TO BE OR NOT TO BE ORGANIC?” http://www.ascecuba.org/publications/proceedings/volume14/pdfs/kost.pdf)

Even without an organic approach to food production, is Cuba’s urban gardening system viable? In Cuba, both were an integral part of a common development. That integration is not required. While it is possible to have a high-tech and chemical-based production system in a small-scale gardening environment, it is unlikely to be sustainable at levels sufficient to provide a significant portion of a city’s food needs. Most high-tech and chemical technologies employed respond to economies of scale. Incentives to grow into commercial operations will exist and production will shift away from central cities to areas with less severe constraints on land. Urban gardening systems are also labor-intensive systems. As long as labor is freely available or wages are low elsewhere, urban gardening can afford to utilize high-labor production techniques. As the Cuban economy grows and recovers, the demand for labor in other industries will grow and wages will rise. Because it will be more profitable to work elsewhere, labor would likely be drawn away from the urban gardens. Replacing labor with mechanization could also shift production away from urban locations. Mechanization also generates benefits from economies of scale. Thus, fewer and fewer urban gardens would remain producing for the urban markets.
At the same time, economic growth in Cuba should make commercial agriculture enterprises more profitable, more productive, and better able to supply food to urban markets. Marketing infrastructures should improve. With higher incomes, urban workers would be more able to purchase needed food. Commercial agricultural sources would become increasingly competitive with food from urban gardens, and urban workers would increasingly quit growing their own food. While there might continue to be urban gardens, it is unlikely that they will have a long-term role in providing a substantial portion of urban consumers’ food needs.
The alternative to organic farming solves food shortages, diseases and turns their environment impact – organic farming can exist, but not alone
Wilcox 11 (Christie, 7/18/11, “Mythbusting 101: Organic Farming  Conventional Agriculture,” http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/07/18/mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/)//DR. H

Myth #3: Organic Farming Is Better For The Environment
As an ecologist by training, this myth bothers me the most of all three. People seem to believe they’re doing the world a favor by eating organic. The simple fact is that they’re not – at least the issue is not that cut and dry.
Yes, organic farming practices use less synthetic pesticides which have been found to be ecologically damaging. But factory organic farms use their own barrage of chemicals that are still ecologically damaging, and refuse to endorse technologies that might reduce or eliminate the use of these all together. Take, for example, organic farming’s adamant stance against genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
GMOs have the potential to up crop yields, increase nutritious value, and generally improve farming practices while reducing synthetic chemical use – which is exactly what organic farming seeks to do. As we speak, there are sweet potatoes are being engineered to be resistant to a virus that currently decimates the African harvest every year, which could feed millions in some of the poorest nations in the world15. Scientists have created carrots high in calcium to fight osteoperosis, and tomatoes high in antioxidants. Almost as important as what we can put into a plant is what we can take out; potatoes are being modified so that they do not produce high concentrations of toxic glycoalkaloids, and nuts are being engineered to lack the proteins which cause allergic reactions in most people. Perhaps even more amazingly, bananas are being engineered to produce vaccines against hepatitis B, allowing vaccination to occur where its otherwise too expensive or difficult to be administered. The benefits these plants could provide to human beings all over the planet are astronomical.
Yet organic proponents refuse to even give GMOs a chance, even to the point of hypocrisy. For example, organic farmers apply Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxin (a small insecticidal protein from soil bacteria) unabashedly across their crops every year, as they have for decades. It’s one of the most widely used organic pesticides by organic farmers. Yet when genetic engineering is used to place the gene encoding the Bt toxin into a plant’s genome, the resulting GM plants are vilified by the very people willing to liberally spray the exact same toxin that the gene encodes for over the exact same species of plant. Ecologically, the GMO is a far better solution, as it reduces the amount of toxin being used and thus leeching into the surrounding landscape and waterways. Other GMOs have similar goals, like making food plants flood-tolerant so occasional flooding can replace herbicide use as a means of killing weeds. If the goal is protect the environment, why not incorporate the newest technologies which help us do so?
But the real reason organic farming isn’t more green than conventional is that while it might be better for local environments on the small scale, organic farms produce far less food per unit land than conventional ones. Organic farms produce around 80 that what the same size conventional farm produces16 (some studies place organic yields below 50 those of conventional farms!).
Right now, roughly 800 million people suffer from hunger and malnutrition, and about 16 million of those will die from it17. If we were to switch to entirely organic farming, the number of people suffering would jump by 1.3 billion, assuming we use the same amount of land that we’re using now. Unfortunately, what’s far more likely is that switches to organic farming will result in the creation of new farms via the destruction of currently untouched habitats, thus plowing over the little wild habitat left for many threatened and endangered species.
Already, we have cleared more than 35 of the Earth’s ice-free land surface for agriculture, an area 60 times larger than the combined area of all the world’s cities and suburbs. Since the last ice age, nothing has been more disruptive to the planet’s ecosystem and its inhabitants than agriculture. What will happen to what’s left of our planet’s wildlife habitats if we need to mow down another 20 or more of the world’s ice-free land to accommodate for organic methods?
The unfortunate truth is that until organic farming can rival the production output of conventional farming, its ecological cost due to the need for space is devastating. As bad as any of the pesticides and fertilizers polluting the world’s waterways from conventional agriculture are, it’s a far better ecological situation than destroying those key habitats altogether. That’s not to say that there’s no hope for organic farming; better technology could overcome the production gap, allowing organic methods to produce on par with conventional agriculture. If that does occur, then organic agriculture becomes a lot more ecologically sustainable. On the small scale, particularly in areas where food surpluses already occur, organic farming could be beneficial, but presuming it’s the end all be all of sustainable agriculture is a mistake.

Soil erosion doesn’t hurt agriculture production
Ruttan, 99 (Vernon, Professor of Applied Economics @ Minnesota, 1999 “The Transition to Agricultural Sustainability” http://www.pnas.org/content/96/11/5960.full.pdf)

It is unlikely that soil loss and degradation will represent a serious constraint on global agricultural production over the next half-century. But soil loss or degradation could become a serious constraint on production on a local or regional scale in some fragile resource areas. This possibility will be greatest if slow productivity growth in robust resource areas should lead to intensification or expansion of crop and animal production in fragile resource areas, i.e., tropical rain forests, arid and semiarid regions, and the high mountain areas. In some such areas, however, the possibility of sustainable production can be enhanced by irrigation, terracing, careful soil management, and changes in commodity mix and farming systems.
can’t solve warming
No warming impacts.
Burnett, 12 – Sterling, Ph.D., Senior Fellow in Environment and Energy at the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), “Fraud and Heartland: A Scandal for Climate Alarmists, not Skeptics,” 2-22, http://environmentblog.ncpa.org/fraud-and-heartland-a-scandal-for-climate-alarmists-not-skeptics/. 

Sadly (for him), Peter Gleick, the researcher at issue, could have obtained a good deal of the information he sought through a request for Heartland’s 990, a tax document that non-profits have to provide to any who request it. Rather than going through legitimate channels to obtain what information he could or, better still, questioning the veracity of the initial document he received — and there were many reasons to question that document, among them the fact that it was delivered to him anonymously — using someone else’s name, a Heartland board member — he requested internal documents. Despite all the sound and fury surrounding this episode over the last week, really, nothing new was learned in the memos. As Time Magazine summed it up: “The alleged memos seem to confirm that the Heartland Institute is trying to push it’s highly skeptical view of climate science into the public sphere, which is only surprising if you’ve paid exactly zero attention to the climate debate over the past decade.” Gleick admits that his actions were wrong and apologized but said he did it out of “frustration.” One has to ask, frustration over what? Is he perhaps frustrated with the fact that he and his fellow climate alarmists have, as of yet, been unable to convince Americans that the scientific case for climate action is settled and stampede them into calling for policies that forcibly restrict energy use? Daily polls show more American’s are coming to doubt the argument that human actions are causing a warming that would result in catastrophic climate change. Or perhaps he is frustrated with the fact that an increasing number of scientists – scientists with as good or better credentials and reputations as those who argue that humans are causing warming — continue to highlight the weakness, discrepancies and contradictions that continue to plague global warming theory and demonstrate that the case in far from closed. Perhaps Glieck and his ilk are frustrated because they constantly bray that scientists and think tanks that show skepticism concerning one or another critical point of global warming theory are exceedingly well-funded; when the reality is, and Gleick knows it, these scientists and think tanks are very modestly funded when compared to the billions that are spent to on climate research, politics and on politically favored technologies by governments, billionaires and corporations who will benefit from climate policies, and the non-profit foundations and think tanks that want to use fear of global warming to reshape the Western economic system into what they believe would be a more humane, equitable (socialist), global version of society. A society where international bodies, with bureaucracies staffed by “experts” beyond the reach of crass democratic politics and mass opinion will steer the ship of global-state in the direction of the “true” public good. Time magazine notes that if anything, the Heartland memos debunk the idea of a well-funded “. . . vast right-wing conspiracy,” behind global warming skepticism. Who says the Progressive era has passed?

Even if it’s real, itand#39;s irreversible.
Spaeth, 12 12/5, “Why itand#39;s probably too late to roll back global warming”, Ryu, The Week News, http://theweek.com/article/index/237392/why-its-probably-too-late-to-roll-back-global-warming

Two degrees Celsius. According to scientists, thatand#39;s the rise in global temperature, measured against pre-industrial times, that could spark some of the most catastrophic effects of global warming. Preventing the two-degree bump has been the goal of every international treaty designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including a new one currently being hammered out at a United Nations summit in Doha, Qatar. But a new study published by the journal Nature Climate Change shows that itand#39;s incredibly unlikely that global warming can be limited to two degrees. According to the study, the world in 2011 and#34;pumped nearly 38.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the air from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil,and#34; says Seth Borenstein at The Associated Press:  The total amounts to more than 2.4 million pounds (1.1 million kilograms) of carbon dioxide released into the air every second.  Because emissions of the key greenhouse gas have been rising steadily and most carbon stays in the air for a century, it is not just unlikely but and#34;rather optimisticand#34; to think that the world can limit future temperature increases to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), said the studyand#39;s lead author, Glen Peters at the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research in Oslo, Norway.  What happens when the two-degree threshold is crossed? Most notably, thatand#39;s when the polar ice caps will begin to melt, leading to a dangerous rise in sea levels. Furthermore, the worldand#39;s hottest regions will be unable to grow food, setting the stage for mass hunger and global food inflation. The rise in temperature would also likely exacerbate or cause extreme weather events, such as hurricanes and droughts.  There is a very small chance that the world could pull back from the brink. The U.N. could still limit warming to two degrees if it adopts a and#34;radical plan,and#34; says Petersand#39; group. According to a PricewaterhouseCoopers study, such a plan would entail cutting carbon emissions and#34;by 5.1 percent every year from now to 2050, essentially slamming the breaks on growth starting right now,and#34; says Coral Davenport at The National Journal, and#34;and keeping the freeze on for 37 years.and#34; However, the U.N. has set a deadline of ratifying a new treaty by 2015, and implementing it by 2020, which means the world is already eight years behind that pace. There are still major disagreements between the U.S. and China over whether the developed world, which industrialized first, should bear the bulk of the cost of reducing carbon emissions. And there is, of course, a large contingent of Americans who donand#39;t even believe climate change exists, putting any treatyand#39;s ratification at risk. Climate change is so politically toxic in America that Congress has prioritized the fiscal cliff over — no exaggeration — untold suffering and the end of the world as we know it.  In other words, it isnand#39;t happening. And if thatand#39;s not bad enough, keep in mind that the two-degree mark is just the beginning, says Davenport:  Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University and a member of the Nobel Prize-winning U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, says that a 2-degree rise is not itself that point, but rather the beginning of irreversible changes. and#34;It starts to speed you toward a tipping point,and#34; he said. and#34;Itand#39;s driving toward a cliff at night with the headlights off. We donand#39;t know when weand#39;ll hit that cliff, but after 2 degrees, weand#39;re going faster, we have less control. After 3, 4, 5 degrees, you spiral out of control, you have even more irreversible change.and#34;  Indeed, at the current emissions rate, the world is expected to broach the four-degree mark by 2100 — at which point, we can expect even worse environmental catastrophes.
Adaptation checks.
Singer et al 11 Dr. S. Fred, Research Fellow at The Independent Institute, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and a Member of the International Academy of Astronautics; Robert M. Carter, Research Professor at James Cook University (Queensland) and the University of Adelaide (South Australia), palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and environmental scientist with more than thirty years professional experience; and Craig D. Idso, founder and chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, Arizona-Nevada Academy of Sciences, and Association of American Geographers, et al, 2011, “Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report,” online: http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2011/pdf/FrontMatter.pdf

Decades-long empirical trends of climate-sensitive measures of human well-being, including the percent of developing world population suffering from chronic hunger, poverty rates, and deaths due to extreme weather events, reveal dramatic improvement during the twentieth century, notwithstanding the historic increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. The magnitude of the impacts of climate change on human well-being depends on societyand#39;s adaptability (adaptive capacity), which is determined by, among other things, the wealth and human resources society can access in order to obtain, install, operate, and maintain technologies necessary to cope with or take advantage of climate change impacts. The IPCC systematically underestimates adaptive capacity by failing to take into account the greater wealth and technological advances that will be present at the time for which impacts are to be estimated. Even accepting the IPCCand#39;s and Stern Reviewand#39;s worst-case scenarios, and assuming a compounded annual growth rate of per-capita GDP of only 0.7 percent, reveals that net GDP per capita in developing countries in 2100 would be double the 2006 level of the U.S. and triple that level in 2200. Thus, even developing countriesand#39; future ability to cope with climate change would be much better than that of the U.S. today. The IPCCand#39;s embrace of biofuels as a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions was premature, as many researchers have found and#34;even the best biofuels have the potential to damage the poor, the climate, and biodiversityand#34; (Delucchi, 2010). Biofuel production consumes nearly as much energy as it generates, competes with food crops and wildlife for land, and is unlikely to ever meet more than a small fraction of the worldand#39;s demand for fuels. The notion that global warming might cause war and social unrest is not only wrong, but even backwards - that is, global cooling has led to wars and social unrest in the past, whereas global warming has coincided with periods of peace, prosperity, and social stability.

Tournament: Greenhill | Round: 2 | Opponent: GBN HK | Judge: Katie Klante
NOTE-- OTHER SPEECHES WERE LOST, HOWEVER CUBA EMBARGO DEBATES DID NOT VARY MUCH SO RD 3 AND RD 6 DOCS STILL APPLY.

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

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

turns latin america
US decline hurts Latin American economies
AP 1/29/2008 (IMF predicts slowing global economy in 2008 due to US housing woes, but no recession, lexis)

Rising home foreclosures and falling home prices caused U.S. financial markets to drop steeply in recent months, as major banks such as Citigroup Inc. and Merrill Lynch and Co. Inc. have written down billions of dollars of securities that include bad home loans. The disruptions have reverberated around the world as banks have cut back on lending and raised credit standards, leading to tighter credit markets. Tuesday's IMF report was the second time the organization has cut its 2008 growth projection. Last July, the IMF estimated the world economy would grow 5.2 percent in 2008, but in October the estimate was reduced to 4.4 percent. Johnson said that difficulties in the U.S. financial sector have impacted Europe's economy. Several of its major banks have also reduced the value of complex securities they hold that are tied to U.S. mortgages. The IMF expects growth in the European Union to slow to 1.6 percent this year, down from an estimated 2.6 percent in 2007. Asia and Latin America, meanwhile, will also see reduced growth in 2008, the IMF said, as their exports decline due to weaker economies in the United States and Europe. The global impact of the U.S. slowdown indicates that the U.S. economy still exerts influence over the rest of the world, despite predictions that other countries are "decoupling," Johnson said.

That’s posturing – he’ll negotiate before accepting default
Rubin, 9/18/13 – author of the Right Turn column for the Washington Post (Jennifer, Washington Post, “Obamacare and debt ceiling ping-pong” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/09/18/obamacare-and-debt-ceiling-ping-pong/)

The flip side of this is that when it comes to the debt ceiling the White House, as we saw in 2011, is under much more pressure to strike a deal. No wonder the president defiantly insist that he “won’t negotiate on the debt ceiling.” If the hard liners agree to this approach, that is using the debt ceiling as the vehicle for a deal, that’s a win for GOP leadership.
It is also important to keep in mind that what the House sends over to the Senate to start the bidding isn’t all that critical. If the hard liners want to lard it up with Obamacare defunding and every other shiny object, there is little downside. What is critical is what the Senate does with it and how the House responds to whatever comes back. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) and the other members of the shutdown squad don’t have a lot of allies. Unless something changes, there aren’t enough R’s to block a CR that doesn’t include their pet defunding plan. What comes back to the House therefore will in all likelihood not have a defunding measure. At that point the real fight will occur: Can the GOP leadership get 218 votes to keep the government running and then pivot to the debt/Obamacare showdown?
Then the familiar drill will repeat itself. The White House will press for closed door negotiations. The House will insist on regular order. And then we are back to a three-sided face-off and a real test for Senate Dems. Will they stick by the “no changes on Obamacare” edict from the White House or will there be a deal in there.
The country’s credit rating is a tough bargaining chip to play since neither side wants to use it. But the president’s desperation to get rid of the sequester is an actual point of leverage for the GOP. What can Republicans get for it? Ideally, a delay in Obamacare, but maybe they could at least snag a real down payment on entitlement reform or a domestic development energy bill.

Perception is key—Obama has a perceived willingness to compromise
Langer, 9/18/13 (“Public Splits on Debt Limit Even with Fears of Damage” ABC News,
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/09/public-splits-on-debt-limit-even-with-fears-of-damage/)

COMPROMISE – Mixed emotions on the debt are reflected in sharply divided trust to handle the issue: Forty-three percent of Americans prefer Barack Obama’s approach, while 40 percent hold greater trust in the Republicans in Congress, with typical partisan and ideological divisions.
That said, Obama has the upper hand on another measure, perceived willingness to compromise. While 49 percent of Americans say Obama’s doing “too little” to compromise with Republican leaders in Congress on a budget plan, far more, 64 percent, say the Republicans are doing too little to compromise with Obama.
The difference is largely among political independents. Fifty-five percent of them say Obama is doing too little to compromise – but 72 percent say that about Republican leaders. The GOP, though, also has comparative trouble in its base. Among self-identified Republicans, 43 percent say their own party is doing too little to compromise. Just half as many Democrats say that about Obama.
The president may be seeking to press his advantage in perceived willingness to compromise vs. Republican leaders. At a speech today before the Business Roundtable, he reiterated that raising the debt ceiling is non-negotiable and accused the GOP of using the debt ceiling to “extort” concessions on “issues that have nothing to do with the budget and nothing to do with the debt.”

at: syria

Low PC is not no PC – Obama is prioritizing the fiscal issues and deferring other controversial issues to save PC
Cassidy, 9/16/13 (John, “SUMMERS AND OBAMA ACCEPT THE INEVITABLE” The New Yorker, http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2013/09/summers-and-obama-accept-the-inevitable.html)

In recent weeks, numerous stories appeared that quoted White House and Treasury Department insiders saying how much the President respected Summers, who served as his senior economic advisor from the start of 2009 to the end of 2010, and how much he valued his advice. But we already knew that. The key question was never how much Obama admired Summers, but how much political capital he would be willing to invest in landing him at the Fed. If you looked at the issue in terms of cold political calculus, which is how Presidential aides look at most things, it was pretty clear which way the cost-benefit analysis would come out.
If Obama had been flying high, with a tight grip on Congress, it’s conceivable that he would have decided to nominate Summers and be damned. But he was hardly reaching a determination about the Fed job from a position of strength. His approval ratings are sagging, and he is about to enter another season of squabbling with Congressional Republicans over the budget, funding Obamacare, and the debt ceiling. In such circumstances, the last thing that the President needed was a bitter nomination fight in the Senate, especially one in which the liberal wing of his party, which is virtually united against a Summers nomination, was on the opposing side.

And it no longer effects his capital
Bohan, 9/11 (Caren, 9/11/2013, “Delay in Syria vote frees Obama to shift to hefty domestic agenda,” http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/11/usa-obama-agenda-idUSL2N0H716N20130911))

WASHINGTON, Sept 11 (Reuters) - Putting off a decision on military strikes on Syria allows President Barack Obama to shift his attention back to a weighty domestic agenda for the fall that includes budget fights, immigration and selecting a new chairman of the Federal Reserve.
Obama and his aides have immersed themselves for a week and a half in an intensive effort to win support in Congress for U.S. military action in Syria after a suspected chemical weapons attack last month killed more than 1,400 people.
But the effort, which included meetings by Obama on Capitol Hill on Tuesday followed by his televised speech to Americans, seemed headed for an embarrassing defeat, with large numbers of both Democrats and Republicans expressing opposition.
The push for a vote on Syria - which has now been delayed - had threatened to crowd out the busy legislative agenda for the final three months of 2013 and drain Obama's political clout, making it harder for him to press his priorities.
But analysts said a proposal floated by Russia, which the Obama administration is now exploring, to place Syria's weapons under international control may allow Obama to emerge from a difficult dilemma with minimal political damage.
"He dodges a tough political situation this way," said John Pitney, professor of politics at Claremont McKenna College in California.
Pitney said the delay in the Syria vote removes a big burden for Obama, given that Americans, who overwhelmingly opposed military intervention in Syria, will now be able to shift their attention to other matters.
He said Obama could suffer some weakening of his leverage with Congress. The administration's "full court press" to try to persuade lawmakers to approve military force on Syria was heavily criticized and did not yield much success.
"He probably has suffered some damage in Congress because there are probably many people on (Capitol Hill) who have increasing doubts about the basic competence of the administration and that's a disadvantage in any kind of negotiation," Pitney said.

Embargo specific

Even unilateral Executive-branch carve-outs to the embargo cause a political firestorm
NYT 12 – “Easing of Restraints in Cuba Renews Debate on U.S. Embargo,” 11/19/12, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/20/world/americas/changes-in-cuba-create-support-for-easing-embargo.html?pagewanted=alland_r=0andpagewanted=print
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 Department’s licensing and regulation-writing authority, there is room for significant modification. Following the legal logic of Mr. Obama’s 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.¶ When asked about Cuban entrepreneurs who are seeking more American support, Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the Florida Republican who is chairwoman of the House Foreign Relations Committee, proposed an even tighter embargo.

Blame still gets tied back to Obama- 5 warrants
Weaver 13 (Kent, Professor at Georgetown University and a Senior Fellow in Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution, “Policy Leadership and the Blame Trap:
Seven Strategies for Avoiding Policy Stalemate”, March 2013 http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2013/3/2920policy20leadership20blame20weaver/weaverpolicy20leadership20and20the20blame20trapv5032813.pdf
CLans)
In a period when hyper-partisanship, close partisan competition, divided government, strong incentives for blame-generating, and a proliferation of blame generators have become the “new normal” in Washington, there are no simple one-size-fits-all solutions to side-step the blame trap and avoid policy stalemate. Ultimately, however, the blame trap will continue to bedevil policymakers in Washington so long as they continue to believe any or all of the following: (1) the status quo is better than any compromise that is likely to be acceptable to their partisan opponents, (2) any sign of deviation from policy principle weakens your own bargaining position, (3) political and policy opponents can be bullied or blamed into accepting a position that is closer to your own position, (4) better policy terms are likely to be available after the next election, or the one after that, or the one after that, and (5) policy compromise that reduces potential openings for future blame-generating is not worth the political opportunity cost. So long as these beliefs remain dominant among American politicians, incentives for compromise remain weak, and successful initiatives to dodge the blame trap and avoid policy stalemate will be the exception rather than the rule.
winners win
Winners don’t win, several reasons –

b) Obama cannot win – legislative wins don’t spillover
*prefer Obama specific evidence – even if other presidents are able to regenerate capital quickly, Obama cannot – every time Obama allocates political capital on unpopular legislation it turns into a journalistic convention of pointing fingers – makes it impossible to get legislation through
Todd Eberly 13 – is coordinator of Public Policy Studies and assistant professor in the Department of Political Science at St. Mary's College of Maryland. His email is teeberly@smcm.edu. This article is excerpted from his book, co-authored with Steven Schier, "American Government and Popular Discontent: Stability without Success," to published later this year by Routledge Press., 1-21-2013 http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-01-21/news/bs-ed-political-capital-20130121_1_political-system-party-support-public-opinion/2

As Barack Obama prepares to be sworn in for the second time as president of the United States, he faces the stark reality that little of what he hopes to accomplish in a second term will likely come to pass. Mr. Obama occupies an office that many assume to be all powerful, but like so many of his recent predecessors, the president knows better. He faces a political capital problem and a power trap.¶ In the post-1960s American political system, presidents have found the exercise of effective leadership a difficult task. To lead well, a president needs support — or at least permission — from federal courts and Congress; steady allegiance from public opinion and fellow partisans in the electorate; backing from powerful, entrenched interest groups; and accordance with contemporary public opinion about the proper size and scope of government. This is a long list of requirements. If presidents fail to satisfy these requirements, they face the prospect of inadequate political support or political capital to back their power assertions.¶ What was so crucial about the 1960s? We can trace so much of what defines contemporary politics to trends that emerged then. Americans' confidence in government began a precipitous decline as the tumult and tragedies of the 1960s gave way to the scandals and economic uncertainties of the 1970s. Long-standing party coalitions began to fray as the New Deal coalition, which had elected Franklin Roosevelt to four terms and made Democrats the indisputable majority party, faded into history. The election of Richard Nixon in 1968 marked the beginning of an unprecedented era of divided government. Finally, the two parties began ideologically divergent journeys that resulted in intense polarization in Congress, diminishing the possibility of bipartisan compromise. These changes, combined with the growing influence of money and interest groups and the steady "thickening" of the federal bureaucracy, introduced significant challenges to presidential leadership.¶ Political capital can best be understood as a combination of the president's party support in Congress, public approval of his job performance, and the president's electoral victory margin. The components of political capital are central to the fate of presidencies. It is difficult to claim warrants for leadership in an era when job approval, congressional support and partisan affiliation provide less backing for a president than in times past. In recent years, presidents' political capital has shrunk while their power assertions have grown, making the president a volatile player in the national political system.¶ Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush joined the small ranks of incumbents defeated while seeking a second term. Ronald Reagan was elected in two landslides, yet his most successful year for domestic policy was his first year in office. Bill Clinton was twice elected by a comfortable margin, but with less than majority support, and despite a strong economy during his second term, his greatest legislative successes came during his first year with the passage of a controversial but crucial budget bill, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the North American Free Trade Agreement. George W. Bush won election in 2000 having lost the popular vote, and though his impact on national security policy after the Sept. 11 attacks was far reaching, his greatest domestic policy successes came during 2001. Ambitious plans for Social Security reform, following his narrow re-election in 2004, went nowhere.¶ Faced with obstacles to successful leadership, recent presidents have come to rely more on their formal powers. The number of important executive orders has increased significantly since the 1960s, as have the issuance of presidential signing statements. Both are used by presidents in an attempt to shape and direct policy on their terms. Presidents have had to rely more on recess appointments as well, appointing individuals to important positions during a congressional recess (even a weekend recess) to avoid delays and obstruction often encountered in the Senate. Such power assertions typically elicit close media scrutiny and often further erode political capital.¶ Barack Obama's election in 2008 seemed to signal a change. Mr. Obama's popular vote majority was the largest for any president since 1988, and he was the first Democrat to clear the 50 percent mark since Lyndon Johnson. The president initially enjoyed strong public approval and, with a Democratic Congress, was able to produce an impressive string of legislative accomplishments during his first year and early into his second, capped by enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. But with each legislative battle and success, his political capital waned. His impressive successes with Congress in 2009 and 2010 were accompanied by a shift in the public mood against him, evident in the rise of the tea party movement, the collapse in his approval rating, and the large GOP gains in the 2010 elections, which brought a return to divided government.¶ By mid-2011, Mr. Obama's job approval had slipped well below its initial levels, and Congress was proving increasingly intransigent. In the face of declining public support and rising congressional opposition, Mr. Obama, like his predecessors, looked to the energetic use of executive power. In 2012, the president relied on executive discretion and legal ambiguity to allow homeowners to more easily refinance federally backed mortgages, to help veterans find employment and to make it easier for college graduates to consolidate federal student loan debt. He issued several executive orders effecting change in the nation's enforcement of existing immigration laws. He used an executive order to authorize the Department of Education to grant states waivers from the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act — though the enacting legislation makes no accommodation for such waivers. Contrary to the outcry from partisan opponents, Mr. Obama's actions were hardly unprecedented or imperial. Rather, they represented a rather typical power assertion from a contemporary president.¶ Many looked to the 2012 election as a means to break present trends. But Barack Obama's narrow re-election victory, coupled with the re-election of a somewhat-diminished Republican majority House and Democratic majority Senate, hardly signals a grand resurgence of his political capital. The president's recent issuance of multiple executive orders to deal with the issue of gun violence is further evidence of his power trap. Faced with the likelihood of legislative defeat in Congress, the president must rely on claims of unilateral power. But such claims are not without limit or cost and will likely further erode his political capital.¶ Only by solving the problem of political capital is a president likely to avoid a power trap. Presidents in recent years have been unable to prevent their political capital from 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 time received popular approval.¶ However, 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 heavily on the current president's mind today as he takes his second oath of office.
4). systemic consequences
Schwarcz, 8/14/13 – professor of law at Duke, founding director of the Duke Global Capital Markets Center (Steven, “Rollover Risk: Ideating a U.S. Debt Default” SSRN)

A U.S. debt default153 would also have both microeconomic and macroeconomic, or systemic,154 consequences. Observers have argued that a default would likely result in stocks, bonds, and the dollar “plummeting in the immediate aftermath.”155 Credit markets would likely freeze,156 harming both companies and consumers.157 The downgrading of credit ratings on U.S. debt would also make it much more difficult and expensive for the country to borrow.158
Even a mere “technical” default, caused by illiquidity, could harm the real economy.159 The 1979 debt defaults, which were temporarily caused by a federal debt ceiling limit on new borrowings,160 resulted in a 60 basis point increase in the interest rate on Treasury bills161—an increase that appears to be permanent.162 Such a rate increase could also increase the cost of private borrowings. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has observed, for example, that a U.S. debt default would “raise all borrowing costs”163 because “US Treasuries set the benchmark borrowing rate” for private loans.164
Investment bank J.P. Morgan recently issued a report updating the potential economic impact of a technical default. The report assumes that the United States temporarily misses an interest or principal payment on its debt.165 Even if this temporary default does not reflect an actual deterioration of U.S. solvency, it still would “almost certainly have large systemic effects with long-term adverse consequences for Treasury finances and the U.S. economy.”166 At a minimum, the United States would likely see a one percent reduction in gross domestic product (GDP) due to higher interest rates and a likely equity selloff.167 Even worse, the report concluded, the default also “could leave lasting damage in its wake due to a permanent decline in foreign demand for U.S. Treasury securities, which will likely lead to continuing higher borrowing costs and larger deficits.”168

Tournament: Greenhill | Round: 6 | Opponent: GBS CK | Judge: Mary Gregg
1nc- da

The debt ceiling will pass but it will be a fight
Washington Post, 9/15/13 (“Congress can turn back to the budget now” http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/congress-can-turn-back-to-the-budget-now/2013/09/15/e05c975c-1ca5-11e3-82ef-a059e54c49d0_story.html)

WITH PRESIDENT Obama’s bid for congressional support for a military strike against Syria on hold for the time being, members of the House and Senate can devote their attention to what was previously supposed to have been their priority for September: avoiding a potential political and economic train wreck over the federal government’s finances.
Specifically, Congress needs to fund the government after the current spending law expires on Sept. 30, and it needs to raise the $16.7 trillion debt limit, which will be reached sometime in the second half of October, and which must be increased to avoid the possibility of a U.S. default.
Alas, these two pieces of what should be routine business have become entangled in the politics of Obamacare, which is to say the decreasingly comprehensible politics of the House Republican caucus. A sizable minority of GOP members insists on “defunding” the health care law before the major parts of it begin to take effect in January. According to a recent Congressional Research Service analysis, this is an operationally futile goal. It would be bad policy even if it were possible.
What’s more, it’s bad politics for the GOP to risk a government shutdown in pursuit of this chimera — a fact Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) recognizes but which has, so far, failed to sway his back-benchers. This is why Democrats are content, for now, to sit back and cheer on the Republicans’ internal feud. Also, that’s easier than countering the Republicans’ anti-Obamacare crusade with realistic budget alternatives.
How this latest impasse plays out is anyone’s guess, though there are plausible scenarios under which Mr. Boehner can give the ultras in his caucus a chance to vote one more time against Obamacare, while engineering Democratic acquiescence in a short-term continuation of the current $988 billion annual spending rate. Such a result would avoid a partial government shutdown — for a few months.
The debt ceiling, too, probably can be finessed, as it has been in the past. Exactly how is admittedly difficult to predict given Mr. Obama’s insistence that raising it is not negotiable and Mr. Boehner’s seemingly incompatible insistence that he won’t increase Washington’s borrowing capacity except in return for progress on deficit reduction. But a default would not be in either side’s political interest.

Drains capital – Backlash and hostage taking on unrelated priority legislation is empirically proven, likely in future and specifically true for Rubio  – Cuba policy is totally unique
LeoGrande, 12
William M. LeoGrande School of Public Affairs American University, Professor of Government and a specialist in Latin American politics and U.S. foreign policy toward Latin America, Professor LeoGrande has been a frequent adviser to government and private sector agencies, 12/18/12, http://www.american.edu/clals/upload/LeoGrande-Fresh-Start.pdf

The Second Obama Administration Where in the executive branch will control over Cuba policy lie? Political considerations played a major role in Obamaand#39;s Cuba policy during the first term, albeit not as preeminent a consideration as they were during the Clinton years. In 2009, Obamaand#39;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 presidentand#39;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 Democratsand#39; 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 Rubioand#39;s demand that it limit the licensing of travel providers in exchange for him dropping his hold on the appointment of Valenzuelaand#39;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 Obamaand#39;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 and#34;democracy promotionand#34; 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.

Capital is finite and spending it elsewhere prevents a debt ceiling deal
Moore, 9/10/13 - Guardianand#39;s US finance and economics editor. (Heidi, “Syria: the great distraction” The Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/10/obama-syria-what-about-sequester)

The country will crash into the debt ceiling in mid-October, which would be an economic disaster, especially with a government shutdown looming at the same time. These are deadlines that Congress already learned two years ago not to toy with, but memories appear to be preciously short.
The Federal Reserve needs a new chief in three months, someone who will help the country confront its raging unemployment crisis that has left 12 million people without jobs. The president has promised to choose a warm body within the next three weeks, despite the fact that his top pick, Larry Summers, would likely spark an ugly confirmation battle – the and#34;fight of the century,and#34; according to some – with a Congress already unwilling to do the Presidentand#39;s bidding.
Congress was supposed to pass a farm bill this summer, but declined to do so even though the task is already two years late. As a result, the country has no farm bill, leaving agricultural subsidies up in the air, farmers uncertain about what their financial picture looks like, and a potential food crisis on the horizon.
The two main housing agencies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, have been in limbo for four years and are desperately in need of reform that should start this fall, but there is scant attention to the problem.
These are the problems going unattended by the Obama administration while his aides and cabinet members have been wasting the nationand#39;s time making the rounds on television and Capitol Hill stumping for a profoundly unpopular war. The fact that all this chest-beating was for naught, and an easy solution seems on the horizon, belies the single-minded intensity that the Obama White House brought to its insistence on bombing Syria.
More than one wag has suggested, with the utmost reason, that if Obama had brought this kind of passion to domestic initiatives, the country would be in better condition right now. As it is, public policy is embarrassingly in shambles at home while the administration throws all of its resources and political capital behind a widely hated plan to get involved in a civil war overseas.
The upshot for the president may be that itand#39;s easier to wage war with a foreign power than go head-to-head with the US Congress, even as America suffers from neglect.
This is the paradox that President Obama is facing this fall, as he appears to turn his back on a number of crucial and urgent domestic initiatives in order to spend all of his meager political capital on striking Syria.
Syria does present a significant humanitarian crisis, which has been true for the past two years that the Obama administration has completely ignored the atrocities of Bashar al-Assad.
Two years is also roughly the same amount of time that key domestic initiatives have also gone ignored as Obama and Congress engage in petty battles for dominance and leave the country to run itself on a starvation diet imposed by sequestration cuts. Leon Panetta tells the story of how he tried to lobby against sequestration only to be told:
Leon, you donand#39;t understand. The Congress is resigned to failure.
Similarly, those on Wall Street, the Federal Reserve, those working at government agencies, and voters themselves have become all too practiced at ignoring the determined incompetence of those in Washington.
Political capital – the ability to horse-trade and win political favors from a receptive audience – is a finite resource in Washington. Pursuing misguided policies takes up time, but it also eats up credibility in asking for the next favor. Itand#39;s fair to say that congressional Republicans, particularly in the House, have no love for Obama and are likely to oppose anything he supports. Thatand#39;s exactly the reason the White House should stop proposing policies as if it is scattering buckshot and focus with intensity on the domestic tasks it wants to accomplish, one at a time.
Default will destroy the U.S. and global economy
Davidson, 9/10/13 – co-founder of NPR’s Planet Money (Adam, “Our Debt to Society” New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/magazine/our-debt-to-society.html?pagewanted=all)

If the debt ceiling isn’t lifted again this fall, some serious financial decisions will have to be made. Perhaps the government can skimp on its foreign aid or furlough all of NASA, but eventually the big-ticket items, like Social Security and Medicare, will have to be cut. At some point, the government won’t be able to pay interest on its bonds and will enter what’s known as sovereign default, the ultimate national financial disaster achieved by countries like Zimbabwe, Ecuador and Argentina (and now Greece). In the case of the United States, though, it won’t be an isolated national crisis. If the American government can’t stand behind the dollar, the world’s benchmark currency, then the global financial system will very likely enter a new era in which there is much less trade and much less economic growth. It would be, by most accounts, the largest self-imposed financial disaster in history.
Nearly everyone involved predicts that someone will blink before this disaster occurs. Yet a small number of House Republicans (one political analyst told me it’s no more than 20) appear willing to see what happens if the debt ceiling isn’t raised — at least for a bit. This could be used as leverage to force Democrats to drastically cut government spending and eliminate President Obama’s signature health-care-reform plan. In fact, Representative Tom Price, a Georgia Republican, told me that the whole problem could be avoided if the president agreed to drastically cut spending and lower taxes. Still, it is hard to put this act of game theory into historic context. Plenty of countries — and some cities, like Detroit — have defaulted on their financial obligations, but only because their governments ran out of money to pay their bills. No wealthy country has ever voluntarily decided — in the middle of an economic recovery, no less — to default. And there’s certainly no record of that happening to the country that controls the global reserve currency.
Like many, I assumed a self-imposed U.S. debt crisis might unfold like most involuntary ones. If the debt ceiling isn’t raised by X-Day, I figured, the world’s investors would begin to see America as an unstable investment and rush to sell their Treasury bonds. The U.S. government, desperate to hold on to investment, would then raise interest rates far higher, hurtling up rates on credit cards, student loans, mortgages and corporate borrowing — which would effectively put a clamp on all trade and spending. The U.S. economy would collapse far worse than anything we’ve seen in the past several years.

Nuclear war
Friedberg and Schoenfeld 8
Aaron, Prof. Politics. And IR @ Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School and Visiting Scholar @ Witherspoon Institute, and Gabriel, Senior Editor of Commentary and Wall Street Journal, “The Dangers of a Diminished America”, 10-28, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122455074012352571.html
Then there are the dolorous consequences of a potential collapse of the worldand#39;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. Russiaand#39;s new militancy and Chinaand#39;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.

1nc –da
Plan kills Brazil’s sugar industry.
Miami Herald 02 (6/26/02, “Cuba embargo under fire - Sally Grooms Cowaland#39;s Group cites benefits for U.S.,” http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/706185/posts)//DR. H

4. The next reason in favor of doing away with the embargo runs as follows: Look here, there is money to be made in Cuba. Remember Coolidge’s, the and#34;business of America is business?and#34; If everything else fails, appeal to greed . There are some salivating mouths claiming that 6 billion dollars worth of goods and commodities could be sold to Cuba. But unless the U.S. takes the place of the Soviet Union and initially subsidizes the Cuban economy with credits and loans (coming out of American tax paying pockets), and rebuild its shattered infrastructure at a cost of billions upon billions of dollars, the U.S. would have to buy Cuban sugar produced by workers paid now 10 dollars per month in order to enable Cubans to have money to pay for all these goodies, without any guarantees that the large portion of the profits made would not go first to the apparatus of repression (armed forces, secret police and Communist Party cadres) and to the modernization of its weapons systems and only lastly, to the Cuban people. Moreover, one must ask: what happens to the sugar industry of Florida now producing 25 of the sugar consumed in the U.S.?. Furthermore, according to the American Sugar Alliance, 80-85 of the sugar produced in the U.S. is consumed here. The remainder 15 is imported from 40 foreign countries--about 1,5 million tons. Under WTO and NAFTA rules the U.S. is required to bring in AT LEAST that amount, even if the U.S. does not need it now! Any sale of Cuban sugar to a sugar producing country like the U.S. would mean that there would be less of the market for the American sugar industry to go around.
In addition, what would happen abroad to Brazil’s sugar market, one of the largest producers of sugar, (even if a significant amount of that countryand#39;s sugar is used to produce ethanol)? and to the Dominican Republic’s or Mexicoand#39;s market? to mention only three sugar producing countries in our hemisphere. We should ponder, in this context, the following statement issued on August 10, 2000 by Joseph Terrell, Director of Public Affairs of the American Sugar Alliance: and#34;We are well aware of the challenges lifting the Cuban embargo could have on the US sugar industry. Also, quota holders in other countries are monitoring the situation closely as well because they could stand to lose…we are monitoring this closely.and#34; A similar view has been advanced by the general manager of the Louisiana Sugar Cane Cooperative and secretary/treasurer of the Louisiana Farm Bureau Foundation, Jackie Theriot, who said: Lifting the embargo -- without holding Cuba to production limits -- would flood the U.S. market with sugar, dropping the prices and bankrupting the domestic industry. (quoted by Kevin Blanchard in his article and#34;Now no Time to Help Cuba,and#34; The Advocate ONLINE (April 11, 2002) However, it is unlikely that Castroand#39;s Cuba would accept being hamstrung by production limits and it would go against the free trade ideology espoused by Washington these days.
Is the U.S. going to harden the grip of Castro by granting him even a significantly diminished market opening at the expense of its own sugar industry? Imperil the Brazilian sale of sugar to the U.S. just to please Castro? Is the U.S. going to finance the the conversion of Cuban sugar into ethanol, as means to reduce the worldwide glut of sugar even though the prospects of creating a large U.S. ethanol market is still an economic entelechy? Moreover, consider that during one year, in the decade of the 50’s (1959, for example) Cuba’s sugar quota in the U.S. totaled 1.256 million metric tons, roughly the same amount that the U.S. now imports from 40 countries! It is well known that when Cuba lost its generous American sugar quota in the 60’s this amount was allocated to other countries. which used the allocation to maintain their sugar industry and increase their production. What would be the ripple effect of the Cuban re-intervention in the American sugar market, given that it will be considerably less than what it sold in the 50’s and will offer sugar at a low price to gain a foothold in the market? This macroeconomic assessment has not been addressed in the public arena by Castro’s acolytes and foot soldiers in this country. In addition, in the case Dominican Republic, the European Union subsidized exports have already caused a 20 income loss of income in that country. If Cuba’s sales of sugar take a slice of the American market, both the domestic and international suppliers, such as the Dominican Republic, Brazil, and Mexico (who incidentally, has been encouraged to develop an ethanol industry) are going to feel even more severely impacted. Even if Cuba did not make efforts to create a capital intensive industry, as the cane sugar producers in the U.S and producers of sugar in the world have done it, Cuban sugar would be produced more cheaply, as already indicated, doubtlessly, with Communist government subsidies in order to retain a share of the American market.
That causes Brazilian economic instability.
SC 12 (Sugarcane.org, AT: Website’s Bias!!! – Cites objective data…, 6/19/12, “Impact on Braziland#39;s Economy,” http://sugarcane.org/the-brazilian-experience/impact-on-brazils-economy)//DR. H

The sugarcane industry – including cultivation, processing and refined products – represents an important segment of the Brazilian economy.
Economic Contribution
In 2010, the sugarcane sector contributes US$50 billion to Brazil’s gross domestic product (GDP) – equivalent to almost 2.4 of the entire Brazilian economy and comparable to the GDP of a European country like Slovenia (US$47.7 billion).
When you add in the various suppliers and stakeholders who depend on Brazil’s sugarcane industry, the entire sugarcane agro-industrial system generates gross revenues totaling more than US$86 billion annually.
Good Jobs
The sugarcane industry employs 1.28 million workers, according to 2008 data from the Ministry of Labor and Employment’s Annual Report of Social Information (RAIS).

Nuclear war.
Shulz 2k (Donald, Research Professor of National Security Policy at the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College THE UNITED STATES AND LATIN AMERICA: SHAPING AN ELUSIVE FUTURE, March) 

While we are in a speculative mode, it may be useful to raise the issue of whether, two or three decades from now, the United States might have to deal with a regional hegemon or peer competitor. The most obvious candidate for such a role would be Brazil, which already accounts for almost half of Latin America’s economic production and has by far the largest armed forces in the region (313,250 active troops).53 That country could very well assume a more commanding political and military role in the decades ahead. Until recently, the primary U.S. concern about Brazil has been that it might acquire nuclear weapons and delivery systems. In the 1970s, the Brazilian military embarked on a secret program to develop an atom bomb. By the late 1980s, both Brazil and Argentina were aggressively pursuing nuclear development programs that had clear military spin-offs.54 There were powerful military and civilian advocates of developing nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles within both countries. Today, however, the situation has changed. As a result of political leadership transitions in both countries, Brazil and Argentina now appear firmly committed to restricting their nuclear programs to peaceful purposes. They have entered into various nuclear-related agreements with each other—most notably the quadripartite comprehensive safeguards agreement (1991), which permits the inspection of all their nuclear installations by the International Atomic Energy Agency—and have joined the Missile Technology Control Regime. Even so, no one can be certain about the future. As Scott Tollefson has observed: . . . the military application of Brazil’s nuclear and space programs depends less on technological considerations than on political will. While technological constraints present a formidable barrier to achieving nuclear bombs and ballistic missiles, that barrier is not insurmountable. The critical element, therefore, in determining the applications of Brazil’s nuclear and space technologies will be primarily political.55 Put simply, if changes in political leadership were instrumental in redirecting Brazil’s nuclear program towards peaceful purposes, future political upheavals could still produce a reversion to previous orientations. Civilian supremacy is not so strong that it could not be swept away by a coup, especially if the legitimacy of the current democratic experiment were to be undermined by economic crisis and growing poverty/inequality. Nor are civilian leaders necessarily less militaristic or more committed to democracy than the military. The example of Peru’s Fujimori comes immediately to mind. How serious a threat might Brazil potentially be? It has been estimated that if the nuclear plant at Angra dos Reis (Angra I) were only producing at 30 percent capacity, it could produce five 20-kiloton weapons a year. If production from other plants were included, Brazil would have a capability three times greater than India or Pakistan. Furthermore, its defense industry already has a substantial missile producing capability. On the other hand, the country has a very limited capacity to project its military power via air and sealift or to sustain its forces over long distances. And though a 1983 law authorizes significant military manpower increases (which could place Brazil at a numerical level slightly higher than France, Iran and Pakistan), such growth will be restricted by a lack of economic resources. Indeed, the development of all these military potentials has been, and will continue to be, severely constrained by a lack of money. (Which is one reason Brazil decided to engage in arms control with Argentina in the first place.) 56 In short, a restoration of Brazilian militarism, imbued with nationalistic ambitions for great power status, is not unthinkable, and such a regime could present some fairly serious problems. That government would probably need foreign as well as domestic enemies to help justify its existence. One obvious candidate would be the United States, which would presumably be critical of any return to dictatorial rule. Beyond this, moreover, the spectre of a predatory international community, covetous of the riches of the Amazon, could help rally political support to the regime. For years, some Brazilian military officers have been warning of “foreign intervention.” Indeed, as far back as 1991 General Antenor de Santa Cruz Abreu, then chief of the Military Command of the Amazon, threatened to transform the region into a “new Vietnam” if developed countries tried to “internationalize” the Amazon. Subsequently, in 1993, U.S.-Guyanese combined military exercises near the Brazilian border provoked an angry response from many high-ranking Brazilian officers. 57 Since then, of course, U.S.-Brazilian relations have improved considerably. Nevertheless, the basic U.S./ international concerns over the Amazon—the threat to the region’s ecology through burning and deforestation, the presence of narcotrafficking activities, the Indian question, etc.—have not disappeared, and some may very well intensify in the years ahead. At the same time, if the growing trend towards subregional economic groupings—in particular, MERCOSUR—continues, it is likely to increase competition between Southern Cone and NAFTA countries. Economic conflicts, in turn, may be expected to intensify political differences, and could lead to heightened politico-military rivalry between different blocs or coalitions in the hemisphere. Even so, there continue to be traditional rivalries and conflicts within MERCOSUR, especially between Brazil and its neighbors, and these will certainly complicate the group’s evolution. Among other things, the past year witnessed a serious deterioration of relations between Brazil and Argentina, the product partly of the former’s January 1999 currency devaluation, which severely strained economic ties between the two countries. In part, too, these conflicts were aggravated by Argentina’s (unsuccessful) bid to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which Brazilians interpreted as an attempt to gain strategic advantage. The upshot was that relations soured to the extent where questions have been raised as to the continued viability of MERCOSUR itself. In light of these problems, one cannot but wonder what impact a resurgence of Brazilian authoritarianism, combined with a push for regional hegemonic status, would have on Argentina, currently a “non-NATO ally” of the United States.
1nc – t
The plan engages with non-governmental organizations.
Daga, 13 - director of research at Politicas Publicas para la Libertad, in Bolivia, and a visiting senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation (Sergio, “Economics of the 2013-2014 Debate Topic: U.S. Economic Engagement Toward Cuba, Mexico or Venezuela”, National Center for Policy Analysis, 5/15, http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Message_to_Debaters_6-7-13.pdf)

Economic engagement between or among countries can take many forms, but this document will focus on government-to-government engagement through 1) international trade agreements designed to lower barriers to trade; and 2) government foreign aid; next, we will contrast government-to-government economic engagement with private economic engagement through 3) international investment, called foreign direct investment; and 4) remittances and migration by individuals. All of these areas are important with respect to the countries mentioned in the debate resolution; however, when discussing economic engagement by the U.S. federal government, some issues are more important with respect to some countries than to others.

That violates the word “its”.
Glossary of English Grammar Terms, 05  
(http://www.usingenglish.com/glossary/possessive-pronoun.html)

Mine, yours, his, hers, its, ours, theirs are the possessive pronouns used to substitute a noun and to show possession or ownership.
EG. This is your disk and thatand#39;s mine. (Mine substitutes the word disk and shows that it belongs to me.)

That’s a voting issue – 

1. Limits – infinite non-governmental organizations that can be engaged become topical – makes it impossible to predict the aff killing clash, decisionmaking, and research.
   2. Ground – core topic education generics like relations disads are nullified.
   1nc – da
   Plan shifts oil reliance to Cuba.
   Padgett ‘8
   Tim Padgett joined TIME in 1996 as Mexico City bureau chief covering Latin America. In 1999 he moved to Florida to become TIME’s Miami and Latin America bureau chief, reporting on the hemisphere from Tallahassee to Tierra del Fuego. He has chronicled Mexico’s democratization and drug war as well as the rise of Latin leaders like Lula and Hugo Chavez, “How Cuba’s Oil Find Could Change the US Embargo”¶ Time Magazine – Oct. 23, 2008 – internally quoting Jonathan Benjamin-Alvarado, a Cuba oil analyst at the University of Nebraska-Omaha.
   http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,¶ 1853252,00.html#ixzz13Li5cosN 

The Spanish energy company Repsol-YPF has entered into a production-sharing agreement with Cupet and is scheduled to start drilling the first real well in the EEZ next year. Other international firms, including Norwayand#39;s StatoilHidro and Indiaand#39;s Oil and Natural Gas Corp., are part of the Repsol-led consortium. Venezuelaand#39;s state-run Petroleos de Venezuela is considered a lesser player because it has little deep-water drilling experience. (China is also interested but so far only involved in onshore drilling in Cuba.) Cuba is now in important negotiations with Braziland#39;s Petrobras, which just made its own multibillion-barrel oil find off its coast near Rio de Janeiro and could, analysts say, be the major offshore drilling partner for Cuba if it jumps in.¶ Still, the concessions so far represent less than a quarter of the 59 drilling blocks that Cuba hopes to exploit in the 43,000-sq.-mi. (112,000 sq km) EEZ. Analysts say one reason is the daunting infrastructural difficulties facing any company that drills in Cuba: firms have to bring much more of their own capital, equipment, technology and on-the-ground know-how than usual. This yearand#39;s severe hurricane damage in Cuba has made the situation worse. Canadaand#39;s Sherritt, in fact, recently dropped out of its four-block contract. and#34;Who else is going to be willing to actually come in and take the risk in Cuba?and#34; says Benjamin-Alvarado. and#34;In terms of proximity and technology, the only people really able to do it to the extent the Cubans need are the Americans.and#34;

That trades-off with US- Mid-East oil ties.
Alhaiji and Maris ‘4
Dr. A. F. Alhajji is an energy economist and George Patton Chair of Business and Economics at the College of Business Administration at Ohio Northern, Terry L. Maris is the founding executive director of the Center for Cuban. Business Studies and professor of management, “The Future of Cuba’s Energy Sector,” Cuba Today, 2004, http://web.gc.cuny.edu/dept/bildn/publications/cubatodaybookcomplete.pdf#page=105

The current economic, political, and social trends in Cuba indicate that¶ energy consumption will increase substantially in the future. Transition to a¶ market economy would accelerate this trend. In this article the word “transition”¶ refers to any movement towards a market economy. It does not necessarily¶ mean regime change.¶ The proximity of Cuba to the United States and the possibility of massive¶ oil deposits in Cuban waters will have a tangible impact on political, economic,¶ and social environments, not only in Cuba, but in the whole region.¶ The discovery of commercial deposits of oil would affect Cuba’s economy on¶ one hand and US energy policy and energy security on the other. If US-Cuba¶ relations improve in the future, discovery of large oil deposits could affect the¶ energy trade patterns between the two countries and affect oil trade between¶ the US and other oil producing countries, especially in the Middle East.

That causes Saudi Prolif.
Guzansky ‘13
Yoel Guzansky is a fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies, Tel Aviv University. His main research area is Gulf security. He has also served as Iran coordinator at Israeland#39;s National Security Council. His recent publications include The Gulf States in a Changing Strategic Environment (2012), One Year of the Arab Spring: Global and Regional Implications, and The Gulf States: Between Iran and the West – Middle East Quarterly¶ Spring 2013, pp. 59-64 – available at: http://www.meforum.org/3512/saudi-arabia-pakistan-nuclear-weapon

Continued Iranian progress toward a nuclear weapon, Iraqand#39;s increasing alignment with Tehran, and an expedited U.S. exit from Afghanistan are all changing the Saudi strategic landscape. The Obama administrationand#39;s and#34;lead from behindand#34; approach in Libya and its hesitation to get involved in the Syrian civil war all contribute to a reassessment of U.S. commitments. With the U.S. and#34;pivot to Asiaand#34;—taking the form of a series of military, economic, commercial, and diplomatic initiatives aimed at contending with the rising power of China—and a changing global energy map due to expansion of oil and natural gas production in the United States, Riyadh and others are beginning to prepare for a post-U.S. Middle East.¶ According to recent reports, Washington is considering expanding its nuclear cooperation with Riyadh on the basis of a 2008 memorandum of understanding: In exchange for foregoing the operation of nuclear fuel cycles on its soil, Saudi Arabia was to receive nuclear assistance.33 Such a move, should it come to pass, may be meant to persuade Riyadh to abandon its strategic goals, prevent other players from gaining a foothold in the attractive Saudi market, and challenge Tehranand#39;s nuclear policy. The United States is still Saudi Arabiaand#39;s most effective security support, but if Washington distances itself from regional matters, the gradual entrance of new players into the Gulf is inevitable.¶ The question of Saudi acquisition of a nuclear deterrent is more relevant than ever when both enemies and friends of the United States are looking at a possible regional drawdown on Washingtonand#39;s part as well as a lack of support for the pro-Western regimes that remain in place. If the U.S. government provides Riyadh with formal security guarantees, it would be natural for it to demand that the kingdom forego its strategic goals. But Riyadhand#39;s inclusion under a U.S. defense umbrella is not a given and depends both on the quality of relations between the two countries and other Saudi considerations. Riyadh remains skeptical over Washingtonand#39;s willingness to come to its aid and may thus seek to purchase a nuclear deterrent, which would provide it with more freedom vis-à-vis its stronger ally. Under present circumstances, it is not unreasonable for Riyadh to rely on other states for its defense in addition to Washington for the simple reason that it has done so in the past. Likewise, it is more than likely that the Saudis will not act transparently because they have acted in secret previously.¶ After Iran, Saudi Arabia is the number one candidate for further nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. Open source evidence remains circumstantial, but perhaps more than any other regional player, Riyadh has the requisite ideological and strategic motives as well as the financial wherewithal to act on the option.¶ The kingdom may conclude that its security constraints as well as the attendant prestige and influence generated by having a bomb outweigh the political and economic costs it will pay. The difficulty in stopping Tehranand#39;s dogged quest for a nuclear capability coupled with Riyadhand#39;s doubts about the reliability of Washington is liable to encourage Riyadh to shorten timetables for developing an independent nuclear infrastructure, as well as to opt to purchase a turnkey nuclear system, an off-the-shelf product, or to enter into a security compact of one sort with another power. Sunni-majority Pakistan has emerged as the natural candidate for such an arrangement.¶ Heavy U.S. pressure is likely to be brought to bear on the Saudis not to acquire nuclear capabilities. Indeed, it seems that, at present, the price Riyadh is likely to pay should it acquire military nuclear capabilities might outweigh the advantages of such a move. But strategic interest, motivated by considerations of survival, could have the upper hand. Should it seem that the kingdomand#39;s vital security interests are threatened, it may prefer to take a series of steps, including obtaining a nonconventional arsenal, to reduce risks and ensure the continuity of the House of Saud.

Saudi prolif causes nuclear war.
Edelman ‘11
(Eric –Distinguished Fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments and Former U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Foreign Affairs, Jan/Feb, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67162/eric-s-edelman-andrew-f-krepinevich-jr-and-evan-braden-montgomer/the-dangers-of-a-nuclear-iran)
There is, however, at least one state that could receive significant outside support: Saudi Arabia. And if it did, proliferation could accelerate throughout the region. Iran and Saudi Arabia have long been geopolitical and ideological rivals. Riyadh would face tremendous pressure to respond in some form to a nuclear-armed Iran, not only to deter Iranian coercion and subversion but also to preserve its sense that Saudi Arabia is the leading nation in the Muslim world. The Saudi government is already pursuing a nuclear power capability, which could be the first step along a slow road to nuclear weapons development. And concerns persist that it might be able to accelerate its progress by exploiting its close ties to Pakistan. During the 1980s, in response to the use of missiles during the Iran-Iraq War and their growing proliferation throughout the region, Saudi Arabia acquired several dozen css-2 intermediate-range ballistic missiles from China. The Pakistani government reportedly brokered the deal, and it may have also offered to sell Saudi Arabia nuclear warheads for the css-2s, which are not accurate enough to deliver conventional warheads effectively. There are still rumors that Riyadh and Islamabad have had discussions involving nuclear weapons, nuclear technology, or security guarantees. This “Islamabad option” could develop in one of several different ways. Pakistan could sell operational nuclear weapons and delivery systems to Saudi Arabia, or it could provide the Saudis with the infrastructure, material, and technical support they need to produce nuclear weapons themselves within a matter of years, as opposed to a decade or longer. Not only has Pakistan provided such support in the past, but it is currently building two more heavy-water reactors for plutonium production and a second chemical reprocessing facility to extract plutonium from spent nuclear fuel. In other words, it might accumulate more fissile material than it needs to maintain even a substantially expanded arsenal of its own. Alternatively, Pakistan might offer an extended deterrent guarantee to Saudi Arabia and deploy nuclear weapons, delivery systems, and troops on Saudi territory, a practice that the United States has employed for decades with its allies. This arrangement could be particularly appealing to both Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. It would allow the Saudis to argue that they are not violating the NPT since they would not be acquiring their own nuclear weapons. And an extended deterrent from Pakistan might be preferable to one from the United States because stationing foreign Muslim forces on Saudi territory would not trigger the kind of popular opposition that would accompany the deployment of U.S. troops. Pakistan, for its part, would gain financial benefits and international clout by deploying nuclear weapons in Saudi Arabia, as well as strategic depth against its chief rival, India. The Islamabad option raises a host of difficult issues, perhaps the most worrisome being how India would respond. Would it target Pakistan’s weapons in Saudi Arabia with its own conventional or nuclear weapons? How would this expanded nuclear competition influence stability during a crisis in either the Middle East or South Asia? Regardless of India’s reaction, any decision by the Saudi government to seek out nuclear weapons, by whatever means, would be highly destabilizing. It would increase the incentives of other nations in the Middle East to pursue nuclear weapons of their own. And it could increase their ability to do so by eroding the remaining barriers to nuclear proliferation: each additional state that acquires nuclear weapons weakens the nonproliferation regime, even if its particular method of acquisition only circumvents, rather than violates, the NPT. Were Saudi Arabia to acquire nuclear weapons, the Middle East would count three nuclear-armed states, and perhaps more before long. It is unclear how such an n-player competition would unfold because most analyses of nuclear deterrence are based on the U.S.- Soviet rivalry during the Cold War. It seems likely, however, that the interaction among three or more nuclear-armed powers would be more prone to miscalculation and escalation than a bipolar competition. During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union only needed to concern themselves with an attack from the other. Multi- polar systems are generally considered to be less stable than bipolar systems because coalitions can shift quickly, upsetting the balance of power and creating incentives for an attack. More important, emerging nuclear powers in the Middle East might not take the costly steps necessary to preserve regional stability and avoid a nuclear exchange. For nuclear-armed states, the bedrock of deterrence is the knowledge that each side has a secure second-strike capability, so that no state can launch an attack with the expectation that it can wipe out its opponents’ forces and avoid a devastating retaliation. However, emerging nuclear powers might not invest in expensive but survivable capabilities such as hardened missile silos or submarine- based nuclear forces. Given this likely vulnerability, the close proximity of states in the Middle East, and the very short flight times of ballistic missiles in the region, any new nuclear powers might be compelled to “launch on warning” of an attack or even, during a crisis, to use their nuclear forces preemptively. Their governments might also delegate launch authority to lower-level commanders, heightening the possibility of miscalculation and escalation. Moreover, if early warning systems were not integrated into robust command-and-control systems, the risk of an unauthorized or accidental launch would increase further still. And without sophisticated early warning systems, a nuclear attack might be unattributable or attributed incorrectly. That is, assuming that the leadership of a targeted state survived a first strike, it might not be able to accurately determine which nation was responsible. And this uncertainty, when combined with the pressure to respond quickly, would create a significant risk that it would retaliate against the wrong party, potentially triggering a regional nuclear war. Most existing nuclear powers have taken steps to protect their nuclear weapons from unauthorized use: from closely screening key personnel to developing technical safety measures, such as permissive action links, which require special codes before the weapons can be armed. Yet there is no guarantee that emerging nuclear powers would be willing or able to implement these measures, creating a significant risk that their governments might lose control over the weapons or nuclear material and that nonstate actors could gain access to these items. Some states might seek to mitigate threats to their nuclear arsenals; for instance, they might hide their weapons. In that case, however, a single intelligence compromise could leave their weapons vulnerable to attack or theft. Meanwhile, states outside the Middle East could also be a source of instability. Throughout the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union were engaged in a nuclear arms race that other nations were essentially powerless to influence. In a multipolar nuclear Middle East, other nuclear powers and states with advanced military technology could influence—for good or ill—the military competition within the region by selling or transferring technologies that most local actors lack today: solid-fuel rocket motors, enhanced missile-guidance systems, war- head miniaturization technology, early warning systems, air and missile defenses. Such transfers could stabilize a fragile nuclear balance if the emerging nuclear powers acquired more survivable arsenals as a result. But they could also be highly destabilizing. If, for example, an outside power sought to curry favor with a potential client state or gain influence with a prospective ally, it might share with that state the technology it needed to enhance the accuracy of its missiles and thereby increase its ability to launch a disarming first strike against any adversary. The ability of existing nuclear powers and other technically advanced military states to shape the emerging nuclear competition in the Middle East could lead to a new Great Game, with unpredictable consequences.

1nc – k

Disorder and insecurity are inevitable because we live in a dangerous world. Efforts to control this fear have resulted in the deaths of millions and the creation of WMDs.  The alternative is a negative gesture of indifference—we must learn to live with the world as it is.  This allows us to break out of the death cycle.
Der Derian, 98 (James, (Political Science Professor, University of Massachusetts) On Security, ed: Lipschitz, The Value of Security: Hobbes, Marx, Nietzsche, and Baudrillard, Decentering Security).  

No other concept in international relations packs the metaphysical punch, nor commands the disciplinary power of and#34;security.and#34; In its name, peoples have alienated their fears, rights and powers to gods, emperors, and most recently, sovereign states, all to protect themselves from the vicissitudes of nature--as well as from other gods, emperors, and sovereign states. In its name, weapons of mass destruction have been developed which have transfigured national interest into a security dilemma based on a suicide pact. And, less often noted in international relations, in its name billions have been made and millions killed while scientific knowledge has been furthered and intellectual dissent muted. We have inherited an ontotheology  of security, that is, an a priori  argument that proves the existence and necessity of only one form of security because there currently happens to be a widespread, metaphysical belief in it. Indeed, within the concept of security lurks the entire history of western metaphysics, which was best described by Derrida and#34;as a series of substitutions of center for centerand#34; in a perpetual search for the and#34;transcendental signified.and#34; Continues... 7  In this case, Walt cites IR scholar Robert Keohane on the hazards of and#34;reflectivism,and#34; to warn off anyone who by inclination or error might wander into the foreign camp: and#34;As Robert Keohane has noted, until these writers `have delineated . . . a research program and shown . . . that it can illuminate important issues in world politics, they will remain on the margins of the field.and#39; and#34; 8  By the end of the essay, one is left with the suspicion that the rapid changes in world politics have triggered a and#34;security crisisand#34; in security studies that requires extensive theoretical damage control. What if we leave the desire for mastery to the insecure and instead imagine a new dialogue of security, not in the pursuit of a utopian end but in recognition of the world as it is, other than us ? What might such a dialogue sound like? Any attempt at an answer requires a genealogy: to understand the discursive power of the concept, to remember its forgotten meanings, to assess its economy of use in the present, to reinterpret--and possibly construct through the reinterpretation--a late modern security comfortable with a plurality of centers, multiple meanings, and fluid identities. The steps I take here in this direction are tentative and preliminary. I first undertake a brief history of the concept itself. Second, I present the and#34;originaryand#34; form of security that has so dominated our conception of international relations, the Hobbesian episteme of realism. Third, I consider the impact of two major challenges to the Hobbesian episteme, that of Marx and Nietzsche. And finally, I suggest that Baudrillard provides the best, if most nullifying, analysis of security in late modernity. In short, I retell the story of realism as an historic encounter of fear and danger with power and order that produced four realist forms of security: epistemic, social, interpretive, and hyperreal. To preempt a predictable criticism, I wish to make it clear that I am not in search of an and#34;alternative security.and#34; An easy defense is to invoke Heidegger, who declared that and#34;questioning is the piety of thought.and#34; Foucault, however, gives the more powerful reason for a genealogy of security: I am not looking for an alternative; you canand#39;t find the solution of a problem in the solution of another problem raised at another moment by other people. You see, what I want to do is not the history of solutions, and thatand#39;s the reason why I donand#39;t accept the word alternative . My point is not that everything is bad, but that everything is dangerous, then we always have something to do. The hope is that in the interpretation of the most pressing dangers of late modernity we might be able to construct a form of security based on the appreciation and articulation rather than the normalization or extirpation of difference. Nietzsche transvalues both Hobbesand#39;s and Marxand#39;s interpretations of security through a genealogy of modes of being. His method is not to uncover some deep meaning or value for security, but to destabilize the intolerable fictional identities of the past which have been created out of fear, and to affirm the creative differences which might yield new values for the future. Originating in the paradoxical relationship of a contingent life and a certain death, the history of security reads for Nietzsche as an abnegation, a resentment and, finally, a transcendence of this paradox. In brief, the history is one of individuals seeking an impossible security from the most radical and#34;otherand#34; of life, the terror of death which, once generalized and nationalized, triggers a futile cycle of collective identities seeking security from alien others--who are seeking similarly impossible guarantees. It is a story of differences taking on the otherness of death, and identities calcifying into a fearful sameness. 

1nc – cp

The United States federal government should establish a Presidential Bipartisan Commission on Cuba to study current U.S. policy on Cuba.  The Commission should recommend that The United States federal government should normalize its trade relations with the Republic of Cuba.  

A Bipartisan Commission on Cuba solves the case but avoids politics
Ratliff, 13 - research fellow and former curator of the Americas Collection at the Hoover Institution. He is also a research fellow of the Independent Institute. An expert on Latin America, China, and US foreign policy, he has written extensively on how traditional cultures and institutions influence current conditions and on prospects for economic and political development in East/Southeast Asia and Latin America (William, “Cubaand#39;s Tortured Transition” 1/30, http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/139281

A New Policy to Cuba
Since the early 1990s U.S. “proactive” policies have done more to stoke than reduce domestic tensions in Cuba, though we profess to seek a “peaceful transition.” Most U.S. legislators have supported pro-embargo Cuban-Americans even though Gallup polls have long shown that most Americans favor diplomatic relations with Havana and lifting the embargo. On balance, politicians don’t think Cuba policy is important enough to be worth stirring up the hornets in the still fairly militant and well-financed pro-embargo lobby. Not only have all presidential candidates including Obama supported the embargo, most have resisted even seriously discussing it.
This U.S. commitment to a failed policy has given Washington a and#34;special stake” in the island’s so-called “independent” sector whose goals appeal to Americans. But tragically, paraphrasing journalist Scotty Reston, Americans will do anything for these dissidents except listen to them. My talks with many in Cuba and abroad suggest that most oppose the embargo and three have co-authored articles with me saying so. If these dissidents come under focused government fire in the years ahead, many Americans will feel compelled to intervene even more directly—perhaps militarily—on their behalf.
Two points stand out: Cuba is not the security threat that our current policy treats it as; and our sanctions do not advance the desirable political, economic, and humanitarian improvements that we say we seek on the island. The bottom line is that we must base our policy on national security interests and realities, not unattainable dreams, however noble those dreams may seem.
During his second and final term, and after having drawn unprecedented electoral support as a Democrat from Cuban-Americans in Miami, President Obama is in a position to make serious reforms, if he has the will to do so. He might begin by resurrecting a 1998-99 proposal—then endorsed by former secretaries of state Kissinger and George Shultz, but killed by President Clinton—for convening a Presidential Bipartisan Commission on Cuba to seriously examine the pros and cons of the policy. It would certainly see the need for change and its findings would give Obama cover for action.

1nc transition adv
No Taiwan impact.
Saunders and Kastner 09 – *Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for National Strategic Studies at the National
Defense University, *Assistant Professor in the Department of Government and Politics
at the University of Maryland and former China Security Fellow at the Institute for National
Strategic Studies (Phillip and Scott, International Security, 33.4, “Bridge over troubled water? Envisioning a China-Taiwan peace agreement”, http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/isec.2009.33.4.87, WEA)

Most observers agree that the issue of Taiwan’s status is not ripe for resolution. China remains committed to the ultimate goal of unification and refuses to renounce the use of force to prevent Taiwan independence. Former President Jiang Zemin emphasized the goal of unification, and China’s policies sometimes implied a timetable for achievement of that objective.2 China’s policy toward the Taiwan issue, however, has undergone a significant shift under President Hu Jintao, who has emphasized the short-to-medium-term goal of deterring Taiwan independence, postponing unification into the indefinite future.3
On Taiwan, public opinion polls consistently show strong (more than 75 percent) public support for maintaining the status quo. Only a small percentage favors either immediate independence or immediate unification with China.4 Although this polling reflects conditional preferences that factor in the likelihood of China using force if Taiwan were to declare independence,5 it accurately reflects the widespread view on Taiwan that permanent resolution of the issue of Taiwan’s status is not presently possible. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has sought to mobilize voters by highlighting Taiwan’s separate identity and sought ways to emphasize Taiwan’s sovereignty during President Chen Shui-bian’s term in office, the KMT has adjusted the emphasis in its cross-strait policy to more closely match the views of mainstream Taiwan voters. In the 2008 presidential campaign, KMT candidate (and eventual victor) Ma Ying-jeou articulated “three nos” that would govern policy toward China in his administration. These were a pledge that there would be no pursuit of de jure independence, no negotiations with the mainland about unification, and no use of force.6 President Ma reiterated these points in his May 20, 2008, inaugural address.
Collectively, these positions suggest that China and Taiwan may be prepared to defer the issue of Taiwan’s status for resolution at some point in the future. Both sides have expressed the desire to improve relations, expand cross-strait contacts, and negotiate a peace agreement between Taipei and Beijing. These goals were articulated in the joint press communiqué issued following KMT Chairman Lien Chan’s April 2005 meeting with Chinese President Hu Jintao.7 Hu Jintao reiterated China’s willingness to negotiate a peace agreement with Taiwan in his statements at the October 2007 17th Party Congress: “On the basis of the one-China principle, let us discuss a formal end to the state of hostility between the two sides, reach a peace agreement, construct a framework for peaceful development of cross-straits relations, and thus usher in a new phase of peaceful development.”8 Both candidates in Taiwan’s 2008 presidential election called for negotiation of a peace agreement with Beijing, and President Ma repeated the call in his inaugural address.9 Upon assuming office, Ma moved quickly to restart dialogue between Taiwan’s Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) and the PRC’s Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits (ARATS), the semiofficial bodies that previously served as vehicles for cross-strait dialogue.10 

no internal link—US support of Taiwan is based on nuclear deterrence and security guarantees, not the Coast Guard that would address Cuban instability
Stable Cuban growth now.
Havana Times 7/7 (7/7/13 “Cuban Gov. Presents “Favorable” Stats” http://www.havanatimes.org/?p=95985 7-7-13)

The economy showed an overall a “favorable performance”, said Yzquierdo. Almost all sectors recorded growth, “including trade, transport, communications and manufacturing,” he noted.¶ Yzquierdo said the Cuban trade balance was positive at the end of the first quarter and pointed to a similar trend for year-end. At the same time, he spoke of a “slowdown” in the global economic situation.¶ Cuba recently reduced its forecasts for annual growth in 2013 from the 3.6 percent initially estimated to somewhere between 2.5 and 3.0 percent. He emphasized that the evolution of gross domestic product (GDP) has been influenced by the crisis in the international arena.¶ In the first semester, the island’s economy grew 2.3 percent, according Yzquierdo, despite “external stress”, the “internal weaknesses” and the effects of Hurricane “Sandy”, which swept across the east of Cuba in October 2012.¶ “Sandy” affected 11 provinces and caused losses of almost 7 billion dollars, according to the minister.¶ The inaugural session of the eighth legislature of the National Assembly of People’s Power closes on, Sunday. Raul Castro is expected to pronounce in a speech to the parliament.¶ In a Communist Party Central Committee meeting last week, Castro came down hard on what he called “indiscipline and illegalities” in the State apparatus. He will most likely refer to the fight against corruption, one of the banner efforts of his administration.
Impacts empirically denied – Cuba’s economy should’ve collapse by now since the embargo’s been in place for so long.
squo solves—every other country in the world like the EU and Canada can invest in Cuba
Internal Link Turn – Lifting the embargo makes the situation worse for a laundry list of reasons
Suchlicki 2k, Director of the Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies at the University of Miami, 00 (Jaime, 6/2000, University of Miami, “The U.S. Embargo of Cuba,” http://www6.miami.edu/iccas/USEmbargo.pdf, p. 2-4, accessed 6/24/13, IC)

Introduction ¶ Opponents of U.S. policy toward Cuba claim that if the embargo and ¶ the travel ban are lifted, the Cuban people would benefit economically; ¶ American companies will penetrate and influence the Cuban market; the ¶ Communist system would begin to crumble and a transition to a democratic ¶ society would be accelerated. ¶ These expectations are based on several incorrect assumptions. First, ¶ that Castro and the Cuban leadership are naïve and inexperienced and, ¶ therefore, would allow tourists and investments from the U.S. to subvert the ¶ revolution and influence internal developments in the island. Second, that ¶ Cuba would open up and allow U.S. investments in all sectors of the ¶ economy, instead of selecting which companies could trade and invest. ¶ Third, that Castro is so interested in close relations with the U.S. that he is ¶ willing to risk what has been upper-most in his mind for 40 years – total ¶ control of power and a legacy of opposition to “Yankee imperialism,” – in ¶ exchange for economic improvements for his people. During the Fifth ¶ Communist Party Congress in 1997, Castro emphasized “We will do what is ¶ necessary without renouncing our principles. We do not like capitalism and ¶ we will not abandon our Socialist system.” ¶ Castro also reiterated his long-standing anti-American posture, ¶ accusing the U.S. of waging economic war against his government and ¶ calling for “military preparedness against imperialist hostility.” A change in U.S. policy toward Cuba may have different and ¶ unintended results. The lifting of the embargo and the travel ban without ¶ meaningful changes in Cuba will: ¶  Guarantee the continuation of the current totalitarian structures. ¶  Strengthen state enterprises, since money will flow into businesses ¶ owned by the Cuban government. Most businesses are owned in ¶ Cuba by the state and, in all foreign investments, the Cuban ¶ government retains a partnership interest. ¶  Lead to greater repression and control since Castro and the ¶ leadership will fear that U.S. influence will subvert the revolution ¶ and weaken the Communist party’s hold on the Cuban people. ¶  Delay instead of accelerate a transition to democracy on the island. ¶  Allow Castro to borrow from international organizations such as ¶ the IMF, the World Bank, etc. Since Cuba owes billions of dollars ¶ to the former Soviet Union, to the Club of Paris, and to others, and ¶ has refused in the past to acknowledge or pay these debts, new ¶ loans will be wasted by Castro’s inefficient and wasteful system, ¶ and will be uncollectible. The reason Castro has been unable to pay ¶ back loans is not because of the U.S. embargo, but because his ¶ economic system stifles productivity and he continues to spend on ¶ the military, on adventures abroad, and on supporting a bankrupt ¶ welfare system on the island.  Perpetuate the rather extensive control that the military holds over ¶ the economy and foster the further development of “Mafia type” ¶ groups that manage and profit from important sectors of the ¶ economy, particularly tourism, biotechnology, and agriculture. ¶  Negate the basic tenets of U.S. policy in Latin America which ¶ emphasize democracy, human rights, and market economies. ¶  Send the wrong message to the enemies of the U.S.: that a foreign ¶ leader can seize U.S. properties without compensation; allow the ¶ use of his territory for the introduction of nuclear missiles aimed at ¶ the U.S.; espouse terrorismand anti-U.S. causes throughout the ¶ world; and eventually the U.S. will “forget and forgive,” and ¶ reward him with tourism, investments, and economic aid. ¶
no advantage—normalization happens by 2018—you have to win that bioterror causes exintction
Afghanistan withdrawal solves overstretch internal link
Tapper, 2/13 CNN Chief Washington Correspondent (Jake, “Obama announces 34,000 troops to come home” February 13, 2013 CNN News http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/12/politics/obama-sotu-afghanistan-troops)  czhang

Washington (CNN) -- President Barack Obama announced in his State of the Union speech on Tuesday night that some 34,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan will have returned home by this time next year.¶ The move will reduce the number of U.S. forces in the country by more than half. There are now about 66,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan.¶ A Washington Post poll on Tuesday showed that 80 of registered voters support the presidentand#39;s policy to end the war in Afghanistan.¶ In January, Obama met with Afghan President Hamid Karzai in Washington, where they agreed to accelerate the military transition in Afghanistan.¶ Afghan forces will take the lead in combat missions throughout the country starting in the spring, instead of mid-year, as was previously expected.¶ 5 things we learned¶ Afghan forces are ready¶ Zahir Azimi, a spokesman for the Afghan Defense Ministry, said National Army forces are and#34;completely readyand#34; to take over the countryand#39;s security responsibilities.¶ and#34;We welcome the announcement of the withdrawal ... and we (will) always remember their efforts and sacrifice,and#34; he said. and#34;We are very happy that these soldiers are returning home to their families.and#34;¶ The Taliban also welcomed the news, saying Western governments and#34;must salvage themselves from the protracted and pointless war in Afghanistan.and#34;¶ But as expected, the militants continued their call for a complete withdrawal of outside forces.¶ and#34;The Afghans should be granted control, choice of government and sovereignty of their country,and#34; the Taliban statement said. and#34;If not such then our sacred Jihad will intensify and forge ahead successfully even if one foreign soldier is present in our country ...and#34;

1nc – agriculture adv
No warming impacts.
Burnett, 12 – Sterling, Ph.D., Senior Fellow in Environment and Energy at the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), “Fraud and Heartland: A Scandal for Climate Alarmists, not Skeptics,” 2-22, http://environmentblog.ncpa.org/fraud-and-heartland-a-scandal-for-climate-alarmists-not-skeptics/. 

Sadly (for him), Peter Gleick, the researcher at issue, could have obtained a good deal of the information he sought through a request for Heartland’s 990, a tax document that non-profits have to provide to any who request it. Rather than going through legitimate channels to obtain what information he could or, better still, questioning the veracity of the initial document he received — and there were many reasons to question that document, among them the fact that it was delivered to him anonymously — using someone else’s name, a Heartland board member — he requested internal documents. Despite all the sound and fury surrounding this episode over the last week, really, nothing new was learned in the memos. As Time Magazine summed it up: “The alleged memos seem to confirm that the Heartland Institute is trying to push it’s highly skeptical view of climate science into the public sphere, which is only surprising if you’ve paid exactly zero attention to the climate debate over the past decade.” Gleick admits that his actions were wrong and apologized but said he did it out of “frustration.” One has to ask, frustration over what? Is he perhaps frustrated with the fact that he and his fellow climate alarmists have, as of yet, been unable to convince Americans that the scientific case for climate action is settled and stampede them into calling for policies that forcibly restrict energy use? Daily polls show more American’s are coming to doubt the argument that human actions are causing a warming that would result in catastrophic climate change. Or perhaps he is frustrated with the fact that an increasing number of scientists – scientists with as good or better credentials and reputations as those who argue that humans are causing warming — continue to highlight the weakness, discrepancies and contradictions that continue to plague global warming theory and demonstrate that the case in far from closed. Perhaps Glieck and his ilk are frustrated because they constantly bray that scientists and think tanks that show skepticism concerning one or another critical point of global warming theory are exceedingly well-funded; when the reality is, and Gleick knows it, these scientists and think tanks are very modestly funded when compared to the billions that are spent to on climate research, politics and on politically favored technologies by governments, billionaires and corporations who will benefit from climate policies, and the non-profit foundations and think tanks that want to use fear of global warming to reshape the Western economic system into what they believe would be a more humane, equitable (socialist), global version of society. A society where international bodies, with bureaucracies staffed by “experts” beyond the reach of crass democratic politics and mass opinion will steer the ship of global-state in the direction of the “true” public good. Time magazine notes that if anything, the Heartland memos debunk the idea of a well-funded “. . . vast right-wing conspiracy,” behind global warming skepticism. Who says the Progressive era has passed?

the only terminal impact= warming—delay 5 years of normalization
No risk of a biodiversity impact.
Pearce, 6/3 – author and journalist (Fred, “Humans Have Shaped Earth for Millenia,” The Breakthrough, 6/3/13, http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/conservation-and-development/humanitys-pervasive-environmental-influence-began-long-ago/, SMS)

Are there any pristine ecosystems out there? The evidence is growing that our ideas about virgin nature are often faulty. In fact, the lush rainforest or wind-blown moorland we think is natural may be a human creation, with alien creatures from distant lands living beside native species. Realizing this will change our ideas about how ecosystems work and how we should do conservation. We like to think that most nature was pristine and largely untouched until recent times. But two major studies in recent weeks say we are deluded. In one, Erle Ellis, a geographer at the University of Maryland Baltimore County, and colleagues have calculated that at least a fifth of the land across most of the world had been transformed by humans as early as 5,000 years ago — a proportion that past studies of historical land use had assumed was only reached in the past 100 years or so. The human footprint was huge from the day, perhaps 60,000 years ago, when we began burning grasslands and forests for hunting, according to the Ellis study. It extended further with swidden “slash-and-burn” agriculture, and became more intense when farmers began to domesticate animals and plow the land. This seems odd given how few we were back then — tens of millions at most — and how primitive our technology was. But, says co-author Steve Vavrus of the University of Wisconsin, “early farmers didn’t need to be as efficient as modern farmers and therefore, counterintuitively, they used much more land per capita.” In other words, they spread out.¶ In fact, they farmed large areas that today look like virgin forests. But we now know that as much as a tenth of the trees in the Amazon rainforest grow on man-made “dark earths,” or terra preta, which archaeologists believe were created by pre-Columbian farmers who added organic wastes and charcoal to improve nutrient supply and boost yields. Much of the Amazon, Ellis concludes, is actually forest regrowth. Or — judging by the profusion of fruit trees and other valuable species still growing in terra preta areas – perhaps overgrown gardens. Other tropical rainforests also seem to have been farmed. In the past couple of years, James Fraser of Lancaster University in England has found dark earths in until-recently forested West Africa. And last year Doug Sheil and colleagues reported similar findings from Borneo. Other studies have found oil-palm nuts over wide areas of the central African jungle, suggesting the place was covered in palm-oil plantations 2,000 years ago.¶ Nor is this just about rainforests. The bison-grazed plains of North America were remade by Native Americans long before Europeans showed up. Many of the mist-shrouded treeless grasslands of the tropical Andes, known as the paramos, are the result of burning and grazing after locals cut down the natural forests centuries ago. In colder climes, the Scottish highlands tell a similar story. Just as geographers and archaeologists are hard-pressed to find untouched landscapes, so biologists are having similar trouble locating pristine ecosystems.¶ A new book, Novel Ecosystems, edited by Richard Hobbs of the University of Western Australia and others, shows how many superficially natural ecosystems are heavily influenced by the introduction of alien species. Whether intentional or accidental, most introductions seem to have human origins.¶ This is disconcerting. “Over large parts of the globe, the ‘wilderness’ that people refer back to never existed,” says one of the book’s authors, Michael Perring, also of the University of Western Australia.¶ Nature has always had open borders for alien species on the move. Those itinerants may have been a driving force of evolution. But human activity has dramatically increased their travel options. We move many deliberately, as commercial crops or domesticated animals, for instance. Today, others can hitch a ride on ship hulls or in ballast tanks, aboard planes or on the wheels of trucks or the backs of domesticated animals. This phenomenon seems to have been going on for much longer than we sometimes imagine. Conventionally, we regard these unwanted interlopers as a curse, destabilizing ecosystems and devouring indigenous species. Sometimes this is true, as Hobbs and his co-authors acknowledge. But they point out that, in the 21st century, aliens make up a substantial fraction of the planet’s biodiversity, and many are actively useful, even essential parts of ecosystems. Extinctions caused by new arrivals happen and can sometimes be devastating. The brown tree snake from New Guinea is eating its way through the wildlife of Guam, after arriving on a military plane. The zebra mussel, which came from the Black Sea region in the ballast water of ships, is notorious in the U.S., which returned the favor by inadvertently sending the Black Sea a jellyfish that devastated that ecosystem. But actually, such events are rare. Mostly, invaders swiftly settle down and become model eco-citizens, pollinating crops, spreading seeds, controlling predators, and providing food and habitat for native species. After a while we forget about them, or learn to love them. Where would North American be without the European honeybee? Usually, invaded ecosystems end up with more species than they had before. Places like New Zealand, Hawaii, even the Galapagos islands — all notorious for species invasions due to human activities — are actually all more biodiverse than before. Ellis calls them “anthropogenic melting pots.” Scientists who research the invaders and their hosts are discovering much that is intriguing. British researchers recently reported finding two species of native tits that have learned to eat the larvae of a wasp that was introduced to the country from the Middle East 180 years ago and that lays its eggs on the Turkey oak, another introduced species. The tits are spending more and more time in the trees, eating the larvae, especially in spring because climate change means their young now hatch before their previous food source, leaf-eating moth caterpillars appear.¶ Novel ecosystems are different, but not necessarily worse. San Francisco Bay, for instance, is widely regarded as the most invaded estuary on the planet. But that didn’t stop the U.S. government submitting it in January to the Ramsar Convention as a wetland of international importance, because of is a “key habitat for a broad suite of flora and fauna and a range of ecological services.” Much of its rich biodioversity — and some of its ecological services — is due to its alien species. Aliens may even contribute to rewilding those parts of the planet we no longer need. In Puerto Rico, abandoned sugarcane fields across half the island have sprouted new forest ecosystems, largely thanks to the invasive power of non-native species such as the African tulip tree, says Ariel Lugo of the International Institute of tropical Forestry. The tulip tree proved attractive to native birds and insects and now, after a few decades, native trees species have started to recover too.
can’t solve warming—coal plants in China and India are inevitable, changing agriculture won’t solve
No acidification impact.
CoECRS 7 /3 (“Fish learn to cope in a high CO2 world” Nature Climate Change Center of Excellene for Coral Reef Studies PHYS.org http://phys.org/news/2012-07-fish-cope-high-co2-world.html)

Researchers at the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies (CoECRS) today reported in the journal Nature Climate Change, encouraging new findings that some fish may be less vulnerable to high CO2 and an acidifying ocean than previously feared. and#34;There has been a lot of concern around the world about recent findings that baby fish are highly vulnerable to small increases in acidity, as more CO2 released by human activities dissolves into the oceans,and#34; says Dr Gabi Miller of CoECRS and James Cook University. and#34;Our work with anemone fish shows that their babies, at least, can adjust to the changes we expect to occur in the oceans by 2100, provided their parents are also raised in more acidic water.and#34; and#34;Human activity is expected to increase the acidity of the worldand#39;s oceans by 0.3 to 0.4 pH by the end of this century, on our present trends in CO2 emissions,and#34; co-researcher Prof Philip Munday says. and#34;Previous studies, and our own research, have shown that growth and survival of juvenile fish can be seriously affected when the baby fish are exposed to these sorts of CO2 and pH levels,and#34; he says. and#34;However when we exposed both parents and their offspring in more acidic water we found that the anemone fish, at least, were able to compensate for the changeand#34; says Dr Miller. Whether this effect lasts all their lives, remains to be seen.and#34; she adds. How parent fish actually pass on this ability to deal with acidity to their offspring is still a mystery, says Prof Munday. and#34;The time interval is too short for it to be genetic adaptation in the normal sense. However, itand#39;s an important parental effect that we need to factor in as we assess the vulnerability of the worldand#39;s fish stocks to the planet-wide changes in ocean chemistry that humans are now causing.and#34; Based on evidence from past major extinction events, scientists have long feared that the acidity caused by the release of high levels of CO2 could cause havoc among sea-life, especially those which depend on calcium to form their bones and shells. New research has also shown that higher CO2 levels can cause the nervous systems of some marine species to malfunction. The recent increase in ocean acidity due to human activity in releasing carbon – about 0.1 of a pH unit over the last half century – is thought to be steeper even than in any of the past major extinctions, which eliminated between 70-90 per cent of marine species. and#34;What this research shows is that some species, at least, may have more capacity to cope than we thought – which could help buy time for humanity to bring its CO2 emission under control,and#34; Prof Munday says.

no transition—even if they win Cuban ag is cost competitive, takes a long time to overhaul the entire industrial infrastructure that currently exists
The alternative to organic farming solves food shortages, turns their environment impact – organic farming can exist, but not alone
Wilcox 11 (Christie, 7/18/11, “Mythbusting 101: Organic Farming  Conventional Agriculture,” http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/07/18/mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/)//DR. H

Myth #3: Organic Farming Is Better For The Environment
As an ecologist by training, this myth bothers me the most of all three. People seem to believe they’re doing the world a favor by eating organic. The simple fact is that they’re not – at least the issue is not that cut and dry.
Yes, organic farming practices use less synthetic pesticides which have been found to be ecologically damaging. But factory organic farms use their own barrage of chemicals that are still ecologically damaging, and refuse to endorse technologies that might reduce or eliminate the use of these all together. Take, for example, organic farming’s adamant stance against genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
GMOs have the potential to up crop yields, increase nutritious value, and generally improve farming practices while reducing synthetic chemical use – which is exactly what organic farming seeks to do. As we speak, there are sweet potatoes are being engineered to be resistant to a virus that currently decimates the African harvest every year, which could feed millions in some of the poorest nations in the world15. Scientists have created carrots high in calcium to fight osteoperosis, and tomatoes high in antioxidants. Almost as important as what we can put into a plant is what we can take out; potatoes are being modified so that they do not produce high concentrations of toxic glycoalkaloids, and nuts are being engineered to lack the proteins which cause allergic reactions in most people. Perhaps even more amazingly, bananas are being engineered to produce vaccines against hepatitis B, allowing vaccination to occur where its otherwise too expensive or difficult to be administered. The benefits these plants could provide to human beings all over the planet are astronomical.
Yet organic proponents refuse to even give GMOs a chance, even to the point of hypocrisy. For example, organic farmers apply Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxin (a small insecticidal protein from soil bacteria) unabashedly across their crops every year, as they have for decades. It’s one of the most widely used organic pesticides by organic farmers. Yet when genetic engineering is used to place the gene encoding the Bt toxin into a plant’s genome, the resulting GM plants are vilified by the very people willing to liberally spray the exact same toxin that the gene encodes for over the exact same species of plant. Ecologically, the GMO is a far better solution, as it reduces the amount of toxin being used and thus leeching into the surrounding landscape and waterways. Other GMOs have similar goals, like making food plants flood-tolerant so occasional flooding can replace herbicide use as a means of killing weeds. If the goal is protect the environment, why not incorporate the newest technologies which help us do so?
But the real reason organic farming isn’t more green than conventional is that while it might be better for local environments on the small scale, organic farms produce far less food per unit land than conventional ones. Organic farms produce around 80 that what the same size conventional farm produces16 (some studies place organic yields below 50 those of conventional farms!).
Right now, roughly 800 million people suffer from hunger and malnutrition, and about 16 million of those will die from it17. If we were to switch to entirely organic farming, the number of people suffering would jump by 1.3 billion,

 assuming we use the same amount of land that we’re using now. Unfortunately, what’s far more likely is that switches to organic farming will result in the creation of new farms via the destruction of currently untouched habitats, thus plowing over the little wild habitat left for many threatened and endangered species.
Already, we have cleared more than 35 of the Earth’s ice-free land surface for agriculture, an area 60 times larger than the combined area of all the world’s cities and suburbs. Since the last ice age, nothing has been more disruptive to the planet’s ecosystem and its inhabitants than agriculture. What will happen to what’s left of our planet’s wildlife habitats if we need to mow down another 20 or more of the world’s ice-free land to accommodate for organic methods?
The unfortunate truth is that until organic farming can rival the production output of conventional farming, its ecological cost due to the need for space is devastating. As bad as any of the pesticides and fertilizers polluting the world’s waterways from conventional agriculture are, it’s a far better ecological situation than destroying those key habitats altogether. That’s not to say that there’s no hope for organic farming; better technology could overcome the production gap, allowing organic methods to produce on par with conventional agriculture. If that does occur, then organic agriculture becomes a lot more ecologically sustainable. On the small scale, particularly in areas where food surpluses already occur, organic farming could be beneficial, but presuming it’s the end all be all of sustainable agriculture is a mistake.

No impact to industrial ag.
Trewavas 2004 (Anthony, Prof. U. Edinburgh Studying Plant Physiology and Molecular Biology, Crop Protection, “A critical assessment of organic farming-and-food assertions with particular respect to the UK and the potential environmental benefits of no-till agriculture”, 23:9, ScienceDirect)

Chemophobia, the unreasonable fear of chemicals, is a common public reaction to scientific or media reports suggesting that exposure to various environmental contaminants may pose a threat to health (Safe, S.H., 1995. Xeno-oestrogens and breast cancer. New Engl. J. Med. 337, pp. 1303–1304.Safe, 1995). The spectre of cancer birth defects and irreversible effects invariably scares people and various groups that campaign on environmental issues find the anxiety raised a useful source of political issue. Virtually all chemicals can be shown to be dangerous at high doses and this includes the thousands of natural chemicals that are consumed every day in food but most particularly in fruit and vegetables.    The assessment of chemical safety normally requires determination of the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) in rodents. Doses slightly lower than this figure are used to extrapolate linearly to a concentration at which observed effects would be limited to one in a million of the population and a “safe” exposure for the public set at figures 100-fold lower than this. Thus the safe level is frequently 10?5–10?6 the MTD and on theoretical grounds it is very unlikely that the same cellular receptor (binding) sites could be occupied and the same effect induced, varying only in degree. Most cellular binding sites go from null saturation to full saturation over a 30–50-fold change in dose, not one million. The effects at high dose are therefore a priori expected to be qualitatively different from low dose and the effects of toxicity or cancer of little consequence to public exposure (Ames and Gold, 2000). Ames and Gold (1999) indicate that the carcinogenic effects of many chemicals at MTD are really the result of induction of cell division which normally occurs only at high dose.    The public attitude towards synthetic pesticides derives from the views of Rachel Carson (1962). Unfortunately anecdotal evidence forms much of the basis of Carsonand#39;s book and a number of simple errors have been identified ( Van Embden and Peakall, 1996). While Carsonand#39;s book helped alert to the impact of agricultural techniques at the time on the environment, her primary misunderstanding resulted from the claim that “for the first time” the human population was exposed to chemicals (pesticides) from birth to death. Plants synthesise an estimated 10,000 chemicals whose function is to kill or deter insect pests and occasionally larger herbivores. These natural pesticides are found in all fruit and vegetables; when tested at MTD they prove to be equally as damaging as synthetic pesticides ( Ames and Gold (1999) and Ames and Gold (2000)). Furthermore the daily consumption of natural pesticides or carcinogens outweighs the traces of synthetic pesticides consumed by the public by many thousands to one. Mankind has always been exposed to “dangerous” chemicals and since many current crops have only recently been used as food and are also the result of extensive plant breeding, the kinds of natural chemical to which we are now exposed is too recent to allow for biological evolution to have ensured safe consumption ( Ames and Gold, 1999). Solanine, chaconine, cucurbitacin, psoralen and genestein in potato, cucurbits, celery and soy have all been shown to have physiological effects if slightly elevated in food ( Trewavas and Stewart, 2003).    Carson (1962) alerted in her book to the potential effects of DDT accumulation through food chains, to observed eggshell thinning and thus brood failure of predatory birds. Attempts to repeat these observations in the laboratory failed ( Wildavsky, 1995). However because organochlorines like DDT are environmentally stable, bans on its use were instituted in the early 70and#39;s. In western countries DDT was replaced by effective but far less stable pesticides. But pressure on developing countries to do the same led to enormous increases in malaria, a disease that particularly kills young children ( Attaran and Maharaj, 2000; Simon, 1996). In developing countries, cheap DDT also killed many crop and other human disease insect vectors and lowered food prices that benefited the poorest most. Recent evidence has revealed that organochlorines are formed in substantial amounts (mg/kg) in decaying plant materials such as crop roots in soil ( Myeni, 2002). Because organochlorines are fat soluble, they will be found in all plant food materials and mankind has therefore been exposed to these stable chemicals probably throughout evolutionary history and so far as is known without effect. In fact any natural pesticide can bio-concentrate like DDT if it is fat soluble. Potato contains the fat soluble neurotoxins, solanine and chaconine, and high doses of these have been shown to cause birth defects ( Ames and Gold, 1999).    However chemophobia is the commonest reason for the public to buy organic food on the assumption that such food is free of synthetic pesticides. Organic food contains synthetic pesticide traces although understandably the amounts are lower than in conventional produce (Baker et al., 2002).    Life expectancy continues to increase unabated (Oeppen and Vaupel, 2002) and figures specific for the UK are to be found in Lomborg (2001). Centenarians are now ten times more common in the UK than they were 50 years ago. There has been no obvious effect of the introduction of pesticides and use through 50 years on life expectancy or on general public health ( Coggon and Inskip, 1994).
Even if the model spills over – the system is unsustainable
Kost, 4 – agricultural economist, Specialty Crops Branch, Economic Research. Service, US Department of Agriculture (William, “CUBAN AGRICULTURE: TO BE OR NOT TO BE ORGANIC?” http://www.ascecuba.org/publications/proceedings/volume14/pdfs/kost.pdf)

Even without an organic approach to food production, is Cuba’s urban gardening system viable? In Cuba, both were an integral part of a common development. That integration is not required. While it is possible to have a high-tech and chemical-based production system in a small-scale gardening environment, it is unlikely to be sustainable at levels sufficient to provide a significant portion of a city’s food needs. Most high-tech and chemical technologies employed respond to economies of scale. Incentives to grow into commercial operations will exist and production will shift away from central cities to areas with less severe constraints on land. Urban gardening systems are also labor-intensive systems. As long as labor is freely available or wages are low elsewhere, urban gardening can afford to utilize high-labor production techniques. As the Cuban economy grows and recovers, the demand for labor in other industries will grow and wages will rise. Because it will be more profitable to work elsewhere, labor would likely be drawn away from the urban gardens. Replacing labor with mechanization could also shift production away from urban locations. Mechanization also generates benefits from economies of scale. Thus, fewer and fewer urban gardens would remain producing for the urban markets.
At the same time, economic growth in Cuba should make commercial agriculture enterprises more profitable, more productive, and better able to supply food to urban markets. Marketing infrastructures should improve. With higher incomes, urban workers would be more able to purchase needed food. Commercial agricultural sources would become increasingly competitive with food from urban gardens, and urban workers would increasingly quit growing their own food. While there might continue to be urban gardens, it is unlikely that they will have a long-term role in providing a substantial portion of urban consumers’ food needs. 

can’t solve warming
Even if it’s real, itand#39;s irreversible.
Spaeth, 12 12/5, “Why itand#39;s probably too late to roll back global warming”, Ryu, The Week News, http://theweek.com/article/index/237392/why-its-probably-too-late-to-roll-back-global-warming

Two degrees Celsius. According to scientists, thatand#39;s the rise in global temperature, measured against pre-industrial times, that could spark some of the most catastrophic effects of global warming. Preventing the two-degree bump has been the goal of every international treaty designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including a new one currently being hammered out at a United Nations summit in Doha, Qatar. But a new study published by the journal Nature Climate Change shows that itand#39;s incredibly unlikely that global warming can be limited to two degrees. According to the study, the world in 2011 and#34;pumped nearly 38.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the air from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil,and#34; says Seth Borenstein at The Associated Press:  The total amounts to more than 2.4 million pounds (1.1 million kilograms) of carbon dioxide released into the air every second.  Because emissions of the key greenhouse gas have been rising steadily and most carbon stays in the air for a century, it is not just unlikely but and#34;rather optimisticand#34; to think that the world can limit future temperature increases to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), said the studyand#39;s lead author, Glen Peters at the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research in Oslo, Norway.  What happens when the two-degree threshold is crossed? Most notably, thatand#39;s when the polar ice caps will begin to melt, leading to a dangerous rise in sea levels. Furthermore, the worldand#39;s hottest regions will be unable to grow food, setting the stage for mass hunger and global food inflation. The rise in temperature would also likely exacerbate or cause extreme weather events, such as hurricanes and droughts.  There is a very small chance that the world could pull back from the brink. The U.N. could still limit warming to two degrees if it adopts a and#34;radical plan,and#34; says Petersand#39; group. According to a PricewaterhouseCoopers study, such a plan would entail cutting carbon emissions and#34;by 5.1 percent every year from now to 2050, essentially slamming the breaks on growth starting right now,and#34; says Coral Davenport at The National Journal, and#34;and keeping the freeze on for 37 years.and#34; However, the U.N. has set a deadline of ratifying a new treaty by 2015, and implementing it by 2020, which means the world is already eight years behind that pace. There are still major disagreements between the U.S. and China over whether the developed world, which industrialized first, should bear the bulk of the cost of reducing carbon emissions. And there is, of course, a large contingent of Americans who donand#39;t even believe climate change exists, putting any treatyand#39;s ratification at risk. Climate change is so politically toxic in America that Congress has prioritized the fiscal cliff over — no exaggeration — untold suffering and the end of the world as we know it.  In other words, it isnand#39;t happening. And if thatand#39;s not bad enough, keep in mind that the two-degree mark is just the beginning, says Davenport:  Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University and a member of the Nobel Prize-winning U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, says that a 2-degree rise is not itself that point, but rather the beginning of irreversible changes. and#34;It starts to speed you toward a tipping point,and#34; he said. and#34;Itand#39;s driving toward a cliff at night with the headlights off. We donand#39;t know when weand#39;ll hit that cliff, but after 2 degrees, weand#39;re going faster, we have less control. After 3, 4, 5 degrees, you spiral out of control, you have even more irreversible change.and#34;  Indeed, at the current emissions rate, the world is expected to broach the four-degree mark by 2100 — at which point, we can expect even worse environmental catastrophes.
at: la relations
Cuba’s not key to Latin American relations, or plan hurts them
Suchlicki 2k. (Jaime, University of Miami, s Emilio Bacardi Moreau Professor of History ¶ and International Studies and the Director of the Institute for Cuban ¶ and Cuban-American Studies at the University of Miami. June “The U.S. Embargo of Cuba” http://www6.miami.edu/iccas/USEmbargo.pdf)

Cuba is not an important issue in U.S.-Latin American relations. The U.S.-Latin American agenda includes as priority items trade, investment, and transfer of technology, migration, drugs, environment, and intellectual property rights. Cuba is not a priority item on this agenda. While publicly many Latin American countries oppose the embargo, privately they are extremely concerned that Cuba will divert investments from their countries to the island, and particularly that tourism will flock to Cuba, to the detriment of the Caribbean economies. 

Failure to boost the economy causes Chinese collapse.
Pethokoukis 9/22 (James, money and politics blogger for U.S. News and World Report , where he writes the monthly Capital Commerce magazine column. Pethokoukis is also the assistant managing editor of the magazineand#39;s Money and Business section, “Bailout Prevents Great Depression 2.0,” 2008, http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/09/22/bailout-prevents-great-depression-20.html)

Nope, I think they believed, and got Congress to believe, that the economy was on the verge of something far worse than the worst downturn in a generation. And that is why they went with the so-called nuclear option: the biggest financial bailout in history. In the words of JPMorgan Chase economist James Glassman, and#34;Thankfully, we and our friends around the world who are watching the economic lights come on will never know where events would have led, if the clock had not stopped last Thursday afternoon.... Last weekand#39;s events made the 1987 stock market crash look like childand#39;s play.and#34; As plumbers say about pricey repairs, and#34;Sure, it costs money. It costs money because it saves you money.and#34; And plumber in chief Paulson had a pretty big pipe, loaded with toxic debt, to unclog. OK, letand#39;s run the numbers. Paulson is asking for $700 billion. But that massive amount doesnand#39;t include previous government actions to cure the credit crisis (like propping up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), nor does it take into account money the government may get back from selling the bad assets it will be purchasing. So letand#39;s say those situations cancel each other out, and we are really talking about $700 billion. Now that money is being borrowed. So you take $700 billion borrowed for 30 years at prevailing interest rates, and you are talking about $2.5 trillion. But as Paulson said last week, and#34;I am convinced that this bold approach will cost American families far less than the alternative: a continuing series of financial institution failures and frozen credit markets unable to fund economic expansion.and#34; Now letand#39;s do the math on the and#34;alternatives.and#34; What would doing nothing cost? 1) Scenario 1: Great Depression and#34;Lite.and#34; This is supposed to be the worst financial crisis since the 1930s. So letand#39;s assume that the total freezing up of American and global credit markets caused something half as bad as the Great Depression. From 1930 through 1933, the U.S. economy shrank by about 25 percent. Now letand#39;s say that by doing nothing and letting Mr. Market do his worst, the $12 trillion U.S. economy shrinks by half that amount (12.5 percent), or around $1.5 trillion over four years. (Also, figure a near doubling in unemployment.) But thereand#39;s also the opportunity cost of not returning to growth, even at a so-so 2.0 percent a year. Doing nothing costs $1.1 trillion more in lost growth. So now we are down $2.6 trillion. But wait: Thereand#39;s more. Letand#39;s assume the stock market drops an additional 25 percent or so. Thatand#39;s $3 trillion more in lost market capitalization. Plus, we are forgoing the opportunity to gain back what we have lost in the market, about $3 trillion. So, add the $6 million in lost market capitalization to the lost economic output, and we are at $8.6 trillion. Then there is housing, already down $5 trillion, or roughly 20 percent. Letand#39;s conservatively say that we lose another $5 trillion by doing nothing. Plus, we forgo a partial rebound, say, $2.5 trillion. Adding together further housing losses (plus the lost opportunity to recoup some losses), and we are talking about a total cost of doing nothing of $15 trillion in four years for the whole megillah. But it could be worse. 2) Scenario 2: Great Depression 2.0. The economy shrinks by 25 percent over four years, or $3.2 trillion, plus $1.1 trillion in lost opportunity growth. Economic cost: $4.3 trillion. The market falls two thirds from its peak, losing $7 trillion in value from its current level, plus $3 trillion from not getting a rebound. Stock market cost: $10 trillion. Housing falls an additional $10 trillion from current levels, plus the lost opportunity of $2.5 trillion from a rebound. Housing cost: $12.5 trillion. Total four-year financial and economic cost of doing nothing: $26.8 trillion. Now this is all a very rough guesstimate and doesnand#39;t include the costs of all sorts of other ramifications. Here is a fun one: the dissolution of China. Its economy is built for hypergrowth. A dramatically rising standard of living is both keeping the Communist Party in power and keeping the country together. Neither might survive a global economic meltdown. What is the economic impact of that? I donand#39;t know. My guesstimator just blew up.

US decline hurts developing economies
World Bank 1/16/2008 (Developing Countries to Cushion Rich-Country Slowdown in 2008, with Turkey’s GDP Growth accelerating from 5.1 in 2007 to 5.4 in 2008, http://go.worldbank.org/BSCQE8A5D0)

A weaker US dollar, the specter of an American recession and rising financial-market volatility could cast a shadow over this soft landing scenario for the global economy. These risks would cut export revenues and capital inflows for developing countries, and reduce the value of their dollar-investments abroad. In this context, the reserves and other buffers that developing countries have built up in past years may be needed to absorb unexpected shocks.

Economic growth also solves warming and general biodiversity better than the aff—key to alternatives forms of energy and clean tech production, ie transtioning China away from coal
Anderson 4 Terry L. professor of economics at Montana State University, Ph.D. in economics http://www.perc.org/articles/article446.php

Hansenand#39;s essay concludes on an optimistic note, saying and#34;the main elements new technologies required to halt climate change have come into being with remarkable rapidity.and#34; This statement would not have surprised economist Julian Simon. He saw the and#34;ultimate resourceand#34; to be the human mind and believed it to be best motivated by market forces. Because of a combination of market forces and technological innovations, we are not running out of natural resources. As a resource becomes more scarce, prices increase, thus encouraging development of cheaper alternatives and technological innovations. Just as fossil fuel replaced scarce whale oil, its use will be reduced by new technology and alternative fuel sources. Market forces also cause economic growth, which in turn leads to environmental improvements. Put simply, poor people are willing to sacrifice clean water and air, healthy forests, and wildlife habitat for economic growth. But as their incomes rise above subsistence, and#34;economic growth helps to undo the damage done in earlier years,and#34; says economist Bruce Yandle. and#34;If economic growth is good for the environment, policies that stimulate growth ought to be good for the environment.and#34;

       at: klein

Klein is quite wrong – empirics cuts both ways.
Drum 3-12. Kevin, political blogger, “Presidents and the Bully Pulpit” Mother Jones -- http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/03/presidents-and-bully-pulpit

I also think that Ezra doesnand#39;t really grapple with the strongest arguments on the other side. For one thing, although there are examples of presidential offensives that failed (George Bush on Social Security privatization), there are also example of presidential offensives that succeeded (George Bush on going to war with Iraq). The same is true for broader themes. For example, Edwards found that and#34;surveys of public opinion have found that support for regulatory programs and spending on health care, welfare, urban problems, education, environmental protection and aid to minorities increased rather than decreased during Reagan’s tenure.and#34; OK. But what about the notion that tax cuts are good for the economy? The public may have already been primed to believe this by the tax revolts of the late and#39;70s, but Iand#39;ll bet Reagan did a lot to cement public opinion on the subject. And the Republican tax jihad has been one of the most influential political movements of the past three decades. More generally, I think itand#39;s a mistake to focus narrowly on presidential speeches about specific pieces of legislation. Maybe those really donand#39;t do any good. But presidents do have the ability to rally their own troops, and that matters. Thatand#39;s largely what Obama has done in the contraception debate. Presidents also have the ability to set agendas. Nobody was talking about invading Iraq until George Bush revved up his marketing campaign in 2002, and after that it suddenly seemed like the most natural thing in the world to a lot of people. Beyond that, itand#39;s too cramped to think of the bully pulpit as just the president, just giving a few speeches. Itand#39;s more than that. Itand#39;s a president mobilizing his party and his supporters and doing it over the course of years. Thatand#39;s harder to measure, and I canand#39;t prove that presidents have as much influence there as I think they do. But I confess that I think they do. Truman made containment national policy for 40 years, JFK made the moon program a bipartisan national aspiration, Nixon made working-class resentment the driving spirit of the Republican Party, Reagan channeled the rising tide of the Christian right and turned that resentment into the modern-day culture wars, and George Bush forged a bipartisan consensus that the threat of terrorism justifies nearly any defense. Itand#39;s true that in all of these cases presidents were working with public opinion, not against it, but I think itand#39;s also true that different presidents might have shaped different consensuses.
Partisanship is about politics not ideology – proves our link story true – this cites the study your card cites.
Mellow 11. Nicole, Associate Professor of Political Science, Chair of Leadership Studies Program @ Williams College, “Book Reviews: American Politics Beyond Ideology: Politics, Principles, and Partisanship in the U.S. Senate” Perspectives on Politics, Vol 9, Issue 3, p. 722-723
In 2008, Barack Obamaand#39;s calls for a new postpartisan era struck a chord with many Americans. Yet President Obama has struggled with Congress to produce even bipartisan outcomes. The reigning wisdom on partisanship would suggest that this is because the ideological divide between the parties is simply too stark. Frances Leeand#39;s thoughtful new book, which is a study of Senate voting behavior from 1981 through 2004, offers an alternative interpretation, one that validates public skepticism of inside-the-beltway party politics. Her claim is that much of the congressional partisanship is about politics and power, rather than ideological differences. Collective political interests within each party predispose Democrats and Republicans to oppose each other, even on votes with no ideological content. If true, then public distaste for “partisan bickering” is reasonable, and much of the conventional scholarly understanding of congressional partisanship is wrong. Lee begins by historicizing and challenging the methodological individualism now dominating studies of Congress for ascribing legislator vote behavior to individual policy preference and treating party cohesion as ideological cohesion and party difference as ideological difference. As she astutely points out, the problem with this conceptualization is that it reads ideology into every partisan dispute. Rather than assuming ideological content based on the observed behavioral patterns of votes, Lee uses legislative language and Congressional Record debates to distinguish, a priori, those roll call votes that bear on liberal/conservative debates over the economy, social issues, and foreign policy from those that do not. What she discovers is that a full 44 of party votes are over issues of no identifiable ideological significance (p. 65).

Fights occur to score political points – context of each particular fight is key – prefer our issue specific capital key warrants.
Mellow 11. Nicole, Associate Professor of Political Science, Chair of Leadership Studies Program @ Williams College, “Book Reviews: American Politics Beyond Ideology: Politics, Principles, and Partisanship in the U.S. Senate” Perspectives on Politics, Vol 9, Issue 3, p. 722-723

Leeand#39;s findings lead her to conclude that Democrats and Republicans often fight to advance their partyand#39;s political interests in being perceived as effective or being associated with popular outcomes. The party, in her view, is a “political institution” (p. 182), a team of members who have gotten better at working together to advance collective electoral and political goals. Thus, one party will regularly disagree with the other simply to make the president look bad (or good), to discredit the oppositionand#39;s integrity, to attempt to control the debate, or to burnish its image. In short, todayand#39;s parties fight because there is political payoff even if there is no ideological reward. When we understand this, we see why bipartisanship is so hard to come by. Lee designs her research carefully and rigorously. For example, in determining whether to count a vote as ideological, she digs deeply into the public record to learn if senators discussed any aspect in ideologically identifiable terms. In coding nonideological votes, such as “good government” votes, Lee excludes those that may be even partially about ideology, such as nomination fights in which part of the debate was about the nomineeand#39;s policy views and part was about credentials or ethics. Expansive ideological categories make for a harder test of her argument, as do narrower nonideological categories. There are some elements of the research, though, where greater clarification would be especially useful (some might claim critical). Most important is the description of nonideological votes. According to the authorand#39;s method, these votes account for a sizable majority—nearly 60—of all Senate votes in her time period (p. 65), and thus are central to her argument. She provides some textual description of the types of issues included (e.g., good government, institutional powers, some federal programs), but knowing more about these votes and how they break down, similar to what she usefully provides for ideological votes, would be helpful in evaluating her argument. One suspects that in any given political moment, a putatively “nonideological” partisan battle over an ethics investigation or presidential power is actually a proxy war about the party-in-powerand#39;s liberal (or conservative) agenda. While the nominal issue at hand may, in principle, defy left/right categorization, the vote is nevertheless very much about ideological commitments. Context is everything, and without knowing more details of this broad category, it is difficult to ascertain whether an issue is as free of ideological portent as the public record suggests.
Public appeals aren’t even the main source of capital – your article’s generalizations are wrong.
Dickinson 9.  Matthew, Professor of Political Science - Middlebury College, “We All Want a Revolution: Neustadt, New Institutionalism, and the Future of Presidency Research” Presidential Studies Quarterly Volume 39 Issue 4 -- December – p 736-770
If higher approval ratings can augment a presidentand#39;s persuasive power in select cases, Neustadt remains skeptical that presidents can substitute and#34;going publicand#34; for bargaining as a general means of influence. and#34;Public appeals,and#34; he argues instead, and#34;are part of bargaining, albeit a changing part since prestige bulks far larger than before in reputationand#34; (Neustadt 1990, xv). A key reason why presidents cannot expect to rely on prestige to augment their power is that approval levels are largely governed by factors outside their control. and#34;Large and relatively lasting changes in Gallup Polls measuring popular approval come at the same time as great events with widespread consequencesand#34; (81).

2nc pc key (debt)

PC is key to the debt deal
1). Credibility—unpopular policies prevent Obama’s hardline stance on debt ceiling and dilute the intensity of his threats—that’s Moore
2). Essential to avoid concessions
Garnham, 9/17/13 (Peter, “Summers not over for dollar strength” Euromoney,
Full article: http://www.euromoney.com/Article/3255829/Category/16/ChannelPage/0/Summers-not-over-for-dollar-strength.html?single=trueandcopyrightInfo=true)

That is because seeking his confirmation in the US Senate could have cost Obama valuable political capital. As Geoffrey Yu, strategist at UBS, points out, that could have meant that reaching an agreement on raising the debt ceiling afterwards would have therefore required even greater concessions from Obama and created additional fiscal drag on the US economy. Overall, it would seem the ripple effects from Summers’ withdrawal from the race to become Fed chairman and the negative impact on the dollar could disappear quickly. 

Concessions will split the Democratic base and make a deal impossible
Cook, 9/17/13 - Economic and Fiscal Policy Correspondent at National Journal (Nancy, “How Dangerous Is the Rift Among Democrats?” National Journal, http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/how-dangerous-is-the-rift-among-democrats-20130917)

Remember that split among congressional Republicans on fiscal strategy? Well, now it seems the Democrats have the makings of a similar problem.
In recent weeks, congressional Dand#39;s have been uncharacteristically independent, breaking with their leadership and the Obama administration. First they opposed military action in Syria, warning the president they would deny his request to strike. And then came Larry Summers, who was brought down by a handful of Senate Democrats who let the White House know they would not confirm him as Fed chief.
All this bodes quite poorly for President Obama (and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi) as the spending and debt fights approach.
If Obamaand#39;s advisers take anything away from the Syria and Summers episodes, Capitol Hill aides and lawmakers suggest it should be the message that Democrats are not going to get in line with a budget deal that compromises their liberal positions. No longer should the White House feel free, as it has in the past, to consider tweaks to programs like Medicare or Social Security, for instance (unless, of course, Republicans agree to extract more money from taxpayers).
Reid and one of his primary deputies, Sen. Patty Murray, continue to oppose the and#34;chained CPIand#34; proposal that would change the way government benefits are calculated and make them less generous—one of the ideas the president offered up in past budget negotiations. House Democrats largely are not in favor of one of the presidentand#39;s other previous budget offers—to cut Medicare by $400 billion.
These concessions would be an incredibly hard sell to Democrats during a year where the countryand#39;s annual deficit continues to fall, says a House Democratic leadership aide.
and#34;A lot of our members were concerned about the drift of the negotiations during the fiscal cliff,and#34; the aide said. and#34;Our sense is that any deal this fall would not be as large so there is not as much of a necessity to offer up those items.and#34;
The White House hasnand#39;t ruled those items out though; itand#39;s not really even engaging in the discussion at all yet. If lawmakers start to draw lines in the sand, the president will have fewer tools to use and fewer levers to pull to score a deal that keeps the government running and the United States current on its debt.
3). leverage to barter with Republicans
Lowrey, 9/16/13 (Annie, “Summers Seen as Costly in Political Terms” New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/17/business/democrats-saw-summerss-fed-nomination-as-too-costly-in-political-capital.html?pagewanted=all)

For the White House, that would have left two options, Senate aides said, both unpalatable. The first would have been to lean on the Democratic “no” votes, asking members to agree to pass Mr. Summers out of committee even if they intended to vote against him on the Senate floor. But the White House had not laid the groundwork for such a strategy. Some Democratic offices had not heard from White House representatives about the nomination at all.
The second option would have been to barter for Republican votes. Aides described that strategy as possible: many Republicans would have been willing to vote for Mr. Summers, they said, for a price. But handing the Republicans leverage in the midst of the debt ceiling and budget debates would have weakened the White House’s hand.

4). Key to drumming up public support to pressure the GOP
Meet the Press, 9/15/13 (NBC News, lexis) Woodward = Bob Woodward, investigative journalist.  

GREGORY: Well, we`ll see.
But I want to bring up a point with about a minute left. You know, Syria is now going to get mired in whether this agreement is lived up to or not. We`ve got a budget battle that`s brewing again with the debt ceiling.
But, you think this is the next crisis that Obama is facing with Congress. Are we going to raise the debt ceiling? Will he negotiate? He says...
WOODWARD: And this is really serious. Back in 2011, when the crisis visited them, the Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner was running around and saying if we don`t fix this, we could trigger a depression worse than the 1930s. And when I talked to Obama about this, he said, it was the most intense three weeks of his presidency. More than Osama bin Laden and so forth.
So -- and the Republicans are out here, a group of them in the House, essentially using extortion and blackmail methods to say, if we don`t defund Obamacare we`re not going to do the routine things of government.
PARKER: Well, we`re at a game of chicken at this point. And they are not -- no one thinks they`re going to defund Obama, not even the people pushing for it.
And at some point, you know, the Republicans are going to have to blink and they`re going to fund it. If they pass a bill that doesn`t include funding for Obamacare, then the Senate won`t pass the bill and, you know, somebody`s got to blink. We`re not going to shut down government. We can`t.
NAVARRO: But let`s be I think fair to the Republicans here. It`s not all Republicans saying let`s shut down the government if we don`t defund Obamacare. So I don`t think it`s fair to paint it as the Republicans, because the Republicans that have been here today, including John McCain, have been very much against this and saying...
WOODWARD: Yes, it`s the 40 extremists that`s who`s doing it.
PARKER: The insane caucus.
WOODWARD: You used it.
GREGORY: We`ll leave it there.
NAVARRO: You`re going to get a lot of flak from mental health advocates.
PARKER: Never had that happen.
GREGORY: All right, thank you all very much. We`ll leave it there.
Coming up next the future of our economy five years after the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression. Among our guests, former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and CNBC`s Maria Bartiromo along with former Congresswoman Barney Frank on where we are five years later.
First our political collector Chuck Todd will be along with his and#34;First Read Sunday.and#34; What to look for in the week ahead in politics. Back here in just a moment.
GREGORY: We`re back with more politics. Our political director Chuck Todd with his and#34;First Read Sunday.and#34;
We just talked about the debt ceiling business. You`re looking at it this, this week. That of our poll.
CHUCK TODD, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: We did. And we have a poll and we show the initial gauge of the public, the default position is don`t raise it. Look at this, 44 percent say no, 22 percent say yes. The White House pushing back on this poll saying you have to explain it to the people.
Well, this is the exact same place the debt ceiling was in April 2011.
Now, by the time if hit a crisis point, more of the public moved into in favor of raising the debt ceiling, but what this shows is the president has to use political capital and time to flip these numbers. It`s going to be a lot of work.
2nc pc key (theory)
Capital is key – prefer issue specific internal links – horse trading is unique to immigration reform negotiations due to ideological Republican positions, that’s 1nc Hindustan Times.

Political capital theory is real –

best peer reviewed evidence proves
*evidence filter – default to qualified professors on the theory of political capital rather than News Post Writers postulating on the failures of Obama – 2nc Dickinson evidence cites several PhD professors in Political and Social Sciences
*political capital theory is real, several reasons – 1) presidents have the ability to utilize persuasion and diplomatic maneuvering to rally public support and horse trade to effectively make strategic concessions to get his agenda through despite internal opposition in Congress; 2) targeting of capital – presidents have the capability to specifically target capital to assuage certain partisan parties and pivotal voters into voting for his agenda; 3) the impact is reverse causal – more capital is statistically linked to an increasing ability of a president to exert influence, decline is also linked to a lack of influence – their evidence lacks this evidentiary modeling – prefer our evidence
Dickinson 09 – (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 and#34;skill,and#34; 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 Congressand#39;s ideology, the presidentand#39;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 legislatorsand#39; voting behavior or lawmaking outcomes (but see Lockerbie and Borrelli 1989, 97-106). As Richard Fleisher, Jon Bond, and B. Dan Wood summarized, and#34;Studies that compare presidential success to some baseline fail to find evidence that perceptions of skill have systematic effectsand#34; (2008, 197; see also Bond, Fleisher, and Krutz 1996, 127; Edwards 1989, 212).     To some scholars, these results indicate that Neustadtand#39;s and#34;president-centeredand#34; perspective is incorrect (Bond and Fleisher 1990, 221-23). In fact, the aggregate results reinforce Neustadtand#39;s recurring refrain that presidents are weak and that, when dealing with Congress, a presidentand#39;s power is and#34;comparably limitedand#34; (Neustadt 1990, 184). The misinterpretation of the findings as they relate to PP stems in part from scholarsand#39; 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 Neustadtand#39;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 presidentand#39;s perspective, but without adopting a president-centered explanation of power.     Nonetheless, if Neustadt clearly recognizes that a presidentand#39;s influence in Congress is exercised mostly, as George Edwards (1989) puts it, and#34;at the margins,and#34; 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 presidentand#39;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 and#34;pivotsand#34; 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 and#34;modest support for the sometimes doubted stylized fact of presidential power as persuasionand#34; (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 presidentand#39;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 legislatorsand#39; success in bartering their potential support for the presidentand#39;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 membersand#39; uncertainty regarding whether their support is necessary to form a winning coalition, Sullivan theorizes that presidents can reduce members of Congressand#39;s penchant for strategic bluffing and increase the likelihood of a legislative outcome closer to the presidentand#39;s preference. and#34;Hence, the skill to bargain successfully becomes a foundation for presidential power even within the context of electorally determined opportunities,and#34; 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 and#34;buyingand#34; approach is certainly consistent with Neustadtand#39;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: and#34;Strategically the question is not how he masters Congress in a peculiar instance, but what he does to boost his mastery in any instanceand#34; (Neustadt 1990, 4). For Neustadt, whether a presidentand#39;s lobbying efforts bear fruit in any particular circumstance depends in large part on the broader pattern created by a presidentand#39;s prior actions when dealing with members of Congress (and and#34;Washingtoniansand#34; more generally). These previous interactions determine a presidentand#39;s professional reputation--the and#34;residual impressions of a presidentand#39;s tenacity and skilland#34; that accumulate in Washingtoniansand#39; minds, helping to and#34;heighten or diminishand#34; a presidentand#39;s bargaining advantages. and#34;Reputation, of itself, does not persuade, but it can make persuasions easier, or harder, or impossibleand#34; (Neustadt 1990, 54).

2nc kt econ
Raising the debt ceiling is key to the economy
1). sovereign default—prevents US government from paying interest on bonds + creates a financial disaster
2). financial system collapse—decline of the dollar’s credibility kills trade flows and global economic growth
3). treasury bond sell-off—perceived by investors as unstable investment, increases interest rates on consumer borrowing and spending
4). past brinks prove—SandP 500 fell 19 between July and August 2011
Milstead 9-12 David, Writer for the Globe and Mail, “The under-the-radar threat to U.S. stocks” Factiva

Conventional wisdom holds that the chief risk to the high-flying U.S. stock market is “tapering,” the potential cutback of the Federal Reserveand#39;s bond-buying program.  Itand#39;s an understandable view, given how the Fedand#39;s monetary policy has propped up the countryand#39;s economy for years by helping to keep long-term interest rates at ultra-low levels. But itand#39;s also wrong.  The greatest immediate hazard to stocks isnand#39;t the direction the six governors of the Federal Reserve will take. Itand#39;s what the 535 members of Congress will do in the coming weeks when faced with two budgetary issues that ought to be routine – but will likely be anything but.  The first issue is approving a federal budget for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1, or at least a resolution that will keep the government open in its absence. The second is authorizing a new, higher number for the U.S. governmentand#39;s borrowing before Washington hits its debt ceiling, once again, possibly by mid-October. In the absence of such a vote, the U.S. must simply stop spending – and, in essence, default on its debt.  If this sounds familiar, itand#39;s because we went through a similar showdown two years ago, in the summer of 2011. Yet itand#39;s easy to forget now how that fiscal gridlock roiled the markets. In the first day of trading after Standard and Poorand#39;s downgraded U.S. debt in early August, the SandP 500 fell nearly 7 per cent. The day after, the index was nearly 19 per cent below the level of early July.  The rhetoric suggests this fiscal showdown could inflict similar damage.  Eighty House Republicans recently signed a letter urging their leadership to use any new government-funding bill to cut all necessary money for President Barack Obamaand#39;s signature accomplishment, the Affordable Care Act, more popularly known as Obamacare.  The Republican House leadership, it is said, does not support such a move. Thatand#39;s apparently because they prefer to make it part of the showdown over the debt ceiling. (The National Review, one of the U.S.and#39;s leading conservative publications, reported Tuesday that Eric Cantor, the House Majority Leader, told Republicans they will be demanding a one-year delay of Obamacare in exchange for an increase in the debt ceiling.)  Failing to raise the debt ceiling doesnand#39;t mean default, its opponents argue. The Treasury can just do a better job of “prioritizing,” paying the creditors while axing other expenses.  In the absence of a higher debt ceiling, the U.S. could pay the interest on Treasury securities, and keep on footing the tab for Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security, national defence and a handful of aid programs, according to the Bipartisan Policy Centre. But, starting Oct. 15, it wonand#39;t be able to afford the salaries of other federal workers, or perform functions like road construction and air traffic control, or run the federal court system.  Ted Yoho, the improbably named Republican representative from Florida, said this about a failure to raise the debt ceiling, according to a recording of one of his summertime town hall meetings leaked to the Huffington Post: “So they say that would rock the market, capital would leave, the stock market would crash … I think our credit rating would do better.”  Better, I think, to take the U.S. Treasuryand#39;s position that the markets will view the U.S. picking and choosing which bills to pay as an admission it simply canand#39;t pay them all. Deputy secretary Neil Wolin said during the last debt-ceiling showdown, in 2011, that it “would merely be default by another name.”  That, however, is the view from the reality-based community, rather than the deeply irrational, anti-intellectual element that has hijacked the Republican Party and turned ordinary budgetary procedure into a partisan brawl.  The liberal economic writer Jonathan Chait recently wrote “the chaos and dysfunction have set in so deeply that Washington now lurches from crisis to crisis, and once-dull, keep-the-lights-on rituals of government procedure are transformed into white-knuckle dramas that threaten national or even global catastrophe.”  And yet stocks seem to be priced as if Democrats, Republicans and President Obama will come together to work something out. There is great faith that the United States will overcome its challenges and take the right path in the end. Investors could suffer double-digit losses in the coming weeks if that faith is misplaced.

5). business confidence
McAuliff, 9/18/13 (Michael, “Debt Limit Showdown Could Be Catastrophic For Economy: Analysts” Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/18/debt-limit-showdown_n_3950890.html)

The House Republican plan to have showdowns over both funding the government and raising the nationand#39;s debt limit could have severe consequences for the overall U.S. economy, non-partisan analysts said Wednesday.
The concern surrounding a potential political fight over the countryand#39;s borrowing cap next month was highlighted prominently by Moodyand#39;s economist Mark Zandi, a former adviser to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) who testified at a joint congressional hearing Wednesday on and#34;The Economic Costs of Debt-Ceiling Brinkmanship.”
The debt limit, which stands at $16.7 trillion, authorizes the Treasury Department to pay for the spending that has already been authorized by Congress. Treasury officials warned in the spring that they had begun taking extraordinary measures to keep the governmentand#39;s bills paid, and would likely have to default on some payments in mid-October if Congress did not grant borrowing authority that equals the spending it has written into law.
Such a default would be devastating, Zandi warned.
and#34;You need to raise the debt limit. Thereand#39;s no other option,and#34; he told lawmakers. and#34;Otherwise, itand#39;s disastrous. Itand#39;s counterproductive to your own goals because itand#39;s going to result in a recession, bigger deficits and raise the debt.and#34;
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) argued earlier on Wednesday that the debt limit is often used as a negotiating lever for politicians, and Rep. Sean Duffy (R-Wis.) made the same point during the hearing, asking why Democrats shouldnand#39;t be more willing to talk over Republican demands.
Much like Democrats who released their own report on the topic, Zandi noted, however, that in the last showdown over the debt ceiling two years ago, the U.S. governmentand#39;s credit rating was downgraded and the stock market tanked.
and#34;You can only put the gun to your head so many times before someoneand#39;s going to make a mistake and pull the trigger, and itand#39;s to everyoneand#39;s detriment,and#34; Zandi told Duffy.
He gave a crushing summary of the potential impacts of a default.
and#34;If you donand#39;t raise the debt limit in time, you will be opening an economic Pandoraand#39;s box. It will be devastating to the economy,and#34; he predicted. and#34;If you donand#39;t do it in time, confidence will evaporate, consumer confidence will sharply decline, as well as investor confidence, business confidence. Businesses will stop hiring, consumers will stop spending, the stock market will fall significantly in value, borrowing costs for businesses and households will rise.and#34;
and#34;Weand#39;ll be in the middle of a very, very severe recession, and I donand#39;t see how we get out of it,and#34; he added.
6). systemic consequences
Schwarcz, 8/14/13 – professor of law at Duke, founding director of the Duke Global Capital Markets Center (Steven, “Rollover Risk: Ideating a U.S. Debt Default” SSRN)

A U.S. debt default153 would also have both microeconomic and macroeconomic, or systemic,154 consequences. Observers have argued that a default would likely result in stocks, bonds, and the dollar “plummeting in the immediate aftermath.”155 Credit markets would likely freeze,156 harming both companies and consumers.157 The downgrading of credit ratings on U.S. debt would also make it much more difficult and expensive for the country to borrow.158
Even a mere “technical” default, caused by illiquidity, could harm the real economy.159 The 1979 debt defaults, which were temporarily caused by a federal debt ceiling limit on new borrowings,160 resulted in a 60 basis point increase in the interest rate on Treasury bills161—an increase that appears to be permanent.162 Such a rate increase could also increase the cost of private borrowings. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has observed, for example, that a U.S. debt default would “raise all borrowing costs”163 because “US Treasuries set the benchmark borrowing rate” for private loans.164
Investment bank J.P. Morgan recently issued a report updating the potential economic impact of a technical default. The report assumes that the United States temporarily misses an interest or principal payment on its debt.165 Even if this temporary default does not reflect an actual deterioration of U.S. solvency, it still would “almost certainly have large systemic effects with long-term adverse consequences for Treasury finances and the U.S. economy.”166 At a minimum, the United States would likely see a one percent reduction in gross domestic product (GDP) due to higher interest rates and a likely equity selloff.167 Even worse, the report concluded, the default also “could leave lasting damage in its wake due to a permanent decline in foreign demand for U.S. Treasury securities, which will likely lead to continuing higher borrowing costs and larger deficits.”168

at: passage inev

Delay risks economic collapse
Puzzanghera, 9/18/13 (Jim, “Delay in raising debt limit risky, Lew says” Los Angeles Times, lexis)

As the nation fast approaches its debt limit, Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew issued his strongest warning yet to Congress about the economic consequences of waiting until just before the deadline to pass an increase.
and#34;Trying to time a debt-limit increase to the last minute could be very dangerous,and#34; Lew told the Economic Club of Washington on Tuesday. and#34;We cannot afford for Congress to gamble with the full faith and credit of the United States of America.and#34;
Republicans are balking at raising the $16.7-trillion debt limit, which Congress must do by as early as mid-October, unless the Obama administration agrees to major concessions including deep spending cuts and a delay in implementing the healthcare reform law.
During a meeting last week, House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) gave Lew a list of times in the past when the White House and Congress used the need to raise the debt limit as a way to find bipartisan solutions on fiscal issues, Boehnerand#39;s office said.
Boehner has said that any increase in the debt limit must be offset by budget cuts or spending reforms at least as large as the increase.
But Lew reiterated Tuesday that President Obama would not negotiate over raising the debt limit because it involves paying for bills already authorized by Congress and because the notion of a federal government default should not be a bargaining chip.
Lew specifically ruled out a delay in the healthcare law, the Affordable Care Act, a move being pushed by some House conservatives.
and#34;Thatand#39;s just not reality, and theyand#39;re going to have to start dealing in reality,and#34; he said.
But as the Treasury runs out of the accounting maneuvers it has used since the spring to continue borrowing to pay the nationand#39;s bills, Lew said lawmakers needed to act.
Since the U.S. technically reached its debt limit in the spring, the Treasury has been using so-called extraordinary measures, such as suspending investments in some federal pension funds, to juggle the nationand#39;s finances to pay bills. Those measures will be exhausted by the middle of October.
Lew noted that Washington politicians like to wait until they are up against a deadline to act, as they often do with spending bills and did last year with the so-called fiscal cliff, the combination of automatic tax increases and government spending cuts.
But the debt limit is different, Lew said, because of the complexity of identifying an exact date when the nation would run out of borrowing authority -- and because of the consequences of a first-ever federal government default.
Lew said a default would be and#34;a self-inflicted wound that can do harm to our economy right at a moment when the recovery is strengthening.and#34;
A bitter battle over the debt limit in 2011, resolved at the last minute, raised fears of a first-ever U.S. government default. The lengthy standoff led Standard and Poorand#39;s to downgrade the nationand#39;s credit rating for the first time and triggered financial market turmoil along with a deep drop in consumer confidence.
and#34;Some in Congress seem to think they can keep us from failing to pay our nationand#39;s bills by simply raising the debt ceiling right before the moment our cash balance is depleted,and#34; Lew said. Such a view is misguided, he said.
The Treasury Department doesnand#39;t know with precision the exact day that it wonand#39;t have enough incoming cash to make all the required outgoing payments once it runs out of borrowing authority.
Lew formally told Congress last month that the Treasury would run out of borrowing authority in mid-October. At that point, the government would be able to pay bills only with cash on hand of about $50 billion on any given day.
An analysis released last week by the Bipartisan Policy Center, which also cited the difficulty of pegging an exact date, estimated that the U.S. would run out of borrowing authority between Oct. 18 and Nov. 5.
The vagaries of the debt-limit issue mean that Congress must act sooner rather than later, Lew said.
and#34;Iand#39;m nervous about the desire to drive this to the last minute when the last minute is inherently unknowable and the risk of making a mistake could be catastrophic,and#34; he said.

PC key to quick debt ceiling resolution
PACE, 9/12/13 — AP White House Correspondent (Julie, “Syria debate on hold, Obama refocuses on agenda” http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/2013/09/12/3704721/obama-seeks-to-focus-on-domestic.html#storylink=cpy)

WASHINGTON — With a military strike against Syria on hold, President Barack Obama tried Thursday to reignite momentum for his second-term domestic agenda. But his progress could hinge on the strength of his standing on Capitol Hill after what even allies acknowledge were missteps in the latest foreign crisis. and#34;It is still important to recognize that we have a lot of things left to do here in this government,and#34; Obama told his Cabinet, starting a sustained White House push to refocus the nation on matters at home as key benchmarks on the budget and health care rapidly approach. and#34;The American people are still interested in making sure that our kids are getting the kind of education they deserve, that we are putting people back to work,and#34; Obama said. The White House plans to use next weekand#39;s five-year anniversary of the 2008 financial collapse to warn Republicans that shutting down the government or failing to raise the debt limit could drag down the still-fragile economy. With Hispanic Heritage Month to begin Monday, Obama is also expected to press for a stalled immigration overhaul and urge minorities to sign up for health care exchanges beginning Oct. 1. Among the events planned for next week is a White House ceremony highlighting Americans working on immigrant and citizenship issues. Administration officials will also promote overhaul efforts at naturalization ceremonies across the country. On Sept. 21, Obama will speak at the Congressional Black Caucus Gala, where heand#39;ll trumpet what the administration says are benefits of the presidentand#39;s health care law for African-Americans and other minorities. Two major factors are driving Obamaand#39;s push to get back on track with domestic issues after three weeks of Syria dominating the political debate. Polls show the economy, jobs and health care remain Americansand#39; top concerns. And Obama has a limited window to make progress on those matters in a second term, when lame-duck status can quickly creep up on presidents, particularly if they start losing public support. Obama already is grappling with some of the lowest approval ratings of his presidency. A Pew Research Center/USA Today poll out this week put his approval at 44 percent. Thatand#39;s down from 55 percent at the end of 2012. Potential military intervention in Syria also is deeply unpopular with many Americans, with a Pew survey finding that 63 percent opposing the idea. And the presidentand#39;s publicly shifting positions on how to respond to a deadly chemical weapons attack in Syria also have confused many Americans and congressional lawmakers. and#34;In times of crisis, the more clarity the better,and#34; said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a strong supporter of U.S. intervention in Syria. and#34;This has been confusing. For those who are inclined to support the president, itand#39;s been pretty hard to nail down what the purpose of a military strike is.and#34; For a time, the Obama administration appeared to be barreling toward an imminent strike in retaliation for the Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack. But Obama made a sudden reversal and instead decided to seek congressional approval for military action. Even after administration officials briefed hundreds of lawmakers on classified intelligence, there appeared to be limited backing for a use-of-force resolution on Capitol Hill. Rather than face defeat, Obama asked lawmakers this week to postpone any votes while the U.S. explores the viability of a deal to secure Syriaand#39;s chemical weapons stockpiles. That pause comes as a relief to Obama and many Democrats eager to return to issues more in line with the publicand#39;s concerns. The most pressing matters are a Sept. 30 deadline to approve funding to keep the government open — the new fiscal year begins Oct. 1 — and the start of sign-ups for health care exchanges, a crucial element of the health care overhaul. On Wednesday, a revolt by tea party conservatives forced House Republican leaders to delay a vote on a temporary spending bill written to head off a government shutdown. Several dozen staunch conservatives are seeking to couple the spending bill with a provision to derail implementation of the health care law. The White House also may face a fight with Republicans over raising the nationand#39;s debt ceiling this fall. While Obama has insisted he wonand#39;t negotiate over the debt limit, House Speaker John Boehner on Thursday said the GOP will insist on curbing spending. and#34;You canand#39;t talk about increasing the debt limit unless youand#39;re willing to make changes and reforms that begin to solve the spending problem that Washington has,and#34; the Ohio Republican said.

Tournament: Michigan | Round: 1 | Opponent: Maine East LP | Judge: Margaret Strong

Obama is using his newly won political capital to hammer the GOP on immigration – it will pass, but getting it to the floor is key

Epstein, 10/17/13 (Reid, Politico, "Obama’s latest push features a familiar strategy" http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/barack-obama-latest-push-features-familiar-strategy-98512.html-http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/barack-obama-latest-push-features-familiar-strategy-98512.html)

President Barack Obama made his plans for his newly won political capital official — he’s going to hammer House Republicans on immigration.
And it’s evident from his public and private statements that Obama’s latest immigration push is, in at least one respect, similar to his fiscal showdown strategy: yet again, the goal is to boost public pressure on House Republican leadership to call a vote on a Senate-passed measure.
"The majority of Americans think this is the right thing to do," Obama
AND
. This can and should get done by the end of this year."
And yet Obama spent the bulk of his 20-minute address taking whack after whack at the same House Republicans he’ll need to pass that agenda, culminating in a jab at the GOP over the results of the 2012 election — and a dare to do better next time.
"You don’t like a particular policy or a particular president? Then argue for your position," Obama said. "Go out there and win an election. Push to change it. But don’t break it. Don’t break what our predecessors spent over two centuries building. That’s not being faithful to what this country’s about."
Before the shutdown, the White House had planned a major immigration push for the first week in October. But with the shutdown and looming debt default dominating the discussion during the last month, immigration reform received little attention on the Hill.
Immigration reform allies, including Obama’s political arm, Organizing for Action, conducted a series of events for the weekend of Oct. 5, most of which received little attention in Washington due to the the shutdown drama. But activists remained engaged, with Dream Act supporters staging a march up Constitution Avenue, past the Capitol to the Supreme Court Tuesday, to little notice of the Congress inside.
Obama first personally signaled his intention to re-emerge in the immigration debate during an interview Tuesday with the Los Angeles Univision affiliate, conducted four hours before his meeting that day with House Democrats.
Speaking of the week’s fiscal landmines, Obama said: "Once that’s done, you know, the day after, I’m going to be pushing to say, call a vote on immigration reform."
When he met that afternoon in the Oval Office with the House Democratic leadership, Obama said that he planned to be personally engaged in selling the reform package he first introduced in a Las Vegas speech in January.
Still, during that meeting, Obama knew so little about immigration reform’s status in the House that he had to ask Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.) how many members of his own party would back a comprehensive reform bill, according to a senior Democrat who attended.
The White House doesn’t have plans yet for Obama to participate in any new immigration reform events or rallies — that sort of advance work has been hamstrung by the 16-day government shutdown.
But the president emerged on Thursday to tout a "broad coalition across America" that supports immigration reform. He also invited House Republicans to add their input specifically to the Senate bill — an approach diametrically different than the House GOP’s announced strategy of breaking the reform into several smaller bills.
White House press secretary Jay Carney echoed Obama’s remarks Thursday, again using for the same language on immigration the White House used to press Republicans on the budget during the shutdown standoff: the claim that there are enough votes in the House to pass the Senate’s bill now, if only it could come to a vote.
"When it comes to immigration reform … we’re confident that if that bill that passed the Senate were put on the floor of the House today, it would win a majority of the House," Carney said. "And I think that it would win significant Republican votes."

Obama’s consistent pressure is key to get Boehner to allow a vote

Sullivan, 10/24/13 (Sean, "John Boehner’s next big test: Immigration" Washington Post Blogs, The Fix, lexis)

President Obama delivered remarks Thursday morning to renew his call for Congress to pass sweeping immigration reform. The prevailing sentiment in Washington is that it’s not going to happen this year, and may not even happen next year.
But because of the last few weeks, it just might get done by early next year. It’s all up to House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), who by political necessity, must now at least consider leaning in more on immigration.
"Let’s see if we can get this done. And let’s see if we can get it done this year," Obama said at the White House.
Fresh off a decisive defeat in the budget and debt ceiling showdown that cost the GOP big and won the party no major policy concessions from Democrats, Boehner was asked Wednesday about whether he plans to bring up immigration legislation during the limited time left on the 2013 legislative calendar. He didn’t rule it out.
"I still think immigration reform is an important subject that needs to be addressed. And I’m hopeful," said Boehner.
The big question is whether the speaker’s hopefulness spurs him to press the matter legislatively or whether the cast-iron conservative members who oppose even limited reforms will dissuade him and extinguish his cautiously optimistic if noncommittal outlook.
Months ago, as House Republicans were slow-walking immigration after the Senate passed a broad bill, the latter possibility appeared the likelier bet. But times have changed. The position House Republicans adopted in the fiscal standoff badly damaged the party’s brand. The GOP is reeling, searching desperately for a way to turn things around. That means Boehner, too, must look for ways to repair the damage.
And that’s where immigration comes in. Even before the government shutdown showdown, a vocal part of the GOP (think Sen. John McCain) had been talking up the urgent need to do immigration reform or risk further alienating Hispanic voters. Now, amid hard times for the party driven by deeper skepticism from Democrats, independents and even some Republicans following the fiscal standoff, the political imperative is arguably even stronger.
The policy imperative already exists for some House Republicans — perhaps enough of them that if Boehner allowed a vote, reform of some type could pass with a majority of House Democrats and a minority of House Republicans, as did last week’s deal to end the government shutdown and raise the debt ceiling. (What specifically could pass and whether Obama could accept it is another question.)
What’s not clear is whether Boehner would be willing to chart a path with less than majority GOP support again so soon after the last time and without his back against the wall as it was in the fiscal standoff.
This much we know: The White House and Senate Democrats will keep applying pressure on Boehner to act on immigration. Obama’s planned remarks are the latest example of his plan. The speaker will be feeling external and internal pressure to move ahead on immigration.
But he will also feel pressure from conservatives to oppose it. Here’s the thing, though: Boehner listened to the right flank of his conference in the fiscal fight, and that path was politically destructive for his party. That’s enough to believe he will at least entertain the possibility of tuning the hard-liners out a bit more this time around.

It will be a fight and it requires all of Obama’s capital to pass it

Orlando Sentinel, 11/1/13 (editorial, "It’ll take both parties to clear immigration logjam" database: LibraryPressDisplay (at the University of Michigan)

For those who thought the end of the government shutdown would provide a break from the partisan bickering in Washington, think again. The battle over comprehensive immigration reform could be every bit as contentious.
Polls show the popular momentum is there for comprehensive reform, which would include a path to citizenship for many of the nation’s 11 million undocumented immigrants. But it’ll take plenty of political capital from President Obama and leaders in both parties on Capitol Hill to make it happen.
Immigration-reform activists, who have been pushing for reform for years, are understandably impatient. This week police arrested 15 who blocked traffic at a demonstration in Orlando.
There are plenty of selling points for comprehensive immigration reform. An opportunity for millions
AND
around the world stay here after studying in U.S. universities.
The Senate passed its version of comprehensive immigration in June. It includes all of the benefits above. Its path to citizenship requires undocumented immigrants to pay lines, learn English, ass a criminal background check and wait more than a decade.
So far, House Republicans have balked, taking a piecemeal rather than comprehensive approach. Many members fear being challenged from the light for supporting "amnesty".
Yet polls show the public supports comprehensive reform. In June, a Gallup poll found 87 percent of Americans - including 86 percent of Republicans - support a pathway to citizenship like the one outlined in the Senate bill.
Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio took flak from tea-party supporters for spear- heading the comprehensive bill. Now, apparently aiming to mend fences, he says immigration should be handled piecemeal He’s politically savvy enough to know that’s a dead end.
But comprehensive reform won’t have a chance without President Obama making full use of his bully pulpit to promote it, emphasizing in particular all that undocumented immigrants would need to do to earn citizenship. House Democratic leaders will have to underscore the president’s message.

Plan will be an uphill battle for Obama – High cost to energy reform means the GOP is opposed

Noon 7/14 (Marita, Executive Director of Energy Makes America Great, expert in energy reform and renewable energy, 7/14/13, Town Hall.com, http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/maritanoon/2013/07/14/green-energys-too-expensive-n1640297-http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/maritanoon/2013/07/14/green-energys-too-expensive-n1640297 ) Okuno
Democrats offered amendments to the bill aimed at restoring funding to renewable energy programs,
AND
commercial green energy projects,Cape Wind, provides a case in point.¶ 

Immigration reform generates an effective base of IT experts - solves cyberterror

*top 20 firms conclude H1-B visa requestors are oversees – increasing IT experts, the majority of which are overseas, cannot come to the US, talented students that have tremendous ability to develop tech and scientific advances don’t have the ability to come to the US – collapses response mechanisms
McLarty 09 – (Thomas F. III, President – McLarty Associates and Former White House Chief of Staff and Task Force Co-Chair, "U.S. Immigration Policy: Report of a CFR-Sponsored Independent Task Force", 7-8, http://www.cfr.org/ publication/19759/us_immigration_policy.html) 

We have seen, when you look at the table of the top 20 firms
AND
going to strengthen, I think, our system, our security needs.

A successful cyber-attack ensures accidental nuclear war

Fritz 09 – (Jason, BS – St. Cloud, "Hacking Nuclear Command and Control", Study Commissioned on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament, July, www.icnnd.org/Documents/Jason_Fritz_Hacking_NC2.doc-http://www.icnnd.org/Documents/Jason_Fritz_Hacking_NC2.doc)

The US uses the two-man rule to achieve a higher level of
AND
of mass DDoS attacks, real world protests, and accusations between governments.

====Living in accord with the Tao precludes taking action to prevent death. As mere humans, we are oblivious to the overarching meaning of the universe and thus any action we take is unproductive and immoral – 3 impacts – ethics, value to life, and a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Kirkland 98 -  Ph.D. in East Asian Languages and Cultures, specialist in Asian Religions, Associate Professor of Religion at UGA, (1996, Russell Kirkland, "’RESPONSIBLE NON-ACTION’ IN A NATURAL WORLD : PERSPECTIVES FROM THE NEI-YEH, CHUANG-TZU, AND TAO-TE CHING" HARVARD CONFERENCE ON TAOISM AND ECOLOGY CB)====

Once upon a time, several years ago, I had the opportunity to engage
AND
, not even — or more correctly said, especially not — ourselves.

The alternative is to do nothing in order to appreciate the flow of the Tao – only inaction in face of interventionism solves

Kirkland 96 – Ph.D. in East Asian Languages and Cultures, specialist in Asian Religions, Associate Professor of Religion at UGA (1996, Russell Kirkland, Ph.D. in East Asian Languages and Cultures, specialist in Asian Religions, Associate Professor of Religion at UGA, "The Book of the Way," 24-29 CB)

The focus of the Daode jing is something called "the Tao (or Dao
AND
most powerful force in existence, and nothing can thwart its unceasing operation.

The plan locks Chinese influence out of Mexico – that ends overall influence in Latin America.

Gary Regenstreif, 6/12/2013. "The looming U.S.-China rivalry over Latin America," Reuters, http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/06/12/the-looming-u-s-china-rivalry-over-latin-america/.

Though the U.S. and Chinese presidents heralded a "new model" of cooperation at their weekend summit, a growing competition looks more likely. The whirlwind of activity before President Barack Obama met with President Xi Jinping in the California desert revealed that Beijing and Washington’s sights are set on a similar prize — and face differing challenges to attain it.
Their focus is Latin America and the prize is increased trade and investment opportunities in a region where economic reforms have pulled millions out of poverty and into the middle class. Latin America is rich in the commodities and energy that both China and the United States need, largely stable politically and eager to do deals.
Consider the travel itinerary: Obama visited Mexico and Costa Rica last month. Vice President Joe Biden recently went to Colombia, Trinidad and Tobago and Brazil. Chile’s president paid Obama a visit last week, Peru’s leader arrived Tuesday and Brazil’s is due in October.
Meanwhile, just after Biden left Trinidad, Xi arrived, part of a tour that also took him to Costa Rica and Mexico to promote trade and cooperation.
Both U.S. and Chinese officials, however, are finding a more self-confident Latin America, able to leverage its new strength to forge better agreements and find multiple trading partners. That will likely force Washington to work harder to maintain its leading trade position against China — which has money to burn in the region.
"There is a more energetic ~U.S.~ tone, a more optimistic mood about economic agenda in second term than ~the~ first time," Michael Shifter, president of the Inter-American Dialogue, a Washington policy group, told me. "There’s something happening in the region and the U.S. wants to be part of it. Whether there’s a well-thought-out vision or policy remains a question. But there is more of an affirmation of the region and a willingness to engage."
The United States, Latin America’s largest trading partner throughout much of its history, still retains this position. Washington has now signed free trade agreements with more than a third of the hemisphere’s nations and annually exchanges more than 24800 billion in goods and services with Latin America — more than three times the region’s commerce with China.
In Obama’s first term, however, the administration was widely viewed as neglecting Latin America. And China has moved in fast.
China built its annual trade with the region from virtually nothing in 2000 to about 24260 billion in 2012. In 2009, it overtook the United States as the largest trading partner of Brazil, the region’s powerhouse — largely through massive purchases of iron ore and soy.
Other data is telling: In 1995, for example, the United States accounted for 37 percent of Brazil’s foreign direct investment. That dropped to 10 percent in 2011, according to-http://www.americasquarterly.org/charticles/Latin-Americas-Changing-Global-Connections/ the Council of the Americas, which seeks to foster hemispheric ties.
Washington’s renewed ardor is at least partly because of the fear that China will repeat in Latin America the economic success it has built in Africa-http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21574012-chinese-trade-africa-keeps-growing-fears-neocolonialism-are-overdone-more. China has been able to present itself as a benevolent partner there, which has played well against the West’s history of meddling in domestic affairs-http://www.coldwar.org/articles/50s/guatemala.asp.
"It’s about influence and leverage," said Eric Farnsworth, vice president of the Council of the Americas, "…The region matured and expects to be treated in real partnership rather than ~in the~ patronizing way it happened in the past."
The challenges facing Beijing and Washington lie in how each approaches the region. Washington
AND
actions in Latin America from matching its words — as has happened before.

Chinese influence in Latin America is key to maintain their economic growth.

Arnson et al. ’9 (Cynthia Anderson, Mark Mohr, Riordan Roett, writers for Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, "Enter the Dragon? China’s Presence in Latin America", http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/EnterDragonFinal.pdf) (JN)

China’s role in Latin America is, above all, based on trade, despite
AND
region. Thus, Latin America represents a substantial market for Chinese goods.

Chinese economic decline causes great power war.

Kane 01 ~Thomas Kane, PhD in Security Studies from the University of Hull 26 Lawrence Serewicz, Autumn, http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/01autumn/Kane.htm-http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/01autumn/Kane.htm~~

Despite China’s problems with its food supply, the Chinese do not appear to be
AND
China’s government might try to ward off its demise by attacking adjacent countries.

Economic engagement is long-term strategy for promoting structural linkage between two economies – the plan is neither.

Mastanduno, 1 – professor of Government at Dartmouth College (Michael, "Economic Engagement Strategies: Theory and Practice" http://web.archive.org/web/20120906033646/http://polisci.osu.edu/faculty/bpollins/book/Mastanduno.pdf-http://web.archive.org/web/20120906033646/http://polisci.osu.edu/faculty/bpollins/book/Mastanduno.pdf

The basic causal logic of economic engagement, and the emphasis on domestic politics,
AND
chain runs from economic interdependence through domestic political change to foreign policy accommodation.

That’s a voter for limits – broad interpretations of engagement include anything that effects the economy, which means everything

And, Good is not good enough – precise definition outweighs – don’t allow new 1AR answers to this card.

Resnick 01 – Dr. Evan Resnick, Ph.D. in Political Science from Columbia University, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Yeshiva University, "Defining Engagement", Journal of International Affairs, Spring, 54(2), Ebsco

CONCLUSION
In matters of national security, establishing a clear definition of terms is a precondition
AND
"engagement," they undermine the ability to build an effective foreign policy.

widespread usage of renewables is costly and prevents reliable electrical supply – guarantees blackouts and grid failures

Garman and Thernstrom, 13 David, assistant secretary and under secretary at the U.S. Department of Energy (2001-07) and on the board of directors of the Energy Innovation Reform Project, and Samuel, executive director of EIRP, Former Resident Fellow and Codirector of the AEI Geoengineering Project,  7/29, WSJ, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323309404578613792021690244.html-http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323309404578613792021690244.html, "Europe’s Renewable Romance Fades" | ADM
Europe has bet big on wind and solar energy, and many environmental advocates would
AND
connection conditions for distributed generation that are not being retrofitted anywhere fast enough."

blackouts cause nuclear meltdowns – risk assessment methods don’t assume a sustained grid failure and the lack of backup power

AP, 11 Associated Press, 3/29, http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/03/29/ap-impact-long-blackouts-pose-risk-reactors/-http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/03/29/ap-impact-long-blackouts-pose-risk-reactors/, "AP IMPACT: Long blackouts pose risk to US reactors" | ADM
Long before the nuclear emergency in Japan, U.S. regulators knew that
AND
"a dominant contributor to the risk of core melt at some plants."

Meltdowns cause extinction.

Wasserman ’02 (Harvey, Senior Editor – Free Press, Earth Island Journal, Spring, www.earthisland.org/eijournal/new_articles.cfm?articleID=45726journalID=63)

The intense radioactive heat within today’s operating reactors is the hottest anywhere on the planet
AND
core of our life and of all future generations must be shut down.  

The United States federal government should offer subsidies and tax breaks for companies looking to invest in alternative energy in Mexico, use H.R. 2764 to encourage the Export-Import Bank to invest 10 percent of its financing capacity in promoting alternative energy projects in Mexico, become a signatory of the Kyoto Protocol and use the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism to fund alternative energy projects in Mexico

CP Solves the case.

Miller and deLeon, 09 Stephanie, consultant on U.S.-Latin America relations and was formerly the Research Associate for the Americas Project on the National Security Team. Born in Venezuela with family from Colombia, Miller earned her degree from Duke University in International Comparative Studies with a focus on Latin America. She currently lives in Bogotá, Colombia, and Rudy, Senior Vice President of National Security and International Policy at American Progress in Washington, DC. He serves on several non-profit boards and is a parttime college instructor. DeLeon is also a former senior U.S. Department of Defense official, staff director on Capitol Hill, and retired corporate executive, April, Center for American Progress, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/04/pdf/mexico.pdf-http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/04/pdf/mexico.pdf, "Transcending the Rio Grande - U.S.-Mexico relations need to reach beyond the border - Recommendations of our Mexico Working Group" | ADM

To foster a cooperative and mutually beneficial exploration of wind and solar energy investments between
AND
making it the second largest creator of carbon credits in Latin America.55

Squo solves.

Meyer 13 – Analyst in Latin American affairs for the Congressional Research Service (Peter J. Meyer, "Brazil-US Relations", Congressional Research Service, 2/27/13,  https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33456.pdf)//js-http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL33456_20090121.pdf)//js

Energy has been another important area of U.S.-Brazilian cooperation in recent
AND
States remains in place permanently unless the Harmonized Tariff Schedule code is changed.

But the aff doesn’t.

Wood, 10 Duncan, Full Professor, Director of the Program in International Relations, and also Director of the Canadian Studies Program at the Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México (ITAM) in Mexico City. He is Senior Adviser for the Renewable Energy Initiative with the Mexico Institute of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and a Senior Associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C. He is also a researcher in the Centro de Derecho Economico Internacional (CDEI) at ITAM, December, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Environment2C20Development20and20Growth.pdf-http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Environment2C Development and Growth.pdf, "Environment, Development, and Growth: U.S.-Mexico Cooperation in Renewable Energies" | ADM

This brings us to the barriers that currently limit the export of more clean electricity
AND
of enormous value to power authorities in both Mexico and the United States.
No impact to heg.
Ikenberry 08 – professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University (John, "The Rise of China and the Future of the West Can the Liberal System Survive?" Jan/Feb 2008, Foreign Affairs)

Some observers believe that the American era is coming to an end, as the
AND
, but the Western order — if managed properly — will live on.

No risk of India-Pakistan war
Mutti 09 – over a decade of expertise covering on South Asia geopolitics, Contributing Editor to Demockracy journal (James, 1/5, Mumbai Misperceptions: War is Not Imminent, http://demockracy.com/four-reasons-why-the-mumbai-attacks-wont-result-in-a-nuclear-war/)

Writer Amitav Ghosh divined a crucial connection between the two messages. "When commentators
AND
and is using its regional influence to bring more diplomatic pressure on Pakistan.
The war won’t escalate or cause extinction
Dyer 02 – (5/24, Gwinette, Hamilton Spectator, "Nuclear war a possibility over Kashmir", Lexis, WEA)

For those who do not live in the subcontinent, the most important fact is
AND
of nuclear tests in the atmosphere, and they are mostly still here.
US will accept its new role peacefully – no backlash
Kupchan, 99 – Charles A. Kupchan Fall 1999 World Policy Journal "Life after pax Americana"

The bad news is that the global stability that unipolarity has engendered will be jeopardized
AND
of competitive balancing and regional rivalries in the wake of an American retrenchment.

No resource wars
Idean Salehyan (Professor of Political Science at the University of North Texas) May 2008 "From Climate Change to Conflict? No Consensus Yet*" Journal of Peace Research, vol. 45, no. 3 http://emergingsustainability.org/files/resolver20climate20change20and20conflict.pdf

First, the deterministic view has poor predictive power as to where and when conflicts
AND
livelihoods. Political sensitivity to peaceful action can immunize states from armed insurrection.
Ensures no escalation – these conflicts have never escalated beyond local levels.  The only way they escalate is getting highly developed countries involved – that wont happen
Nils Petter Gleditsch (International Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO) 26 Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim) 1998 "Armed Conflict and the Environment:  A Critique of the Literature" JSTOR

A similar point holds for economic variables. Much of the environmental literature lacks explicit
AND
and sanitation, and soil erosion - are part and parcel of underdevelopment.

Energy independence comparatively destroys hegemony.

Hulbert 12 – (8-19-2012, Matthew, Lead Analyst at European Energy Review and consultant to a number of governments, most recently as Senior Research Fellow, Netherlands Institute for International Relations, former Senior Research Fellow at ETH Zurich working on energy and political risk, MPhil in international relations from Cambridge University, "America Will Deeply Regret Its Fixation On Energy Independence," http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewhulbert/2012/08/19/why-america-will-deeply-regret-us-energy-independence/4/-http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewhulbert/2012/08/19/why-america-will-deeply-regret-us-energy-independence/4/)

The U.S. energy independence debate is getting very tetchy of late. Seasoned energy experts are trading cheap blows, principally for sitting on opposite sides of the fence. Nobody doubts that U.S. energy output will keep growing, but whether it ever amounts to full ’independence’ is at best tenuous. More importantly, it spells total disaster for America’s role in the world. No global oil role, forget being a global hyper power. Those days will be gone.   
The allure of energy independence is a compelling story to tell. The U.
AND
everyone pays for a barrel of oil. Epic stuff, no doubt.
Whether you believe all these numbers doesn’t really matter. Few U.S.
AND
or more), it’s already creating serious geopolitical gaps across international energy markets.
That’s deeply problematic, precisely because supply side dynamics are looking more fragile than they
AND
a new geopolitical game thanks to energy independence beckoning just around the corner.
Independence: Passive And Active
Passive = Libya, where the U.S. made it abundantly clear to
AND
willing to put narrow interests above and beyond oil market stability (Iran).
No one should blame, or bemoan the U.S. for doing this
AND
interests to promote and extend U.S. influence across the globe.

2NC/1NR

Their aff is the status quo – relations are high and renewable assistance is increasing rapidly – voting neg solves the aff

Jacobson 6/18 – Assistant Secretary Of State For Western Hemisphere Affairs (Roberta S, "State’s Jacobson at Senate Hearing on U.S.-Mexico Partnership," 6/18/13, U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Before Foreign Relations Committee Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/texttrans/2013/06/20130618276661.html~~23axzz2XAL8c3nZ)//SJF

When President Obama met with President Peña Nieto in Mexico on May 2, the
AND
, but are profoundly relevant to our daily lives and to our future.
ECONOMIC AND ENERGY ENGAGEMENT
The United States and Mexico share one of the world’s most vibrant and mutually beneficial
AND
investment in the American economy, currently nearly 2427.9 billion.
It is difficult to overstate the importance of our trade relationship with Mexico. In
AND
includes countries from one of the fastest-growing regions in the world.
To increase competitiveness, foster economic growth and innovation, and explore ways to partner for global leadership, Presidents Obama and Peña Nieto announced on May 2 the establishment of a High-Level Economic Dialogue (HLED). We plan to hold the first meeting later this year. We will organize the dialogue around three broad themes: promoting competitiveness and connectivity; fostering economic growth, productivity, and innovation; and partnering for regional and global leadership.
The HLED will increase cooperation in sectors that connect our economies, including transportation, telecommunications, and energy, and promote greater two-way investment. The dialogue will stimulate entrepreneurship and innovation, encourage the development of human capital, and examine regional and international initiatives, including our engagement on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, and the G20.
Given the massive flow of goods and people across our shared border, modernizing border
AND
of legitimate commerce and travel, and strengthen law enforcement along the border.
Our energy relationship with Mexico is a critical component of North American energy security. In 2012, Mexico was our second largest supplier of imported crude oil, the largest export market for U.S. refined petroleum products, and a growing market for U.S. natural gas exports. President Peña Nieto has made energy reform a priority, and if it is successful, Mexico could attract international investment and expertise to reverse the decline in its oil production.
We have negotiated and signed the U.S.-Mexico Transboundary Hydrocarbons Agreement.
AND
look forward to working with the Senators to move this important legislation forward.
In Mexico, the Peña Nieto administration is pursuing a broad reform agenda with a
AND
to reshape our neighbor’s economic landscape and expand our economic engagement with Mexico.
SECURITY COOPERATION
Since the Merida Initiative was announced in 2007, we have based our cooperation with
AND
money laundering, and demand for drugs on both sides of the border.
Our Merida partnership is organized around four pillars:
• Disrupting the capacity of organized criminal groups;
• Institutionalizing reforms to sustain rule of law and respect for human rights;
• Creating a 21st century border; and
• Building strong and resilient communities.
We are strengthening institutions, especially police, justice, and civil society organizations; expanding our border focus beyond interdiction of contraband to include facilitation of legitimate trade and travel; and building strong communities resistant to the influence of organized crime.
Since the inception of the Merida Initiative, the U.S. government has
AND
goals in Mexico. The U.S. contribution is vitally important.
U.S.-Mexico bilateral engagement has been transformed over the last 10 years
AND
our partnership can move forward to the benefit of both Americans and Mexicans.
PEOPLE-TO-PEOPLE TIES
The people-to-people ties that bind Mexico to the United States are
AND
families, neighbors, and friends, and contribute to our mutual understanding.
During President Obama’s visit to Mexico, we announced new initiatives to use people-
AND
in both countries, just as Mexico begins to implement its education reforms.
President Obama also spoke in Mexico of his administration’s vision for comprehensive immigration reform that
AND
migrants who seek to transit Mexico on their way to the United States.
NEW OPPORTUNITIES FOR DRUG DEMAND REDUCTION IN MEXICO
We are working together on new opportunities for drug demand reduction in Mexico. The Peña Nieto administration has made demand reduction one of the principal pillars of its crime and violence prevention program, with the objective of modernizing and expanding its addiction diagnosis and treatment capabilities.
The United States and Mexico will be able to apply this approach to three areas of demand reduction policy—professionalizing addiction treatment counseling, improving Mexican capacity to research and develop addiction prevention and treatment methods, and expanding the prevalence and use of drug treatment courts.
GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT AND COOPERATION
We are increasing cooperation with Mexico on global and regional issues. Mexico is an
AND
Nuclear Terrorism in May. We engage closely with Mexico on these issues.
Our common interest in the environment and clean energy is another area of growing cooperation
AND
to engage with Central American partners in facilitating a robust regional electricity market.

Coop now – their author.

Wood, 10 Duncan, Full Professor, Director of the Program in International Relations, and also Director of the Canadian Studies Program at the Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México (ITAM) in Mexico City. He is Senior Adviser for the Renewable Energy Initiative with the Mexico Institute of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and a Senior Associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C. He is also a researcher in the Centro de Derecho Economico Internacional (CDEI) at ITAM, December, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Environment2C20Development20and20Growth.pdf-http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Environment2C Development and Growth.pdf, "Environment, Development, and Growth: U.S.-Mexico Cooperation in Renewable Energies" | ADM
Since the writing of this report, U.S.-Mexico cooperation in the
AND
this paper, held in late 2009 and early 2010 on the subject. 

2 Reasons their energy diplomacy internal link is out of context –

1. About hydrocarbons and exporting US LNG – the plan is neither.

2. About LNG dominance in Europe

Investment in Mexico boosts our energy diplomacy
F.D.I., ’12, (Future Directions International), "energy diplomacy to be key feature of obama administration," October 24, 2012  http://www.futuredirections.org.au/publications/energy-security/27-energy-security-swa/760-energy-diplomacy-to-be-key-feature-of-obama-administration.html-http://www.futuredirections.org.au/publications/energy-security/27-energy-security-swa/760-energy-diplomacy-to-be-key-feature-of-obama-administration.html

If successful in the November election, the Obama Administration will make energy a centrepiece
AND
allies; countering challenges to Washington’s global interests; and fostering economic growth.
their card ends here
Ms Clinton suggested the US hydrocarbon expansion had international benefits. Referring to petroleum products, the Secretary of State, argued that gas production was in danger of monopolisation. US exports of liquefied natural gas may weaken the strength of the major hydrocarbon exporters and their influence over energy-poor states.
While not mentioned specifically, it is likely Ms Clinton was referring to Russia and
AND
of the continent’s gas, its influence over European policy may become increasingly marginalised
During increasing rationalisation of American spending and its presence overseas, energy could prove to
AND
supplies will continue to fluctuate, depending on trends in the international system.

CIR turns heg

Nye 12 – Joseph S. Nye, a former US assistant secretary of defense and chairman of the US National Intelligence Council, is University Professor at Harvard University, 12-10-2012, http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/obama-needs-immigration-reform-to-maintain-america-s-strength-by-joseph-s—nye~233lbxO0TM6Q8JpxEA.99

CommentsAs a result, several prominent Republican politicians are now urging their party to reconsider
AND
long way toward fulfilling his promise to maintain the strength of the US.
 

it also turns renewables

Meija 09 – (Robert, Employment Services Manager at South Bay Workforce Investment Board, City University of New York-Baruch College , "What’s Old is New: Green Jobs 26 What America’s Federal Workforce Investment System Can Do Now to Develop a Green Workforce", 1/14/09, www.southbayresource.net/articles/whatsoldisnew.pdf, tables, charts, and graphs omitted)

In addition to adaptation, science, technology and innovation may prove to be our
AND
sector organizations to provide career and academic support, will make a difference.

Immigration reform will pass – GOP defections and lobbying are building pressure on the House GOP leadership

Leopold, 10/31/13 (David, Huffington Post, "Another Day, Another House Republican Signs On To Comprehensive Immigration Reform" lexis)

There’s no doubt about it. Pressure is building on the House GOP leadership to bring an immigration bill to the floor for a vote — one that includes a path to earned citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants.
Over the weekend Representative Jeff Denham (R-CA)~1~ announced that
AND
plan that would give millions of unauthorized immigrants the chance to attain citizenship.
And this is likely just the beginning. Immigration advocates — who are fired up
AND
fixing the immigration problem and are willing to work in a bipartisan way.
And all this comes the same week as some 600 conservative leaders~5~ from various religious denominations, the agricultural industry, law enforcement, and the business sector have come to Washington to lobby nearly 150 members of Congress for a broad immigration overhaul. These leaders recognize that America’s continued economic vitality and future competitiveness require that our immigration policy be brought into the 21st century.
There is no question immigration reform can happen by the end of the year.
AND
path to citizenship and real reform can become a reality — this year. 

Current GOP defections are creating political opportunity to pressure the leadership – picking off more moderate GOP means House leaders will cave and get a conference committee vote

Sargent, 10/30/13 (Greg, The Plum Line blog, Washington Post, "Immigration reform is definitely undead" http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/10/30/immigration-reform-is-definitely-undead/)

We now have three House Republicans who have signed on to the House Dem comprehensive immigration reform bill, putting immigration reform officially back in the "undead" category.
GOP Rep. David Valadao of California is officially on board with the bipartisan proposal, according to a statement from the Congressman sent my way:
"I have been working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to find common ground on the issue of immigration reform. Recently, I have focused my efforts on joining with likeminded Republicans in organizing and demonstrating to Republican Leadership broad support within the Party to address immigration reform in the House by the end of the year.
"By supporting H.R. 15 I am strengthening my message: Addressing immigration reform in the House cannot wait. I am serious about making real progress and will remain committed to doing whatever it takes to repair our broken immigration system."
Valadao’s move is not wholly unexpected, given that he inhabits a moderate district with a lot of Latinos. But his insistence that addressing immigration reform "cannot wait" is helpful. It seems like an implicit message to the GOP leadership: We must act this year, and on this bill, if necessary.
This comes after GOP Reps. leana Ros-Lehtinen and Jeff Denham Jeff Denham did the same. Denham has said he expects "more" Republicans to ultimately sign on, and has also said that the House GOP leadership told him there will be a vote on something immigration-related by the end of the year.
It’s unclear whether there will actually be a House vote on anything involving immigration before the year runs out, and it seems very unlikely that there will be a vote on the House Dem measure, which is essentially the Senate comprehensive immigration reform bill, without the Corker-Hoeven border security amendment that House Dems dislike, and instead with another border security amendment House Dems like swapped in.
However, the movement among Republicans towards the Dem bill — even if it is only a trickle for now — is interesting, as a reminder that immigration reform can happen if House GOP leaders actually want it to.
To be sure, immigration reform faces a huge obstacle: The stark underlying structural realities of the House Republican caucus. Far too few Republican members have large enough Latino populations to impact the outcome in 2014. With primaries coming, there just may be no incentive for Republicans to act until after the 2014 elections.
But there are other factors to consider. In some key respects, immigration reform
AND
this issue behind them, given the slow forward march of demographic realities.
Also, as longtime immigration operative Simon Rosenberg explains, Congressional Republicans have a long
AND
"de facto amnesty," as some pro-reform Republicans put it.
Indeed, if there is anything that can make something happen, it’s the possibility
AND
said to be working on. That could possibly get us to conference.

they say piecemeal but that’s fine– Boehner will compromise because of Obama’s political strength – even if this means a series of piecemeal bills, the final package will be similar enough to CIR

*framing issue – none of their uniqueness evidence takes into account Boehner’s willingness to compromise on a series of piecemeal bills that aggregate into a final package that includes high tech-visas and achieve the same effect as a comprehensive bill – Boehner will compromise – the shutdown strengthened his position with his hard-right flank to maneuver piecemeal reforms
*Republicans will vote for it – GOP leaders acknowledge the political futility of being seen as obstructing immigration – the pro-reform side has money, and key agreements between AFL-CIO, Chamber of Commerce, and farmworkers make passage likely
*democratic unity also exists which overwhelms Republican opposition
MacGillis, 10/24/13 - New Republic senior editor (Alec, "Seven Reasons To Stop Being Fatalistic About Immigration Reform" The New Republic, http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115341/immigration-reform-may-actually-pass)

But the natural optimist in me thinks that the odds for some sort of serious immigration reform happening in the months ahead are better than many realize. A few reasons why, in no particular order:
Boehner has space. To the extent that there was any logic to the Speaker’s
AND
, told me when I ran into him at a function Wednesday night.
Well, there is no better opportunity for Boehner to show that this is the case – to retroactively justify a gambit that cost the country billions of dollars – than to press forward with immigration reform. To do that will require more than just casual comments like the one he tossed off Wednesday – it will require making clear that the leadership is serious about this and setting aside time on the calendar for it.
But wouldn’t pushing the issue forward mean once again breaking the not-so-
AND
job-security-wise all around," says one House Democratic aide.
It’s in the Republicans’ interest. Why would the cautious, conflict-averse Boehner
AND
of immigration reform, even if just for reasons of self-preservation.
It’s not Obamacare. This is the other reason why Boehner might be able to
AND
they haven’t yet made it about Obama," said the House Democratic aide.
Follow the money. Put simply: the pro-reform side has lots of
AND
In the immigration realm, the big bucks are coming from these guys.
The pro-reform side isn’t giving up. This is the element too often
AND
fight until there’s a fix to this cruel situation that we’re living in."
Obama wants to make it happen. One might think this would be the biggest
AND
"It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy," says the Democratic House aide.

Conservatives won’t vote for immigration no matter what and affirmative evidence quoting them is irrelevant.  The only evidence that matters is how moderates react – and Obama can work with them now, and capital is key

*critical framing issue – view the uniqueness debate through the lens of how GOP moderates and leadership will act and not the conservative base – Obama will face opposition from tea party Republicans but the crucial issue is how the House GOP leaders will act and they are in favor of passing CIR – Obama’s PC is key to switching votes of fringe voters
Balz, 10/17/13 (Dan, Washington Post, "Can Obama seize the moment and make Washington work?" http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/can-obama-seize-the-moment-to-make-washington-work/2013/10/17/d84c1934-3753-11e3-80c6-7e6dd8d22d8f_story_1.html)

Obama will continue to face unyielding opposition from the tea party Republicans in the House and the Senate. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) made that clear Wednesday when he denounced the Senate compromise and praised those in the House whose opposition to the health-care law triggered the crisis.
The key now is whether the president has a strategy to govern around them by winning support from what he called the responsible Republicans.
Obama’s agenda
On Thursday, Obama called on Congress to focus on three priorities. But he offered few specifics about what he will ask and what he will give. Nor is it clear whether he has a strategy to win the support of some Republicans.
The first priority he talked about was the economy and the budget. Budget negotiations will resume with the goal of reaching an agreement by mid-December, lest the country face a repeat of what just happened.
Obama wants to replace the across-the-board spending reductions that have cut indiscriminately with more sensible spending priorities. He also says he is willing to negotiate over entitlements programs. He wants any agreement to include more revenue, although Republicans say he got his revenue package at the end of 2012. Republicans who opposed the shutdown (but quietly went along with it) are skeptical that Obama is truly willing to make concessions to get a satisfactory deal.
The two other legislative priorities the president cited were immigration reform and passage of the
AND
implementation has gotten off to a stumbling start, to put it mildly.
All of that is on the table. Meanwhile, there is a question of how engaged Obama will be in the grinding work of trying to produce compromise with potentially willing Republicans.

Winners don’t win, several reasons –

a) time-frame differential – takes too long to generate success – prefer our evidence, it is specific to Obama

*the timeframe differential for rebuilding capital is a framing issue – even if Obama can regenerate political capital in the long term, the empirical record proves that Obama loses massive amounts of political capital in the short-term obliterating his capability of passing agenda items – Health Care proves
Silber 07 ~PhD Political Science 26 Communication – focus on the Rhetoric of Presidential Policy-Making – Prof of Poli Sci – Samford, ~Marissa, WHAT MAKES A PRESIDENT QUACK?, Prepared for delivery at the 2007 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, August 30th-September 2nd, 2007, UNDERSTANDING LAME DUCK STATUS THROUGH THE EYES OF THE MEDIA AND POLITICIANS~

Important to the discussion of political capital is whether or not it can be replenished
AND
. Before determining this, a definition of a lame duck  President must be
developed.  

b) Obama cannot win – legislative wins don’t spillover

*prefer Obama specific evidence – even if other presidents are able to regenerate capital quickly, Obama cannot – every time Obama allocates political capital on unpopular legislation it turns into a journalistic convention of pointing fingers – makes it impossible to get legislation through
Todd Eberly 13 – is coordinator of Public Policy Studies and assistant professor in the Department of Political Science at St. Mary’s College of Maryland. His email is teeberly@smcm.edu. This article is excerpted from his book, co-authored with Steven Schier, "American Government and Popular Discontent: Stability without Success," to published later this year by Routledge Press., 1-21-2013 http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-01-21/news/bs-ed-political-capital-20130121_1_political-system-party-support-public-opinion/2

As Barack Obama prepares to be sworn in for the second time as president of
AND
the current president’s mind today as he takes his second oath of office.

c) doesn’t apply to the AFF – suddenly forcing a bill through doesn’t boost political capital – our links outweigh because the AFF overstretches

*fiat of the plan means you can’t access winners win – suddenly forcing a bill through Congress doesn’t boost political capital but obliterates Obama’s chance to use the bully pulpit to push controversial decisions
*fiat makes the plan sancrosanct – it circumvents the deliberative policymaking that is associated with passing contentious issues which is what all their "winners win" authors say is crucial to rebuilding capital
Ornstein 09 – resident scholar at AEI, PhD in political science from University of Michigan (Norman, "Is Obama Too Weak in Dealing with Congress?" 7/8/09, Roll Call, WEA)

If Congress were less dysfunctional—if the minority would actually engage in legislative compromise
AND
find a majority on the floor of either chamber, you get nowhere.

a) empirical studies prove political capital is key

*evidence filter – default to qualified professors on the theory of political capital rather than News Post Writers postulating on the failures of Obama – 2nc Beckmann and McGann evidence is from PhD professors in Political and Social Sciences
*political capital theory is real, several reasons – 1) presidents have the
AND
lack of influence – their evidence lacks this evidentiary modeling – prefer our evidence
Beckmann 26 McGann 08 – ~Matthew N. Beckmann, PhD and Associate Professor, Political Science School of Social Sciences at UC Irvine; Anthony J. McGann, Assistant Professor in the Political Science School of Social Sciences at UC Irvine, "NAVIGATING THE LEGISLATIVE DIVIDE POLARIZATION, PRESIDENTS, AND POLICYMAKING IN THE UNITED STATES," Journal of Theoretical Politics 20(2): 201–220~

In his seminal work on the presidency, Richard Neustadt (1960) cited the
AND
its conditional nature should provide more discriminating results and permit more judicious inferences.

Stuxnet disproves their impact defense

Clayton 10 – (Stuxnet ’virus’ could be altered to attack US facilities, report warns, December 12, 2010, http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/1215/Stuxnet-virus-could-be-altered-to-attack-US-facilities-report-warns) 

Stuxnet, a computer worm that hit and may have severely damaged Iranian nuclear facilities, is the type of cyberweapon that could broadly harm the United States, undermining both society and government ability to defend the nation, says a strongly worded report to Congress.
A successful broad-based attack on the US, using new variants of the Stuxnet weapon, could do enough widespread damage to critical infrastructure – including water, power, transportation, and other services – that it "threatens to cause harm to many activities deemed critical to the basic functioning of modern society," said the little-noticed report issued by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) Dec. 9.
If retooled slightly, Stuxnet could be directed to target a wide swath of critical infrastructure facilities, rather than a narrow target such as Iran’s nuclear fuel-enrichment facilities and nuclear power plant, the eight-page CRS synopsis warns, quoting researchers and other analysts.
IN PICTURES: Who has nukes?
"Depending on the severity of the attack, the interconnected nature of the affected critical infrastructure facilities, and government preparation and response plans, entities and individuals relying on these facilities could be without life sustaining or comforting services for a long period of time," the study’s summary states. "The resulting damage to the nation’s critical infrastructure could threaten many aspects of life, including the government’s ability to safeguard national security interests."
Terrorist groups, previously deemed not to have much independent ability to launch damaging cyberattacks, could potentially purchase or even rent a Stuxnet-based variant from organized crime groups to launch an infrastructure attack on the US, the report warns.
While some experts say the "cyber threat to critical infrastructure is exaggerated, regardless of the perpetrators’ capabilities," most such skepticism has been general in nature and does not factor in the new Stuxnet cyberweapon, the report says.
The report quotes Dr. Udo Helmbrecht, executive director of the European Network and Information Security Agency, as saying in October that "Stuxnet is really a paradigm shift, as Stuxnet is a new class and dimension of malware." He went on to call it a "first strike" weapon that is "one of the first organized, well prepared attacks against major industrial resources. This has tremendous effect on how to protect national (critical infrastructure) in the future."
Stuxnet news continues to ripple outward. On Dec. 4, a senior Iranian official blamed United Nations spies for helping to undermine Iran’s nuclear program, the Associated Press reported. Intelligence Minister Heidar Moslehi said International Atomic Energy Agency staffers had used spying, as part of a broader Western campaign against Iran’s nuclear facilities that included the Stuxnet attack, the AP report said.
Ralph Langner, an industrial control system expert who first detailed Stuxnet’s role as the world’s first cyberweapon able to destroy physical infrastructure, noted the damage to Iran’s facilities in an interview with the Jerusalem Post published Wednesday.
"It will take two years for Iran to get back on track," he said. "This was nearly as effective as a military strike, but even better since there are no fatalities and no full-blown war. From a military perspective, this was a huge success."

Tournament: Michigan | Round: 3 | Opponent: Niles West AT | Judge: Jon Voss
NOTE: Cites were lost, however if you're looking for them ask Colin at basco.colin.96@gmail.com --- he had the same debate at the Michigan RR vs. Theo and did the same stuff except read more cards.

Tournament: Michigan | Round: 5 | Opponent: Wayzata HL | Judge: Aaron Kall
Cuban sustainable urban agriculture is a global model that’s spurring worldwide adoption
Ergas, 13 – graduate student in sociology at the University of Oregon (Christina, Monthly Review, March, "Cuban Urban Agriculture as a Strategy for Food Sovereignty" http://monthlyreview.org/2013/03/01/cuban-urban-agriculture-as-a-strategy-for-food-sovereignty

The agricultural revolution in Cuba has ignited the imaginations of people all over the world
AND
and is worth investigating not just for their innovations, but for inspiration.

Lifting sanctions means agribusiness has a free hand to destroy Cuba’s ag model – maintaining sanctions are vital to resisting ag neoliberalism
Gonzalez, 4 - Associate Professor, Seattle University School of Law (Carmen, "WHITHER GOES CUBA? PROSPECTS FOR ECONOMIC 26 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT PART II OF II: Trade Liberalization, Food Security, and the Environment: The Neoliberal Threat to Sustainable Rural Development" 14 Transnat’l L. 26 Contemp. Probs. 419, lexis)

The greatest challenge to Cuba’s unique agricultural experiment is the eventual renewal of trade relations
AND
and ecological sustainability, and to explore alternative strategies for sustainable rural development.
Environmental collapse risks extinction
Ehrlich 26 Ehrlich 13 – Professor of Biology 26 Senior Research Scientist in Biology @ Stanford University (Paul R. Ehrlich (President of the Center for Conservation Biology @ Stanford University) 26 Anne H. Ehrlich, "Can a collapse of global civilization be avoided?," Proceedings of the Royal Society Biological Sciences, Proc. R. Soc. B 2013 280, published online 9 January 2013)HA

Virtually every past civilization has eventually undergone collapse, a loss of socio-political
AND
of the vast majority of people would disappear. pg. 1-2 

"Economic engagement" is limited to expanding economic ties.

Çelik 11 – Arda Can Çelik, Master’s Degree in Politics and International Studies from Uppsala University, Economic Sanctions and Engagement Policies, p. 11

Introduction
Economic engagement policies are strategic integration behaviour which involves with the target state. Engagement
AND
position of one state affects the position of others in the same direction.

This is only tangible trade and financial benefits – not the aff.

Haass 2k – Richard Haass 26 Meghan O’Sullivan, Senior Fellows in the Brookings Institution Foreign Policy Studies Program, Honey and Vinegar: Incentives, Sanctions, and Foreign Policy, p. 5-6
*plenty of neg flex
*most real world – policymaker’s choices

Architects of engagement strategies have a wide variety of incentives from which to choose.
AND
govern it rank among the most potent incentives in today’s global market.’
Similarly, political engagement can involve the lure of diplomatic recognition, access to regional
AND
of the incentives that might be offered under a policy of cultural engagement.
This brief overview of the various forms of engagement illuminates the choices open to policymakers
AND
a framework to guide the use of engagement strategies in the upcoming decades.

A general subject isn’t enough—debate requires a specific point of difference

Steinberg 26 Freeley 8 *Austin J. Freeley is a Boston based attorney who focuses on criminal, personal injury and civil rights law, AND David L. Steinberg , Lecturer of Communication Studies @ U Miami, Argumentation and Debate: Critical Thinking for Reasoned Decision Making pp45-
Debate is a means of settling differences, so there must be a difference of
AND
particular point of difference, which will be outlined in the following discussion.

Topical fairness requirements are key to effective dialogue—monopolizing strategy and prep makes the discussion one-sided and subverts any meaningful neg role

Galloway 7—Samford Comm prof (Ryan, Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, Vol. 28, 2007)
Debate as a dialogue sets an argumentative table, where all parties receive a relatively
AND
substitutes for topical action do not accrue the dialogical benefits of topical advocacy.

Substantive constraints on the debate are key to actualize effective pluralism and agonistic democracy

John Dryzek 6, Professor of Social and Political Theory, The Australian National University, Reconciling Pluralism and Consensus as Political Ideals, American Journal of Political Science,Vol. 50, No. 3, July 2006, Pp. 634–649
A more radical contemporary pluralism is suspicious of liberal and communitarian devices for reconciling difference
AND
ofliberal theory that looks neutral but in practice supports and serves the powerful.
Difference democrats are hostile to consensus, partly because consensus decisionmaking (of the sort
AND
which Young also subscribes; 2000, 49–51), Mouffe states:
To negate the ineradicable character of antagonism and aim at a universal rational consensus— that is the real threat to democracy. Indeed, this can lead to violence being unrecognized and hidden behind appeals to "rationality," as is often the case in liberal thinking. (1996, 248)
Mouffe is a radical pluralist: "By pluralism I mean the end of a
AND
respect" as "a critical pluralist ethos" (1999, 70).
Mouffe and Young both want pluralism to be regulated by a particular kind of attitude
AND
need principles to regulate the substance of what rightfully belongs in democratic debate. 

Constraints on deliberation are necessary to re-found the political—-an untamed agon eviscerates political action and judgment skills

Dana Villa 96—prof of political science, Amherst, Beyond Good and Evil: Arendt, Nietzsche, and the Aestheticization of Political Action, Political Theory, Vol. 20, No. 2 (May, 1992), pp. 274-308
The representative thinking made possible by disinterested judgment is Arendt’s Kantian version of
AND
conditions," thereby freeing us for the purely public aspect of the phenomenon.
The difference between genealogical "objectivity" and representative judgment, between the kind of
AND
in Nietzsche’s phrase, with the "yay and nay of the palate.""°
For Kant, the significance and implications of aesthetic distance are quite opposite. As
AND
Indeed, Kant describes taste itself as "a kind of sensus communism"
The aesthetic distance achieved by representative thought thus points to the "grounding" of
AND
look and sound, what we will see and what men will hear in
Kant’s theory of judgment thus opens a space between the false objectivism of
AND
Arendt’s opinion, because it preserves appearance and perspective without abolishing the world.
We can sum up the achievement of Kant’s theory of judgment by saying that it
AND
everyone else’ in the hope of coming to an agreement with him eventually.""°
Taste judgments are, in a word, redeemed deliberatively. Kant’s conception of aesthetic judgment—departing from the exchange of viewpoints necessary for representative thinking and culminating in the persuasive exchange that accompanies the rendering of each judgment—is thus, for Arendt, political through and through.’51 It requires an ongoing process of exchange and deliberation, one "without criteria," as Lyotard would say)"
This is yet another reason why Kantian taste judgment is the appropriate model for Arendt’s
AND
action and judgment but, at best. a kind of regulative ideal.
The turn to Kant thus enables Arendt to avoid the antipolitical tendencies encountered in the
AND
in validity to the degree that it has liberated itself from merely individual idiosyncrasiesm’
The agon is tamed, then, not by retreating from the aestheticization of action but by following its anti-Platonic impulse through to the end. The "completion" of the theory of action by a Kant-inspired theory of judgment retains the focus on action as something heroic or extraordinary, as beyond
good and evil. It does so, however, by shifting the emphasis from
AND
that Arendt draws between greatness and beauty in "The Crisis in Culture":
Generally speaking, culture indicates that the public realm, which is rendered politically secure
AND
world, all human life would be futile and no greatness could endure.
Arendtian aestheticism, an aestheticism predicated on a love of the world and which admires
AND
activity itself. The result is that performance is denigrated, action misconceived.
Nietzsche, of course, has even less use for homo faber than Arendt,
AND
in terms of what Lacoue-Labarthe calls a "mimetology," while Nietzsche
repudiates again and again all metaphors of correspondence or adequation, does not alter their
AND
by plurality and which enables the fullest, most articulated expression of difference.
CONCLUSION
Arendt resists the Habermasian temptation to seek quasi-transcendental standards of agreement in a
AND
reflexive discovery of rules in light of indeterminate, transcendent ideas of community"
The critique of Aristotelian/oommunitarian thinking is also applicable to the kind of postmodern
AND
problematic, but it does serve to underline the falseness of this dichotomy.
One may grant that Arendl’s aesthcticism avoids the trope of the fiction du polin’que,
AND
, than a recovery of ethos or the legislation of a proceduralist rationality.
"Hie simple answer to this objection is mat Arendt completely agrees. Her work stands not only as a comprehensive rethinking of the nature and meaning of political action but as an extended mediation on how the energies
of modernity have worked to dissipate our feeling for the world, to alienate us
AND
in which stable boundaries and distinctions have been dissolved and rendered virtually impossible.
The postmodernist will object that Arendtian aestheticism. unlike Nietzsche’s, mourns the loss of
AND
the possibility of meaning created by political action and redeemed by political judgment.

The impact outweighs—deliberative debate models impart skills vital to respond to existential threats

Christian O. Lundberg 10 Professor of Communications @ University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, "Tradition of Debate in North Carolina" in Navigating Opportunity: Policy Debate in the 21st Century By Allan D. Louden, p. 311

The second major problem with the critique that identifies a naivety in articulating debate and
AND
their time and political energies toward policies that matter the most to them.
The merits of debate as a tool for building democratic capacity-building take on
AND
navigate academic search databases and to effectively search and use other Web resources:
To analyze the self-report ratings of the instructional and control group students,
AND
searching, not just in academic databases. (Larkin 2005, 144)
Larkin’s study substantiates Thomas Worthcn and Gaylcn Pack’s (1992, 3) claim that
AND
cite and rely upon from an easily accessible and veritable cornucopia of materials.
There are, without a doubt, a number of important criticisms of employing debate
AND
to the possibilities of meaningful political engagement and new articulations of democratic life.
Expanding this practice is crucial, if only because the more we produce citizens that
AND
with the existential challenges to democracy ~in an~ increasingly complex world. 

While patriarchy has a large impact – it isn’t monolithic, nor unified
Hooper 1 Charlotte (University of Bristol research associate in politics), Manly States: Masculinities, International Relations, and Gender Politics pp 45-46. 

Spike Peterson and Anne Sisson Runyan (1993), in their discussion of  gendered dichotomies
AND
it as performing only an ideological or propagandistic role is also too simplistic.  
Rejection of the state accomplishes NOTHING – they need a pragmatic reimagination of politics to prevent failure of their movement
Pasha ’96 ~July-Sept. 1996, Mustapha Kamal, Professor and Chair of the Department of Politics and International Relations at the University of Aberdeen, "Security as Hegemony", Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 283-302, JSTOR~
An attack on the postcolonial state as the author of violence and its drive to produce a modern citizenry may seem cathartic, without producing the semblance of an alternative vision of a new political community or fresh forms of life among existing political communities. Central to this critique is an assault on the state and other modern institutions said to disrupt some putatively natural flow of history. Tradition, on this logic, is uprooted to make room for grafted social forms; modernity gives birth to an intolerant and insolent Leviathan, a repository of violence and instrumental rationality’s finest speci- men. Civil society - a realm of humaneness, vitality, creativity, and harmony - is superseded, then torn asunder through the tyranny of state-building. The attack on the institution of the state appears to substitute teleology for ontology. In the Third World context, especially, the rise of the modern state has been coterminous with the negation of past histories, cultures, identities, and above all with violence. The stubborn quest to construct the state as the fount of modernity has subverted extant communities and alternative forms of social organization. The more durable consequence of this project is in the realm of the political imaginary: the constrictions it has afforded; the denials of alternative futures. The postcolonial state, however, has also grown to become more heterodox - to become more than simply modernity’s reckless agent against hapless nativism. The state is also seen as an expression of greater capacities against want, hunger, and injustice; as an escape from the arbitrariness of communities established on narrower rules of inclusion/exclusion; as identity removed somewhat from capri- cious attachments. No doubt, the modern state has undermined tra- ditional values of tolerance and pluralism, subjecting indigenous so- ciety to Western-centered rationality. But tradition can also conceal particularism and oppression of another kind. Even the most elastic interpretation of universality cannot find virtue in attachments re- furbished by hatred, exclusivity, or religious bigotry. A negation of the state is no guarantee that a bridge to universality can be built. Perhaps the task is to rethink modernity, not to seek refuge in a blind celebration of tradition. Outside, the state continues to inflict a self-producing "security dilemma"; inside, it has stunted the emergence of more humane forms of political expres- sion. But there are always sites of resistance that can be recovered and sustained. A rejection of the state as a superfluous leftover of modernity that continues to straitjacket the South Asian imagination must be linked to the project of creating an ethical and humane order based on a restructuring of the state system that privileges the mighty and the rich over the weak and the poor.74 Recognizing the constrictions of the modern Third World state, a reconstruction of state-society re- lations inside the state appears to be a more fruitful avenue than wishing the state away, only to be swallowed by Western-centered globalization and its powerful institutions.A recognition of the patent failure of other institutions either to deliver the social good or to procure more just distributional rewards in the global political economy may provide a sobering reassessment of the role of the state. An appreciation of the scale of human tragedy accompanying the collapse of the state in many local contexts may also provide im- portant points of entry into rethinking the one-sided onslaught on the state. Nowhere are these costs borne more heavily than in the postcolonial, so-called Third World, where time-space compression has rendered societal processes more savage and less capable of ad- justing to rhythms dictated by globalization

Proves that the 1nc’s Ray evidence denies complex and interpersonal relationships
Crenshaw, PhD, 2
Carrie, PhD, Perspectives In Controversy: Selected Articles from CAD, Scholar
 Feminism is not dead. It is alive and well in intercollegiate debate.
AND
does not discount the importance of feminists to individual or societal consciousness raising. 

Their role of the ballot argument overextends the political by claiming that this debate space represents something more than a competition for a win. Arguing that the ballot carries discursive significance is the same logic as the discourse theory of citizenship which claims every action is political.

Rufo and Atchison 11 – (Ken Rufo, Ph.D. in Rhetoric from the University of Georgia, Jarrod Atchison, Ph.D. in Rhetoric from the University of Georgia, Review of Communication,  Vol. 11, No. 3, July 2011, pp. 193215)

Laclau (1996) has written about the inherent emptiness at the heart of the
AND
understand the citizen as epiphenomenal. This is to say that the citizen operates

T aff solves

William E. Scheuerman 4, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Minnesota, 2004, Liberal Democracy and the Social Acceleration of Time, p. 225-227

Social acceleration places many familiar legal and political concerns in a fresh light. A
AND
to situate the problem of social speed at the top of their agenda.
Perhaps it is fitting that my discussion of reflexive law tentatively raised the issue of
AND
cries out for transnational governance while simultaneously undermining normatively acceptable forms of it.
Fortunately, a formidable body of scholarly literature shows that many scholars are already busy
AND
might provide a better basis for regulating an increasingly high-speed capitalism?
If I am not mistaken, much more than the deepening of (existing)
AND
a real chance of successfully confronting the awesome problems posed by social acceleration?

/appears discursively as an after effect of our thinking of the political, or
AND
determination about the contours of politics can be left for others to decide.
Asen’s argument proceeds from an acknowledgment of the participation gap we noted previously, and
AND
.g., choosing a consumer good or debating with neighbors over dinner). 

. Overburdening research loads also gut participation in debate.

Rowland 84 (Robert C., Baylor U., "Topic Selection in Debate", American Forensics in Perspective. Ed. Parson, p. 53-4)

The first major problem identified by the work group as relating to topic selection is
AND
of broad topics that has led some small schools to cancel their programs.

Resolved requires a policy.

Louisiana House 05 3-8-2005, http://house.louisiana.gov/house-glossary.htm** 

Resolution  A legislative instrument that generally is used for making declarations,  stating policies, and making decisions where some other form is not  required. A bill includes the constitutionally required enacting clause; a  resolution uses the term "resolved". Not subject to a time limit for  introduction nor to governor’s veto. ( Const. Art. III, §17(B) and House  Rules 8.11 , 13.1 , 6.8 , and 7.4)

Should expresses desirability

Most predictable—the agent and verb indicate a debate about hypothetical government action

Jon M Ericson 3, Dean Emeritus of the College of Liberal Arts – California Polytechnic U., et al., The Debater’s Guide, Third Edition, p. 4
The Proposition of Policy: Urging Future Action In policy propositions, each topic contains
AND
compelling reasons for an audience to perform the future action that you propose. 

Limits turn exclusion – unlimited topics make it harder for small schools to keep up with big schools on research burdens.

Asen 02 – Assistant Professor of Communication at the University of Wisconsin (Robert, "Imagining in the Public Sphere" Philosophy 26 Rhetoric, 2002, Vol. 34 Issue 4) Ebsco

Attention to imagining reveals that including more and more voices in multiple public spheres—
AND
various forums may exclude potential participants in voice, body, and imagination.

Apocalyptic rhetoric motivates environmentalism.

Salvador and Norton 11 (Michael Salvador-http://www.tandfonline.com/action/doSearch?action=runSearch26type=advanced26result=true26prevSearch=2Bauthorsfield3A(Salvador2C+Michael) - Michael Salvador is an Associate Professor in the Edward R. Murrow College of Communication at Washington State University and Todd Norton-http://www.tandfonline.com/action/doSearch?action=runSearch26type=advanced26result=true26prevSearch=2Bauthorsfield3A(Norton2C+Todd) - Todd Norton is an Assistant Professor in the Edward R. Murrow College of Communication at Washington State University, "The Flood Myth in the Age of Global Climate Change," 2/18/11, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2010.544749-http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2010.544749) Gangeezy

For Killingsworth and Palmer (1996), use of apocalyptic rhetoric has shifted in response
AND
problem goes untreated’’ (Killingsworth 26 Palmer, 1996, p. 22).

Pre-requisite to solvency

Rufo and Atchison 11 – (Ken Rufo, Ph.D. in Rhetoric from the University of Georgia, Jarrod Atchison, Ph.D. in Rhetoric from the University of Georgia, Review of Communication,  Vol. 11, No. 3, July 2011, pp. 193215)

We believe Asen’s work, despite its many benefits and growing popularity, gives rise
AND
rather than enthusiasm, for it portends a political without end or outside. 

Aff fails —- alt solves

Saloom JD UGA, 6
Rachel, JD Univ of Georgia School of Law and M.A. in Middle Eastern Studies from U of Chicago, Fall 2006, A Feminist Inquiry into International Law and International Relations, 12 Roger Williams U. L. Rev. 159, Lexis
Because patriarchy is embedded within society, it is no surprise that the theory and
AND
question women’s ability to speak up, challenge, and change the system.

Biological differences aren’t the root cause

Guenther asst prof phil @ vandy 2010 (Lisa "Other Fecundities: Proust and Irigaray on Sexual Difference" Differences: A journal of feminst cultural studies Volume 21, Number 2)
While critical of Irigaray’s recent efforts to construct a foundational role for sexual duality,
AND
possibilities for their expression are limited only by our patience to discover them.

Their framework arguments cheapen the alt—we can’t tell them their wrong because of their gender, and that’s censorship—but they can tell us what we can say, because they have some privileged insight on reality—all perspectives are partial—otherwise you romanticize their status

Scott, 92 – professor of sociology at Princeton (Joan, "Multiculturalism and the Politics of Identity," The Identity in Question (Summer, 1992), pp. 12-19, JSTOR)

There is nothing wrong, on the face of it, with teaching individuals about how to behave decently in relation to others and about how to empathize with each other’s pain. The problem is that difficult analyses of how history and social standing, privilege, and subordination are involved in personal behavior entirely drop out. Chandra Mohanty puts it this way:
There has been an erosion of the politics of collectivity through the reformulation of race
AND
are seen as the only relevant and legitimate form of political struggle.5
Paradoxically, individuals then generalize their perceptions and claim to speak for a whole group, but the groups are also conceived as unitary and autonomous. This individualizing, personalizing conception has also been behind some of the recent identity politics of minorities; indeed it gave rise to the intolerant, doctrinaire behavior that was dubbed, initially by its internal critics, "political correctness."
It is particularly in the notion of "experience" that one sees this operating. In much current usage of "experience," references to structure and history are implied but not made explicit; instead, personal testimony of oppression re-places analysis, and this testimony comes to stand for the experience of the whole group. The fact of belonging to an identity group is taken as authority

MARKED

 enough for one’s speech; the direct experience of a group or culture-that is, membership in it-becomes the only test of true knowledge.
The exclusionary implications of this are twofold: all those not of the group are
AND
and deeming as discernably objective facts the prerequisites for inclusion in any group.

Tournament: St Marks | Round: Doubles | Opponent: GBS CM | Judge: Ryan Galloway, Val MacIntosh, Kevin McCaffrey
Chinese influence in Cuba is high now.
Xinhua 7/24 (7/24/13, "Chinese leader stresses close ties with Cuba," http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90883/8340137.html)//DR. H

Chinese leader Liu Yunshan said
AND
 and the Communist Party of Cuba.

Changes in US-Cuba policy effect overall influence in Latin America – crowds China out.
Doherty 8 (Patrick, "An Obama Policy for Cuba," McClathy Newspapers, December 12, cuba.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2008/obama_policy_cuba_9301)

With his national security team in place, President-elect Barack Obama~’s
AND
Hugo Chavez, drugs, immigration, energy insecurity - will simply fester.

Chinese influence in Latin America is key to maintain their economic growth.
Arnson et al. ~’9 (Cynthia Anderson, Mark Mohr, Riordan Roett, writers for Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, "Enter the Dragon? China~’s Presence in Latin America", http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/EnterDragonFinal.pdf) (JN)

China~’s role in Latin America is, above all, based on trade
AND
region. Thus, Latin America represents a substantial market for Chinese goods.

Chinese economic decline causes great power war.
Kane 01 ~~~Thomas Kane, PhD in Security Studies from the University of Hull 26 Lawrence Serewicz, Autumn, http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/01autumn/Kane.htm~~~~~~

Despite China~’s problems with its food supply, the Chinese do not appear
AND
’s government might try to ward off its demise by attacking adjacent countries.

Embargo limits drilling now – plan unlocks large-scale Cuban production.
Padgett ~’8
Tim Padgett joined TIME in 1996 as Mexico City bureau chief covering Latin America.
AND
Alvarado, a Cuba oil analyst at the University of Nebraska-Omaha.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,¶ 1853252,00.html~~23ixzz13Li5cosN 

The Spanish energy company Repsol-YPF has entered into a production-sharing agreement
AND
able to do it to the extent the Cubans need are the Americans."

That trades-off with US- Mid-East oil ties.
Alhaiji and Maris ~’4
~~~Dr. A. F. Alhajji is an energy economist and George Patton Chair of Business and Economics at the College of Business Administration at Ohio Northern, Terry L. Maris is the founding executive director of the Center for Cuban. Business Studies and professor of management, "The Future of Cuba~’s Energy Sector," Cuba Today, 2004, http://web.gc.cuny.edu/dept/bildn/publications/cubatodaybookcomplete.pdf~~~~23page=105~~~~~~

The current economic, political, and social trends in Cuba indicate that¶ energy
AND
the US and other oil producing countries, especially in the Middle East.

That causes Saudi Prolif.
Guzansky ~’13
Yoel Guzansky is a fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies, Tel Aviv University. His main research area is Gulf security. He has also served as Iran coordinator at Israel~’s National Security Council. His recent publications include The Gulf States in a Changing Strategic Environment (2012), One Year of the Arab Spring: Global and Regional Implications, and The Gulf States: Between Iran and the West – Middle East Quarterly¶ Spring 2013, pp. 59-64 – available at: http://www.meforum.org/3512/saudi-arabia-pakistan-nuclear-weapon

Continued Iranian progress toward a nuclear weapon, Iraq~’s increasing alignment with Tehran
AND
, to reduce risks and ensure the continuity of the House of Saud.

Saudi prolif causes nuclear war.
Edelman ~’11
(Eric –Distinguished Fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments 26 Former U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Foreign Affairs, Jan/Feb, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67162/eric-s-edelman-andrew-f-krepinevich-jr-and-evan-braden-montgomer/the-dangers-of-a-nuclear-iran)
There is, however, at least one state that could receive significant outside support
AND
Middle East could lead to a new Great Game, with unpredictable consequences.

A. Interpretation - ~’Its~’ is a possessive pronoun showing ownership
Glossary of English Grammar Terms, 2005  
(http://www.usingenglish.com/glossary/possessive-pronoun.html)

Mine, yours, his, hers, its, ours, theirs are the possessive pronouns used to substitute a noun and to show possession or ownership.
EG. This is your disk and that~’s mine. (Mine substitutes the word disk and shows that it belongs to me.)

B. Violation – the plan results in an increase in Cuba and the private sector~’s economic engagement – not USFG economic engagement.  There~’s a difference
Daga, 13 - director of research at Politicas Publicas para la Libertad, in Bolivia, and a visiting senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation (Sergio, "Economics of the 2013-2014 Debate Topic:
U.S. Economic Engagement Toward Cuba, Mexico or Venezuela", National Center for Policy Analysis, 5/15, http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Message_to_Debaters_6-7-13.pdf)

Economic engagement between or among countries can take many forms, but this document will
AND
some issues are more important with respect to some countries than to others.

C. Voting issue – 

1.  limits –offering for Cuba to engage allows for thousands of single commodity affs that would be topical—there are also infinite private actors that could export or import from Cuba

2. negative ground – the offer avoids core neg generics— means we lose good links to diplomatic capital, politics, USFG action based CPs, and critiques

Text: The People~’s Republic of China (PRC) should substantially increase its investment in Cuba including investment and the PRC should open its markets to the Cuban agriculture sector.

CP solves.
Hsiang 09 (Antonio C. Hsiang, Associate Professor at Chihlee Institute of Technology in Taiwan China Rising in Latin America: More Opportunities than Challenges" Journal of Emerging Knowledge on Emerging Markets, Volume 1 issue 1 November 2009)-Karla

Because "many Latin American countries no longer look to Washington leadership," the so
AND
concern with political stability and strong government to guide the development process." 33
Text: The government of the People~’s Republic of China should deploy large-scale atmospheric carbon-capture systems to address global emissions, construct and maintain self-sufficient, global, remote, permanently occupied refuges meant to protect humanity from extinction events, support the cultivation and distribution of natural history collections modeled on the Darwin Initiative. The United States federal government should not militarily intervene in Cuba.

The counterplan solves for warming – new polyethylenimine material discoveries make it possible
Dillow 12 – staff writer, Popular Science (Jan 2012, Clay, http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-01/new-material-can-pull-carbon-dioxide-right-out-air-unprecedented-rates)JCP

If cleaning carbon dioxide from the atmosphere was easy, we~’d already be
AND
researchers may have just found a solution for via an inexpensive polymeric material.
Reporting their findings in the Journal of the American Chemical Society, the team (which includes a Nobel laureate in chemistry) descirbes a new solid material based on polyethylenimine that can be used to capture carbon dioxide at the source—be that an industrial smokestack or a car~’s exhaust pipe—under real-world conditions where the air contains moisture.
Science, Clay Dillow, carbon capture, carbon dioxide, carbon sequestration, energy
AND
dioxide removal rates of any material ever tested in the presence of humidity.
It~’s also reusable. After capturing carbon, the material also gives it
AND
we humans do that are contributing to the carbon glut in the atmosphere.

History plank solves.
James et al 11, Postdoctoral researcher at the Natural History Museum in London, ~~~ February,  Karen E. James, Adrian M. Lister, Ellinor Michel, Mark Spencer, Jonathan A. Todd, Eugenia Valsami-Jones, Jeremy R. Young, John R. Stewart, Climate Change and Biosphere Response: Unlocking the Collections Vault ~~~
 
Over the past few decades, ecologists have been using data from repeated surveys,
AND
is invaluable when resources are limited and the need for results is urgent.

CP prevents the worst effects of warming.
Matheny 07 Jason G., Research Associate at the Future of Human Institute at Oxford University, Ph.D. Candidate in Applied Economics at Johns Hopkins University, holds a Master~’s in Public Health from the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University and an M.B.A. from the Fuqua School of Business at Duke University, 2007 ("Reducing the Risk of Human Extinction," Risk Analysis, Volume 27, Issue 5, October, Available Online at http://jgmatheny.org/matheny_extinction_risk.htm, Accessed 07-04-2011)

Perhaps more cost effective than building refuges in space would be building them on Earth
AND
to repopulate Earth, this would be a small setback compared to extinction.

Immigration is Obama~’s top priority, it will pass and capital is key
Matthews, 10/16/13 (Laura, International Business Times, "2013 Immigration Reform Bill: ~’I~’m Going To Push To Call A Vote,~’ Says Obama2013 Immigration Reform Bill: ~’I~’m Going To Push To Call A Vote,~’ Says Obama" http://www.ibtimes.com/2013-immigration-reform-bill-im-going-push-call-vote-says-obama-1429220)

When Congress finally passes a bipartisan bill that kicks the fiscal battles over to early next year, the spotlight could return to comprehensive immigration reform before 2013 ends.
At least that~’s the hope of President Barack Obama and his fellow Chicagoan Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., chairman of the Immigration Task Force of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and one of the most vocal advocates for immigration reform in the House of Representatives.
"When we emerge from this crazy partisan eruption from the Republicans, there will be a huge incentive for sensible Republicans who want to repair some of the damage they have done to themselves," Gutierrez said in a statement. "Immigration reform remains the one issue popular with both Democratic and Republican voters on which the two parties can work together to deliver real, substantive solutions in the Congress this year."
Reforming the status quo has consistently been favored by a majority of Americans. Earlier
AND
skilled visas (71 percent) and increased border security (68 percent).
The Senate passed its version of a 2013 immigration reform bill in June that includes, but is not limited to, a pathway to citizenship for immigrants without documentation and doubling security on the southern border. But that measure has stalled in the House, where Republicans are adamant they will take a piecemeal approach.
The momentum that lawmakers showed for reform has been sapped by the stalemate that that has shut down the government for 16 days and brought the U.S. to the brink of default. The Senate has agreed on Wednesday to a bipartisan solution to break the gridlock.
When the shutdown and default threat is resolved (for a time), that~’s when Obama will renew his push to get Congress to move on immigration reform. On Tuesday the president said reform will become his top priority.
"Once that~’s done, you know, the day after, I~’m going to be pushing to say, call a vote on immigration reform," Obama told Univision affiliate KMEX-TV in Los Angeles. "And if I have to join with other advocates and continue to speak out on that, and keep pushing, I~’m going to do so because I think it~’s really important for the country. And now is the time to do it."
The president pointed the finger at House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, for not allowing the bill to be brought to the floor for a vote. Boehner had promised that the Senate~’s bill would not be voted on unless a majority of the majority in the House supports it — the same principle he was holding out for on the government shutdown before he gave in.
"We had a very strong Democratic and Republican vote in the Senate," Obama said. "The only thing right now that~’s holding it back is, again, Speaker Boehner not willing to call the bill on the floor of the House of Representatives. So we~’re going to have to get through this crisis that was unnecessary, that was created because of the obsession of a small faction of the Republican Party on the Affordable Care Act."
Republicans are opposing the Democratic view of immigration reform because of its inclusion of a 13-year path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. They said this amounted to "amnesty." Some Republicans prefer to give them legal resident status instead.
Immigration advocates have also been urging Obama to use his executive authority to halt the more than 1,000 deportations taking place daily. Like the activists, Gutierrez said the government shutdown didn~’t do anything to slow the number of daily deportations.
Some Republicans who welcomed Sen. Ted Cruz~’s filibuster over Obamacare because it shifted the focus from immigration.
"If Ted ~~~didn~’t~~~ spin the filibuster, if we don~’t make this the focus, we had already heard what was coming," Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, told Fox News on Tuesday. "As soon as we got beyond this summer, we were going to have an amnesty bill come to the floor. That~’s what we would have been talking about. And that~’s where the pivot would have been if we had not focused America on Obamacare."
Still, pro-immigration advocates are hopeful they can attain their goal soon. "With more prodding from the president and the American people," Gutierrez said, "we can get immigration reform legislation passed in the House and signed into law."

Drains capital – Backlash and hostage taking on unrelated priority legislation is empirically proven, likely in future and specifically true for Rubio  – Cuba policy is totally unique
LeoGrande, 12
William M. LeoGrande School of Public Affairs American University, Professor of Government and a specialist in Latin American politics and U.S. foreign policy toward Latin America, Professor LeoGrande has been a frequent adviser to government and private sector agencies, 12/18/12, http://www.american.edu/clals/upload/LeoGrande-Fresh-Start.pdf

The Second Obama Administration Where in the executive branch will control over Cuba policy lie
AND
rarely happen unless the urgency of the problem forces policymakers to take action.
Immigration reform generates an effective base of IT experts - solves cyberterror
*top 20 firms conclude H1-B visa requestors are oversees – increasing IT experts, the majority of which are overseas, cannot come to the US, talented students that have tremendous ability to develop tech and scientific advances don~’t have the ability to come to the US – collapses response mechanisms
McLarty 09 – (Thomas F. III, President – McLarty Associates and Former White House Chief of Staff and Task Force Co-Chair, "U.S. Immigration Policy: Report of a CFR-Sponsored Independent Task Force", 7-8, http://www.cfr.org/ publication/19759/us_immigration_policy.html) 

We have seen, when you look at the table of the top 20 firms
AND
going to strengthen, I think, our system, our security needs.

A successful cyber-attack ensures accidental nuclear war
Fritz 09 – (Jason, BS – St. Cloud, "Hacking Nuclear Command and Control", Study Commissioned on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament, July, www.icnnd.org/Documents/Jason_Fritz_Hacking_NC2.doc)

The US uses the two-man rule to achieve a higher level of
AND
of mass DDoS attacks, real world protests, and accusations between governments.

Taiwan war won~’t happen since nobody cares anymore.  They ignore new political shifts
Saunders and Kastner 09 – *Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for National Strategic Studies at the National
Defense University, *Assistant Professor in the Department of Government and Politics
at the University of Maryland and former China Security Fellow at the Institute for National
Strategic Studies (Phillip and Scott, International Security, 33.4, "Bridge over troubled water? Envisioning a China-Taiwan peace agreement", http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/isec.2009.33.4.87, WEA)

Most observers agree that the issue of Taiwan~’s status is not ripe for
AND
goal of deterring Taiwan independence, postponing unification into the indefinite future.3
On Taiwan, public opinion polls consistently show strong (more than 75 percent)
AND
Ma reiterated these points in his May 20, 2008, inaugural address.
Collectively, these positions suggest that China and Taiwan may be prepared to defer the
AND
semiofficial bodies that previously served as vehicles for cross-strait dialogue.10 

Cuban economy improving now – newest reforms sufficient
AFP 9/26 American Free Press (26 SEPTEMBER 2013 Cuba expands list of allowed private sector jobs ~~http://www.france24.com/en/20130926-cuba-expands-list-allowed-private-sector-jobs-http://www.france24.com/en/20130926-cuba-expands-list-allowed-private-sector-jobs~~~~)  czhang
AFP - Cuba on Thursday expanded the list of occupations open to the communist-
AND
including deep projected cuts in the number of workers employed by the state.
Internal Link Turn – Lifting the embargo makes the situation worse for a laundry list of reasons
Suchlicki 2k, Director of the Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies at the University of Miami, 00 (Jaime, 6/2000, University of Miami, "The U.S. Embargo of Cuba," http://www6.miami.edu/iccas/USEmbargo.pdf, p. 2-4, accessed 6/24/13, IC)

Introduction ¶ Opponents of U.S. policy toward Cuba claim that if the
AND
and ¶ reward him with tourism, investments, and economic aid. ¶
Status quo solves FDI – New Panama Canal lures
Frank 9/23 writer at Reuters (Marc, "Cuba bids to lure foreign investment with new port and trade zone Sep 23, 2013~~http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/23/us-cuba-investment-idUSBRE98M12H20130923-http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/23/us-cuba-investment-idUSBRE98M12H20130923~~~~)  czhang
(Reuters) - Cuba published rules and regulations on Monday governing its first special
AND
0.5 percent of income to a zone maintenance and development fund.
No risk of a biodiversity impact.
Pearce, 6/3 – author and journalist (Fred, "Humans Have Shaped Earth for Millenia," The Breakthrough, 6/3/13, http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/conservation-and-development/humanitys-pervasive-environmental-influence-began-long-ago/, SMS)

Are there any pristine ecosystems out there? The evidence is growing that our ideas
AND
after a few decades, native trees species have started to recover too.

AG sustainable
Kost, 4 – agricultural economist, Specialty Crops Branch, Economic Research. Service, US Department of Agriculture (William, "CUBAN AGRICULTURE: TO BE OR NOT TO BE ORGANIC?" http://www.ascecuba.org/publications/proceedings/volume14/pdfs/kost.pdf)

Even without an organic approach to food production, is Cuba~’s urban gardening
AND
, fewer and fewer urban gardens would remain producing for the urban markets.
At the same time, economic growth in Cuba should make commercial agriculture enterprises more
AND
role in providing a substantial portion of urban consumers~’ food needs. 

Our interpretation is that economic engagement must be between two governments – that~’s Daga – they violate this because the plan engages with non-governmental organizations – that~’s a voting issue to preserve limits.
Department of State 12 (U.S. Department of State, "Fact Sheet: Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in the United States", January 12, 2012, http://www.humanrights.gov/2012/01/12/fact-sheet-non-governmental-organizations-ngos-in-the-united-states/, DTB)

Approximately 1.5 million NGOs operate in the United States. These NGOs undertake
AND
, whether that foreign funding comes from governments or non-government sources.

Good is not good enough –
Resnick 01 – Dr. Evan Resnick, Ph.D. in Political Science from Columbia University, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Yeshiva University, "Defining Engagement", Journal of International Affairs, Spring, 54(2), Ebsco

CONCLUSION
In matters of national security, establishing a clear definition of terms is a precondition
AND
"engagement," they undermine the ability to build an effective foreign policy.

You MUST be able to establish a theoretical baseline for topicality evaluating anything else – "knowing it when you see it" is an awful standard
Hayden 13 (Dr. Craig Hayden is an assistant professor in the International Communication Program at American University~’s School of International Service. "Engagement" is More Convenient than Helpful: Dissecting a Public Diplomacy Term.", ~~http://intermap.org/2013/06/20/engagement-is-more-convenient-than-helpful-dissecting-a-public-diplomacy-term/-http://intermap.org/2013/06/20/engagement-is-more-convenient-than-helpful-dissecting-a-public-diplomacy-term/~~~~
The term engagement matters because it implies a specific practice, to facilitate a certain objective or outcome, and yet it doesn~’t actually identify a practice. And as Wallin notes, it~’s hard to discern engagement in relation to public diplomacy if we don~’t have some standards or definition. Public diplomacy watchers and scholars may "know it when they see it," but I~’m not sure how this helps provide constructive critique.
Limits enable creativity.
Flood 10 (Scott, BS in Communication and Theatre Arts – St. Joseph~’s College, School Board Member – Plainfield Community School Corporation, and Advertising Agent, "Business Innovation – Real Creativity Happens Inside the Box", http://ezinearticles.com\/?Business-Innovation—-Real-Creativity-Happens-Inside-the-Box26id=4793692) 

It seems that we can accomplish anything if we~’re brave enough to step
AND
solution may very well be lurking in a corner of that familiar box.

Carbon removal can solve for warming globally – the location is irrelevant and cheap land and labor can make it cost-competitive
Gunther 12 - contributing editor at Fortune, a senior writer at Greenbiz.com (Marc, Feb 2012, "Rethinking Carbon Dioxide: From a Pollutant to an Asset," http://e360.yale.edu/feature/geoengineering_carbon_dioxide_removal_technology_from_pollutant_to_asset/2498/)JCP

Because greenhouse gases are dispersed around the globe, air capture can be done anywhere
AND
those at once," he says, "we~’re printing money."
What this means for the environment is that carbon pollution need not be cleaned up
AND
absorb dispersed emissions from cars, trucks, trains, ships or planes.
It~’s an exciting prospect, at least in theory. But remember —
AND
removal of about 8 gigatons, or 8 billion tons, of CO2.
c) ICAO proves —- China invited Taiwan —- no longer interested in isolation because they want to support Ma.
Bloomberg, 9/27/2013. "Taiwan Makes a Breakthrough—Thanks to China," Bruce Einhorn, http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-09-27/taiwan-makes-a-breakthrough-thanks-to-china.

It~’s one of the obscure arms of the United Nations, but the International Civil Aviation Organization is the venue for a breakthrough in the decades-long rivalry between China~’s Communists and Taiwan~’s Nationalists. The ICAO is meeting in Montreal for an assembly scheduled to last until Oct. 4. And for the first time since the UN kicked out Chiang Kai-shek~’s Taiwan-based Republic of China in 1971, there is a Taiwanese representative in attendance.
For Taiwan, long accustomed to international isolation, this is a major development. The island has diplomatic relations with ~~only 23 countries-http://www.ey.gov.tw/en/cp.aspx?n=59750F1C600BAD33~~~~. The most significant is the Vatican, which has long been at odds with the People~’s Republic of China over the Communist government~’s hostility to the Catholic Church. The other governments that recognize Taiwan are poor and small, mostly in Latin America and the Caribbean as well as a few in Africa and Oceania.
The Taiwanese have been trying for years to break out of their diplomatic isolation and have targeted the ICAO. The success winning "international support for Taiwan~’s meaningful participation is greatly appreciated," Taiwanese~~transportation minister Yeh Kuang-Shih-http://www.motc.gov.tw/en/home.jsp?id=24626parentpath=0,150~~ wrote in a column in ~~Aviation Week-http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_09_23_2013_p66-616974.xml~~~~. "Taiwan has for many years strived to participate in ICAO. Our call for inclusion in the organization has been acknowledged around the world."
The U.S., which switched recognition from Taipei to Beijing in the Carter administration, has welcomed the move, too. The Obama administration is "encouraged to see that this arrangement was reached through international cooperation and appreciate the flexibility and support of both ICAO and its members," the State Department ~~said in a statement-http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2013/09/214658.htm~~~~. "We continue to support Taiwan~’s meaningful participation in multilateral organizations that do not require statehood for membership."
Taiwan can thank an unlikely champion for its ICAO breakthrough. Taiwan got invited to Montreal only because the government in Beijing agreed to allow the island to take part as a guest under the name Chinese Taipei, the same name Taiwan~’s athletes use when participating in the Olympics. According to a report in the Taiwan-based English-language newspaper ~~China Post,-http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/foreign-affairs/2013/09/26/389817/ICAO-president.htm~~~~ ICAO Council President Roberto Kobeh González yesterday said he invited Taiwan because of China~’s suggestion.

MARKED

For China, the Montreal invite is a fairly pain-free way to show
AND
the chances of a DPP government would likely be worthwhile for the Communists.
Status quo solves FDI – New Panama Canal lures
Frank 9/23 writer at Reuters (Marc, "Cuba bids to lure foreign investment with new port and trade zone Sep 23, 2013~~http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/23/us-cuba-investment-idUSBRE98M12H20130923-http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/23/us-cuba-investment-idUSBRE98M12H20130923~~~~)  czhang
(Reuters) - Cuba published rules and regulations on Monday governing its first special
AND
0.5 percent of income to a zone maintenance and development fund.
None of your evidence assumes the renovated Panama Canal – it~’s a framing issue – it~’s attracting large flows of FDI right now
US is not key – other countries currently provide sufficient FDI for Cuban reforms
Frank, 10/3 (Marc, Cuba~’s new port offers a small opening to the global economy October 3, 2013, ~~http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/bc2f5a54-2ab5-11e3-ade3-00144feab7de.html~~~~23axzz2hHxAepI5-http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/bc2f5a54-2ab5-11e3-ade3-00144feab7de.html~~~~)  czhang
When Havana hosts its annual international trade jamboree next month, officials will be sure to tout Cuba~’s new container terminal and free-trade zone – the communist island~’s first strategic push to join the international economy in decades. Furthermore, although Havana usually treats the trade fair as a chance to thumb its nose at the US, this year the new port may change the usual playbook. That is because the ambitious 24900m scheme, built at Mariel port on Cuba~’s northern coast and just 120 miles from Florida, seems predicated on an end to the 53-year-old ~~US embargo-http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/8e1be67e-febd-11e2-97dc-00144feabdc0.html~~~~. As there is no sign of that happening soon, despite some signs that ~~Cuba-http://www.ft.com/topics/places/Cuba~~~~ wants a more pragmatic relationship with the US, analysts say Havana will instead have to count on friendly governments in the region and Asia to compensate for this apparent hole in the project~’s business model – at least during its first phases. "The United States is the obvious market for Mariel~’s FTZ exports and trans-shipments," said Richard Feinberg, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and author of several Cuban studies. "In the meantime, friendly governments, such as Brazil, Mexico, China, and Singapore, may incentivise modest investments by their firms." The Mariel container terminal, built by Brazilian construction company Odebrecht, part-financed by Brazilian development loans and operated by Singapore~’s PSA, is part of a larger scheme that will take over all of the facilities at Havana~’s ageing port, and see the Havana Bay transformed into what could be a spectacular tourism and recreational playground. But it also reflects broader changes sweeping the Caribbean and American seaboards. The ~~widening of the Panama Canal-http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4421a786-ad9e-11e2-82b8-00144feabdc0.html~~~~ is prompting many regional port authorities to upgrade facilities in order to accommodate larger container ships. Mariel~’s bay has been dredged to accommodate ships with twice the draft of the Havana port, while Mariel~’s port itself, 28 miles from the capital, will have 700m of berth and capacity of up to 1m containers, three times Havana~’s.

turns transition.
Kayyem 13
~~~Juliette, columnist at The Boston Globe, writing national security and foreign affairs, "Immigration Reform after Hugo Chavez," New York Times News Service, Hawaii Tribune Herald, 3/10/13, ~~http://hawaiitribune-herald.com/sections/commentary/their-views/immigration-reform-after-hugo-chavez.html-http://hawaiitribune-herald.com/sections/commentary/their-views/immigration-reform-after-hugo-chavez.html~~~~~~~~~~

The United States, which is comprehensively reassessing its immigration policies, has the capacity
AND
dead. The Castros are exiting the stage. America should move on.

turns warming
Meija 9 (Robert, Employment Services Manager at South Bay Workforce Investment Board, City University of New York-Baruch College , "What~’s Old is New: Green Jobs 26 What America~’s Federal Workforce Investment System Can Do Now to Develop a Green Workforce", 1/14/09, www.southbayresource.net/articles/whatsoldisnew.pdf, tables, charts, and graphs omitted)

In addition to adaptation, science, technology and innovation may prove to be our
AND
sector organizations to provide career and academic support, will make a difference.

turns ag
Serrano, 12 -  Senior Editor at TIME.com (Alfonso, "Bitter Harvest: U.S. Farmers Blame Billion-Dollar Losses on Immigration Laws" 9/21, http://business.time.com/2012/09/21/bitter-harvest-u-s-farmers-blame-billion-dollar-losses-on-immigration-laws/~~~~23ixzz2QJ33CWwU

The Broetjes and an increasing number of farmers across the country say that a complex
AND
, as farmers have struggled to compensate for labor shortages with domestic help.
"The enforcement of immigration policy has devastated the skilled-labor source that we
AND
of business if Congress doesn~’t step up and do immigration reform."
Roughly 70 of the 1.2 million people employed by the agriculture industry are undocumented. No U.S. industry is more dependent on undocumented immigrants. But acute labor shortages brought on by anti-immigration measures threaten to heap record losses on an industry emerging from years of stiff foreign competition. Nationwide, labor shortages will result in losses of up to 249 billion, according to the American Farm Bureau Federation.
 "As long as the labor supply solutions are there, we can support the enforcement solutions," Regelbrugge said.

Here~’s a crucial framing issue – view uniqueness how GOP moderates and the leadership will act – not the conservative base.  Capital is key – Obama~’s direct engagement is vital to a compromise
Balz, 10/17/13 (Dan, Washington Post, "Can Obama seize the moment and make Washington work?" ~~http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/can-obama-seize-the-moment-to-make-washington-work/2013/10/17/d84c1934-3753-11e3-80c6-7e6dd8d22d8f_story_1.html-http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/can-obama-seize-the-moment-to-make-washington-work/2013/10/17/d84c1934-3753-11e3-80c6-7e6dd8d22d8f_story_1.html~~~~)

Obama will continue to face unyielding opposition from the tea party Republicans in the House and the Senate. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) made that clear Wednesday when he denounced the Senate compromise and praised those in the House whose opposition to the health-care law triggered the crisis.
The key now is whether the president has a strategy to govern around them by winning support from what he called the responsible Republicans.
Obama~’s agenda
On Thursday, Obama called on Congress to focus on three priorities. But he offered few specifics about what he will ask and what he will give. Nor is it clear whether he has a strategy to win the support of some Republicans.
The first priority he talked about was the economy and the budget. Budget negotiations will resume with the goal of reaching an agreement by mid-December, lest the country face a repeat of what just happened.
Obama wants to replace the across-the-board spending reductions that have cut indiscriminately with more sensible spending priorities. He also says he is willing to negotiate over entitlements programs. He wants any agreement to include more revenue, although Republicans say he got his revenue package at the end of 2012. Republicans who opposed the shutdown (but quietly went along with it) are skeptical that Obama is truly willing to make concessions to get a satisfactory deal.
The two other legislative priorities the president cited were immigration reform and passage of the
AND
implementation has gotten off to a stumbling start, to put it mildly.
All of that is on the table. Meanwhile, there is a question of how engaged Obama will be in the grinding work of trying to produce compromise with potentially willing Republicans.

(at: Labrador) This is especially true of their uniqueness evidence which quotes Labrador as the main warrant for why immigration won~’t pass – he~’s a Tea Party conservative
Gomez, 10/17/13 (Alan, USA Today, "Shutdown over, Democrats say immigration is next"
~~http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/10/17/government-shutdown-shift-immigration-reform/3000575/-http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/10/17/government-shutdown-shift-immigration-reform/3000575/~~~~

Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, a Tea Party conservative who was once a member of a bipartisan House group that tried to draft a broad immigration bill, said the prospects for even smaller bills are slim in the House.

More warrants

1. Boehner will waive the Hastert rule on CIR if Obama can win moderate GOP support
   Gomez, 10/17/13 (Alan, USA Today, "Shutdown over, Democrats say immigration is next"
   ~~http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/10/17/government-shutdown-shift-immigration-reform/3000575/-http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/10/17/government-shutdown-shift-immigration-reform/3000575/~~~~

Democrats in the House saw something else going on Wednesday.
In the end, the Affordable Care Act was not delayed or dismantled and House Republicans agreed to raise the nation~’s 2416.7 trillion debt ceiling.
"You could hear the hissing sound of the pent-up, perceived power being relieved," said Rep. Joe Garcia, D-Fla., who filed the House version of a sweeping immigration bill that has now garnered 182 Democratic co-sponsors.
Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., one of the main proponents of getting an immigration bill through Congress, is looking to history for signs of optimism that the House can pass something.
Gutierrez was in the House during the last government shutdown in 1996, and he says Republicans emerged from the damaging closure scurrying to pass "big things" to show the country they could get things done. In the aftermath of that shutdown, the government passed welfare reform, the sweeping Kennedy-Kassebaum health care law and an increase in the minimum wage.
"It was in people~’s self-interest to pass some good stuff," Gutierrez said. "That~’s what~’s going to drive a lot of what goes on around here."
Rep. Xavier Becerra, R-Calif., chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, looks to more recent examples for hope. He said Boehner has violated the so-called ~’Hastert Rule~’ — requiring support from a majority of the majority party in the House before a bill can come to the floor — on several votes that were critical, including emergency relief for victims of Superstorm Sandy.
Becerra sees a similar situation developing on immigration, where the vast majority of Democrats and a small number of Republicans could pass a bill through the House.
"Once again, the speaker for the majority party is going to be placed in a position of deciding whether he~’s going to put country before party and get something done," Becerra said. "We just need a few courageous Republicans to stand up and say they~’re ready."
2. PC assembles a centrist coalition
Nicholas, 10/17/13 (Peter, Wall Street Journal, "Obama~’s Agenda Faces Rocky Road" ~~http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303680404579141472200495820-http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303680404579141472200495820~~~~)

Some Democrats, meanwhile, believe Mr. Obama must be a more active player in looming fights. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) said in an interview Mr. Obama "stepped back" in part because he felt "burned" by the grinding budget fights that have played out over the past three years.
"I hope that changes, because you do need presidential leadership on these" issues, she said. In "three or four months, we could be back in the same place, and we can~’t let ourselves be back in the same place," she said.
Mr. Obama suggested Thursday he was willing to negotiate on a range of issues, consistent with his message during the budget fight that he was prepared to bargain with lawmakers once the government was reopened and the debt ceiling raised.
Mr. Obama may find some consolation in the House vote Wednesday. In the end, 87 House Republicans voted the president~’s way on the debt bill. More than 17 of them hailed from districts Mr. Obama carried in 2012, suggesting a potential way forward for a president eager to assemble a centrist coalition.
a) time-frame differential – takes too long to generate success – prefer our evidence, it is specific to Obama
*the timeframe differential for rebuilding capital is a framing issue – even if Obama can regenerate political capital in the long term, the empirical record proves that Obama loses massive amounts of political capital in the short-term obliterating his capability of passing agenda items – Health Care proves
Silber 07 ~~~PhD Political Science 26 Communication – focus on the Rhetoric of Presidential Policy-Making – Prof of Poli Sci – Samford, ~~~Marissa, WHAT MAKES A PRESIDENT QUACK?, Prepared for delivery at the 2007 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, August 30th-September 2nd, 2007, UNDERSTANDING LAME DUCK STATUS THROUGH THE EYES OF THE MEDIA AND POLITICIANS~~~

Important to the discussion of political capital is whether or not it can be replenished
AND
. Before determining this, a definition of a lame duck  President must be
developed.  

b) Obama cannot win – legislative wins don~’t spillover
*prefer Obama specific evidence – even if other presidents are able to regenerate capital quickly, Obama cannot – every time Obama allocates political capital on unpopular legislation it turns into a journalistic convention of pointing fingers – makes it impossible to get legislation through
Todd Eberly 13 – is coordinator of Public Policy Studies and assistant professor in the Department of Political Science at St. Mary~’s College of Maryland. His email is teeberly@smcm.edu. This article is excerpted from his book, co-authored with Steven Schier, "American Government and Popular Discontent: Stability without Success," to published later this year by Routledge Press., 1-21-2013 ~~http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-01-21/news/bs-ed-political-capital-20130121_1_political-system-party-support-public-opinion/2-http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-01-21/news/bs-ed-political-capital-20130121_1_political-system-party-support-public-opinion/2~~~~

As Barack Obama prepares to be sworn in for the second time as president of
AND
president~’s mind today as he takes his second oath of office.

Tournament: St Marks | Round: 1 | Opponent: Jenks DR | Judge: Dylan Quigley

"Economic engagement" is limited to expanding economic ties.

Çelik 11 – Arda Can Çelik, Master’s Degree in Politics and International Studies from Uppsala University, Economic Sanctions and Engagement Policies, p. 11
*intent to define
*excludes

Introduction
Economic engagement policies are strategic integration behaviour which involves with the target state. Engagement
AND
position of one state affects the position of others in the same direction.

This is only tangible trade and financial benefits – not the aff.

Haass 2k – Richard Haass 26 Meghan O’Sullivan, Senior Fellows in the Brookings Institution Foreign Policy Studies Program, Honey and Vinegar: Incentives, Sanctions, and Foreign Policy, p. 5-6
*plenty of neg flex
*most real world – policymaker’s choices

Architects of engagement strategies have a wide variety of incentives from which to choose.
AND
govern it rank among the most potent incentives in today’s global market.’
Similarly, political engagement can involve the lure of diplomatic recognition, access to regional
AND
of the incentives that might be offered under a policy of cultural engagement.
This brief overview of the various forms of engagement illuminates the choices open to policymakers
AND
a framework to guide the use of engagement strategies in the upcoming decades.

That’s a voting issue –

First, limits and ground – non-economic areas are huge, overstretch research burdens and require completely different strategies – trade and finance allow sufficient flexibility but lock-in a core mechanism for preparation.

A general subject isn’t enough—debate requires a specific point of difference

Steinberg 26 Freeley 8 *Austin J. Freeley is a Boston based attorney who focuses on criminal, personal injury and civil rights law, AND David L. Steinberg , Lecturer of Communication Studies @ U Miami, Argumentation and Debate: Critical Thinking for Reasoned Decision Making pp45-
Debate is a means of settling differences, so there must be a difference of
AND
particular point of difference, which will be outlined in the following discussion.

Third, Preparation and clash – changing the topic post facto manipulates balance of prep, which structurally favors the aff because they speak last and permute alternatives—strategic fairness is key to engaging a well-prepared opponent.

Fourth, Topical fairness requirements are key to effective dialogue—monopolizing strategy and prep makes the discussion one-sided and subverts any meaningful neg role

Galloway 7—Samford Comm prof (Ryan, Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, Vol. 28, 2007)

Debate as a dialogue sets an argumentative table, where all parties receive a relatively
AND
substitutes for topical action do not accrue the dialogical benefits of topical advocacy.

Fifth, substantive constraints on the debate are key to actualize effective pluralism and agonistic democracy

John Dryzek 6, Professor of Social and Political Theory, The Australian National University, Reconciling Pluralism and Consensus as Political Ideals, American Journal of Political Science,Vol. 50, No. 3, July 2006, Pp. 634–649
A more radical contemporary pluralism is suspicious of liberal and communitarian devices for reconciling difference
AND
ofliberal theory that looks neutral but in practice supports and serves the powerful.
Difference democrats are hostile to consensus, partly because consensus decisionmaking (of the sort
AND
which Young also subscribes; 2000, 49–51), Mouffe states:
To negate the ineradicable character of antagonism and aim at a universal rational consensus— that is the real threat to democracy. Indeed, this can lead to violence being unrecognized and hidden behind appeals to "rationality," as is often the case in liberal thinking. (1996, 248)
Mouffe is a radical pluralist: "By pluralism I mean the end of a
AND
respect" as "a critical pluralist ethos" (1999, 70).
Mouffe and Young both want pluralism to be regulated by a particular kind of attitude
AND
need principles to regulate the substance of what rightfully belongs in democratic debate. 

Sixth, Constraints on deliberation are necessary to re-found the political—-an untamed agon eviscerates political action and judgment skills

Dana Villa 96—prof of political science, Amherst, Beyond Good and Evil: Arendt, Nietzsche, and the Aestheticization of Political Action, Political Theory, Vol. 20, No. 2 (May, 1992), pp. 274-308
The representative thinking made possible by disinterested judgment is Arendt’s Kantian version of
AND
conditions," thereby freeing us for the purely public aspect of the phenomenon.
The difference between genealogical "objectivity" and representative judgment, between the kind of
AND
in Nietzsche’s phrase, with the "yay and nay of the palate.""°
For Kant, the significance and implications of aesthetic distance are quite opposite. As
AND
Indeed, Kant describes taste itself as "a kind of sensus communism"
The aesthetic distance achieved by representative thought thus points to the "grounding" of
AND
look and sound, what we will see and what men will hear in
Kant’s theory of judgment thus opens a space between the false objectivism of
AND
Arendt’s opinion, because it preserves appearance and perspective without abolishing the world.
We can sum up the achievement of Kant’s theory of judgment by saying that it
AND
everyone else’ in the hope of coming to an agreement with him eventually.""°
Taste judgments are, in a word, redeemed deliberatively. Kant’s conception of aesthetic judgment—departing from the exchange of viewpoints necessary for representative thinking and culminating in the persuasive exchange that accompanies the rendering of each judgment—is thus, for Arendt, political through and through.’51 It requires an ongoing process of exchange and deliberation, one "without criteria," as Lyotard would say)"
This is yet another reason why Kantian taste judgment is the appropriate model for Arendt’s
AND
action and judgment but, at best. a kind of regulative ideal.
The turn to Kant thus enables Arendt to avoid the antipolitical tendencies encountered in the
AND
in validity to the degree that it has liberated itself from merely individual idiosyncrasiesm’
The agon is tamed, then, not by retreating from the aestheticization of action but by following its anti-Platonic impulse through to the end. The "completion" of the theory of action by a Kant-inspired theory of judgment retains the focus on action as something heroic or extraordinary, as beyond
good and evil. It does so, however, by shifting the emphasis from
AND
that Arendt draws between greatness and beauty in "The Crisis in Culture":
Generally speaking, culture indicates that the public realm, which is rendered politically secure
AND
world, all human life would be futile and no greatness could endure.
Arendtian aestheticism, an aestheticism predicated on a love of the world and which admires
AND
activity itself. The result is that performance is denigrated, action misconceived.
Nietzsche, of course, has even less use for homo faber than Arendt,
AND
in terms of what Lacoue-Labarthe calls a "mimetology," while Nietzsche
repudiates again and again all metaphors of correspondence or adequation, does not alter their
AND
by plurality and which enables the fullest, most articulated expression of difference.
CONCLUSION
Arendt resists the Habermasian temptation to seek quasi-transcendental standards of agreement in a
AND
reflexive discovery of rules in light of indeterminate, transcendent ideas of community"
The critique of Aristotelian/oommunitarian thinking is also applicable to the kind of postmodern
AND
problematic, but it does serve to underline the falseness of this dichotomy.
One may grant that Arendl’s aesthcticism avoids the trope of the fiction du polin’que,
AND
, than a recovery of ethos or the legislation of a proceduralist rationality.
"Hie simple answer to this objection is mat Arendt completely agrees. Her work stands not only as a comprehensive rethinking of the nature and meaning of political action but as an extended mediation on how the energies
of modernity have worked to dissipate our feeling for the world, to alienate us
AND
in which stable boundaries and distinctions have been dissolved and rendered virtually impossible.
The postmodernist will object that Arendtian aestheticism. unlike Nietzsche’s, mourns the loss of
AND
the possibility of meaning created by political action and redeemed by political judgment.

That outweighs—deliberative debate models impart skills vital to respond to existential threats

Christian O. Lundberg 10 Professor of Communications @ University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, "Tradition of Debate in North Carolina" in Navigating Opportunity: Policy Debate in the 21st Century By Allan D. Louden, p. 311

The second major problem with the critique that identifies a naivety in articulating debate and
AND
their time and political energies toward policies that matter the most to them.
The merits of debate as a tool for building democratic capacity-building take on
AND
navigate academic search databases and to effectively search and use other Web resources:
To analyze the self-report ratings of the instructional and control group students,
AND
searching, not just in academic databases. (Larkin 2005, 144)
Larkin’s study substantiates Thomas Worthcn and Gaylcn Pack’s (1992, 3) claim that
AND
cite and rely upon from an easily accessible and veritable cornucopia of materials.
There are, without a doubt, a number of important criticisms of employing debate
AND
to the possibilities of meaningful political engagement and new articulations of democratic life.
Expanding this practice is crucial, if only because the more we produce citizens that
AND
with the existential challenges to democracy ~in an~ increasingly complex world. 

Debate inevitably involves exclusions – making sure that those exclusions occur along reciprocal lines is necessary to foster democratic habits and critical thinking – this process outweighs the content of the aff.

Anderson 6—prof of English at Johns Hopkins (Amanda, The Way We Argue Now, 25-8)

25¶ Whether such a procedural approach actually helps to yield any substantive normative guidance
AND
by the principles of recognition and respect that underpin democratic institutions and practices.

Analysis and use of evidence from experts is good – prerequisite to change assumptions and sharpen analysis
Mills 03, Gary, Major in the United States Air Force, August 2003, "The Role of Rhetorical Theory in Military Intelligence Analysis", http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/au/mills.pdf , p. 5-6, MZ

As an integral part of the military’s new information age, you need to be
AND
rhetoric’s influence on intelligence— ultimately changing and shaping your perspective on analysis.

Baudrillard’s simulation argument plays into the hands of power. His Gulf War example is proof of the authoritarian results of his argument—the Real is still being constructed but the Pentagon is doing it.

Rectenwald 2003 - Citizens for Legitimate Government (March 11, Michael, "Gulf War II: The New ’Real’," http://legitgov.org/mike_essay_the_new_real4_031103.html). 

 In his book Simulations  (1983), Jean Baudrillard introduced the notion of a
AND
Not only are they lying, they are actually  producing the new real. 

Turn—privileging value to life over existence of life guarantees atrocities

Federer 03 (William Federer is a best-selling author and president of Amerisearch Inc. 10-18-03 http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35138

Even before the rise of Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich, the way for the gruesome
AND
entitled "Ich klage an (I accuse)" and "Mentally Ill."
One euthanasia movie, based on a novel by a National Socialist doctor, actually
AND
a repeat of the atrocities of Nazi Germany, if not something worse.

You should reject their Baudrillard evidence—it’s hackery cloaked in deliberately obscure language.
Dawkins 2007 – Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science in the University of Oxford, fellow at the Royal Society of Literature, he has an asteroid officially named after him (4/1, Richard, Nature 394 pp. 141-3, review of Intellectual Impostures by Sokal and Bricmont, "Postmodernism Disrobed", http://richarddawkins.net/article,824,Postmodernism-Disrobed,Richard-Dawkins-Nature, WEA)

But it’s tough on the reader. No doubt there exist thoughts so profound that
AND
life, is genuinely profound or the vacuous rhetoric of mountebanks and charlatans?
Sokal and Bricmont are professors of physics at, respectively New York University and the
AND
universities, no doubt partly because he simulates a profound understanding of mathematics:
    . . . although Lacan uses quite a few key words from the mathematical theory of compactness, he mixes them up arbitrarily and without the slightest regard for their meaning. His ’definition’ of compactness is not just false: it is gibberish.
They go on to quote the following remarkable piece of reasoning by Lacan:
Thus, by calculating that signification according to the algebraic method used here, namely:
    S (signifier) = s (the statement),
    s (signified)
    With S = (-1), produces: s = sqrt(-1)
You don’t have to be a mathematician to see that this is ridiculous. It recalls the Aldous Huxley character who proved the existence of God by dividing zero into a number, thereby deriving the infinite. In a further piece of reasoning which is entirely typical of the genre, Lacan goes on to conclude that the erectile organ
    . . . is equivalent to the sqrt(-1) of the signification produced above, of the jouissance that it restores by the coefficient of its statement to the function of lack of signifier (-1).
We do not need the mathematical expertise of Sokal and Bricmont to assure us that the author of this stuff is a fake. Perhaps he is genuine when he speaks of non-scientific subjects? But a philosopher who is caught equating the erectile organ to the square root of minus one has, for my money, blown his credentials when it comes to things that I don’t know anything about.
The feminist ’philosopher’ Luce Irigaray is another who is given whole chapter treatment by Sokal
AND
unobstructed look at the emperor and, yes, he has no clothes:
    The privileging of solid over fluid mechanics, and indeed the inability of science
AND
of women) have been formulated so as necessarily to leave unarticulated remainders.
You don’t have to be a physicist to smell out the daffy absurdity of this kind of argument (the tone of it has become all too familiar), but it helps to have Sokal and Bricmont on hand to tell us the real reason why turbulent flow is a hard problem (the Navier-Stokes equations are difficult to solve).
In similar manner, Sokal and Bricmont expose Bruno Latour’s confusion of relativity with relativism
AND
constructed from scientific terminology, is meaningless from a scientific point of view":
    Perhaps history itself has to be regarded as a chaotic formation, in which acceleration puts an end to linearity and the turbulence created by acceleration deflects history definitively from its end, just as such turbulence distances effects from their causes.
I won’t quote any more, for, as Sokal and Bricmont say, Baudrillard’s text "continues in a gradual crescendo of nonsense." They again call attention to "the high density of scientific and pseudo-scientific terminology — inserted in sentences that are, as far as we can make out, devoid of meaning." Their summing up of Baudrillard could stand for any of the authors criticised here, and lionised throughout America:
    In summary, one finds in Baudrillard’s works a profusion of scientific terms,
AND
left of Baudrillard’s thought if the verbal veneer covering it were stripped away.

Overburdening research loads also gut participation in debate.
Rowland 84 (Robert C., Baylor U., “Topic Selection in Debate”, American Forensics in Perspective. Ed. Parson, p. 53-4)

The first major problem identified by the work group as relating to topic selection is
AND
of broad topics that has led some small schools to cancel their programs.
 

effective discussion – that ruins any attempt to dismantle exclusionary practices of debate.
Gooding-Williams 03 Race, Multiculturalism and Democracy Robert Gooding-Wiliams   Robert Gooding-Williams (Ph.D., Yale, 1982) is the Ralph and Mary Otis Isham Professor of Political Science and the College. He is also a Faculty Associate of the Chicago Center for Contemporary Theory and an affiliate of the Center for the Study of Race, Politics and Culture. His areas of interest include Du Bois, Critical Race Theory, the History of African-American Political Thought, 19th Century German Philosophy (especially Nietzsche), Existentialism, and Aesthetics (including literature and philosophy, representations of race in film, and the literary theory and criticism of African-American literature). Before coming to the University of Chicago he taught at Northwestern University (1998-2005), where he was Professor of Philosophy, Director of the Alice Berline Kaplan Center for the Humanities (2003-2005), Adjunct Professor of African American Studies, and an affiliate of the Program in Critical Theory. Before coming to Northwestern he taught at Amherst College (1988-98), where he was Professor of Black Studies and the George Lyman Crosby 1896 Professor of Philosophy, and at Simmons College (1983-88), where he taught philosophy and directed the program in Afro-American Studies.  IssueConstellations Volume 5, Issue 1, pages 18–41, March 1998 

 I begin with the assumption that fostering the capacity for democratic deliber- ation
AND
justifies a form of multicultural education that is, specifically race-conscious.
Only our interpretation solves.
Hanghoj 08 – Thorkild Hanghøj, Copenhagen, 2008 Since this PhD project began in 2004, the present author has been affiliated with DREAM (Danish Research Centre on Education and Advanced Media Materials), which is located at the Institute of Literature, Media and Cultural Studies at the University of Southern Denmark. Research visits have taken place at the Centre for Learning, Knowledge, and Interactive Technologies (L-KIT), the Institute of Education at the University of Bristol and the institute formerly known as Learning Lab Denmark at the School of Education, University of Aarhus, where I currently work as an assistant professor (http://static.sdu.dk/mediafiles/Files/Information_til/Studerende_ved_SDU/Din_uddannelse/phd_hum/afhandlinger/2009/ThorkilHanghoej.pdf)

Joas’ re-interpretation of Dewey’s pragmatism as a “theory of situated creativity”
AND
the contingent outcomes and domain-specific processes of problem-based scenarios.

Tournament: St Marks | Round: 4 | Opponent: CPS BY | Judge: Colin ORoarke

1NC

====Living in accord with the Tao precludes taking action to prevent death. As mere humans, we are oblivious to the overarching meaning of the universe and thus any action we take is unproductive and immoral – 3 impacts – ethics, value to life, and a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Kirkland 98 -  Ph.D. in East Asian Languages and Cultures, specialist in Asian Religions, Associate Professor of Religion at UGA, (1996, Russell Kirkland, "’RESPONSIBLE NON-ACTION’ IN A NATURAL WORLD : PERSPECTIVES FROM THE NEI-YEH, CHUANG-TZU, AND TAO-TE CHING" HARVARD CONFERENCE ON TAOISM AND ECOLOGY CB)====

Once upon a time, several years ago, I had the opportunity to engage
AND
, not even — or more correctly said, especially not — ourselves.

The alternative is to do nothing in order to appreciate the flow of the Tao – only inaction in face of interventionism solves

Kirkland 96 – Ph.D. in East Asian Languages and Cultures, specialist in Asian Religions, Associate Professor of Religion at UGA (1996, Russell Kirkland, Ph.D. in East Asian Languages and Cultures, specialist in Asian Religions, Associate Professor of Religion at UGA, "The Book of the Way," 24-29 CB)

The focus of the Daode jing is something called "the Tao (or Dao
AND
most powerful force in existence, and nothing can thwart its unceasing operation.

2. Turns case and destroys the meaning of critical theory
FEAVER 2001  (Peter, Asst. Prof of Political Science at Duke University, Twenty-First Century Weapons Proliferation, p 178)
 
At the same time, virtually all good theory has implications for policy.  Indeed
AND
.  Happily, the best work in the proliferation field already does so.

3. Reject their truth claims.  Failure to base arguments on pragmatic logic and empiricism devolves into prejudice and destroys the left
Sokal, 97  (Alan, professor of physics at New York University, "A Plea for Reason, Evidence and Logic",
http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/nyu_forum.html)

This affair has brought up an incredible number of issues, and I can’t dream
AND
debate on the American Left, then it will have served its purpose.

Our interpretation - Economic engagement is long-term strategy for promoting structural linkage between two economies

Mastanduno, 1 – professor of Government at Dartmouth College (Michael, "Economic Engagement Strategies: Theory and Practice" http://web.archive.org/web/20120906033646/http://polisci.osu.edu/faculty/bpollins/book/Mastanduno.pdf
The basic causal logic of economic engagement, and the emphasis on domestic politics,
AND
chain runs from economic interdependence through domestic political change to foreign policy accommodation.

Immigration is Obama’s top priority, it will pass and capital is key

Matthews, 10/16/13 (Laura, International Business Times, "2013 Immigration Reform Bill: ’I’m Going To Push To Call A Vote,’ Says Obama2013 Immigration Reform Bill: ’I’m Going To Push To Call A Vote,’ Says Obama" http://www.ibtimes.com/2013-immigration-reform-bill-im-going-push-call-vote-says-obama-1429220)

When Congress finally passes a bipartisan bill that kicks the fiscal battles over to early next year, the spotlight could return to comprehensive immigration reform before 2013 ends.
At least that’s the hope of President Barack Obama and his fellow Chicagoan Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., chairman of the Immigration Task Force of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and one of the most vocal advocates for immigration reform in the House of Representatives.
"When we emerge from this crazy partisan eruption from the Republicans, there will be a huge incentive for sensible Republicans who want to repair some of the damage they have done to themselves," Gutierrez said in a statement. "Immigration reform remains the one issue popular with both Democratic and Republican voters on which the two parties can work together to deliver real, substantive solutions in the Congress this year."
Reforming the status quo has consistently been favored by a majority of Americans. Earlier
AND
skilled visas (71 percent) and increased border security (68 percent).
The Senate passed its version of a 2013 immigration reform bill in June that includes, but is not limited to, a pathway to citizenship for immigrants without documentation and doubling security on the southern border. But that measure has stalled in the House, where Republicans are adamant they will take a piecemeal approach.
The momentum that lawmakers showed for reform has been sapped by the stalemate that that has shut down the government for 16 days and brought the U.S. to the brink of default. The Senate has agreed on Wednesday to a bipartisan solution to break the gridlock.
When the shutdown and default threat is resolved (for a time), that’s when Obama will renew his push to get Congress to move on immigration reform. On Tuesday the president said reform will become his top priority.
"Once that’s done, you know, the day after, I’m going to be pushing to say, call a vote on immigration reform," Obama told Univision affiliate KMEX-TV in Los Angeles. "And if I have to join with other advocates and continue to speak out on that, and keep pushing, I’m going to do so because I think it’s really important for the country. And now is the time to do it."
The president pointed the finger at House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, for not allowing the bill to be brought to the floor for a vote. Boehner had promised that the Senate’s bill would not be voted on unless a majority of the majority in the House supports it — the same principle he was holding out for on the government shutdown before he gave in.
"We had a very strong Democratic and Republican vote in the Senate," Obama said. "The only thing right now that’s holding it back is, again, Speaker Boehner not willing to call the bill on the floor of the House of Representatives. So we’re going to have to get through this crisis that was unnecessary, that was created because of the obsession of a small faction of the Republican Party on the Affordable Care Act."
Republicans are opposing the Democratic view of immigration reform because of its inclusion of a 13-year path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. They said this amounted to "amnesty." Some Republicans prefer to give them legal resident status instead.
Immigration advocates have also been urging Obama to use his executive authority to halt the more than 1,000 deportations taking place daily. Like the activists, Gutierrez said the government shutdown didn’t do anything to slow the number of daily deportations.
Some Republicans who welcomed Sen. Ted Cruz’s filibuster over Obamacare because it shifted the focus from immigration.
"If Ted ~didn’t~ spin the filibuster, if we don’t make this the focus, we had already heard what was coming," Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, told Fox News on Tuesday. "As soon as we got beyond this summer, we were going to have an amnesty bill come to the floor. That’s what we would have been talking about. And that’s where the pivot would have been if we had not focused America on Obamacare."
Still, pro-immigration advocates are hopeful they can attain their goal soon. "With more prodding from the president and the American people," Gutierrez said, "we can get immigration reform legislation passed in the House and signed into law."

New economic engagement drains capital and specifically derails immigration by shifting the focus from security to economics

Shear, 13 (Michael, NYT White house correspondent, 5/5,  http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/05/world/americas/in-latin-america-us-shifts-focus-from-drug-war-to-economy.html?pagewanted=all**)**

Last week, Mr. Obama returned to capitals in Latin America with a vastly
AND
in a news conference with Laura Chinchilla, the president of Costa Rica.

Immigration is key to stop ag industry collapse

Serrano, 12 -  Senior Editor at TIME.com (Alfonso, "Bitter Harvest: U.S. Farmers Blame Billion-Dollar Losses on Immigration Laws" 9/21, http://business.time.com/2012/09/21/bitter-harvest-u-s-farmers-blame-billion-dollar-losses-on-immigration-laws/~~23ixzz2QJ33CWwU

The Broetjes and an increasing number of farmers across the country say that a complex
AND
, as farmers have struggled to compensate for labor shortages with domestic help.
"The enforcement of immigration policy has devastated the skilled-labor source that we’ve
AND
growers out of business if Congress doesn’t step up and do immigration reform."
Roughly 70 of the 1.2 million people employed by the agriculture industry are undocumented. No U.S. industry is more dependent on undocumented immigrants. But acute labor shortages brought on by anti-immigration measures threaten to heap record losses on an industry emerging from years of stiff foreign competition. Nationwide, labor shortages will result in losses of up to 249 billion, according to the American Farm Bureau Federation.

Extinction

Lugar, 4 – U.S. Senator – Indiana (Richard, "Plant Power" Our Planet v. 14 n. 3, http://www.unep.org/OurPlanet/imgversn/143/lugar.html

In a world confronted by global terrorism, turmoil in the Middle East, burgeoning
AND
that contribute to global instability and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
With the world population expected to grow from 6 billion people today to 9 billion
AND
that the growing world population will need vastly more basic food to eat.
Complicating a solution to this problem is a dynamic that must be better understood in the West: developing countries often use limited arable land to expand cities to house their growing populations. As good land disappears, people destroy timber resources and even rainforests as they try to create more arable land to feed themselves. The long-term environmental consequences could be disastrous for the entire globe.
Productivity revolution
To meet the expected demand for food over the next 50 years, we in
AND
we will have to produce an annual average of 25 tonnes per hectare.
Can we possibly boost output that much? Well, it’s been done before. Advances in the use of fertilizer and water, improved machinery and better tilling techniques combined to generate a threefold increase in yields since 1935 – on our farm back then, my dad produced 2.8 to 3 tonnes per hectare. Much US agriculture has seen similar increases.
But of course there is no guarantee that we can achieve those results again.
AND
research will generate the innovations that will be necessary to feed the world.
The United States can take a leading position in a productivity revolution. And our success at increasing food production may play a decisive humanitarian role in the survival of billions of people and the health of our planet.

Vote neg to endorse that the United States federal government should add every country to the list of countries governed by Section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act. The United States federal government should cease current and ban future projects of regime change, economic sanctions, military base expansion, military occupation, military assistance for strategic partners, isolation of disapproved political movements, and counterterrorism operations to countries governed by Section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act.

Counterplan solves – the aff takes Cuba off the list of state sponsors of terrorism, the counterplan adds every country to the list of state sponsors of terrorism but says being on the list of state sponsors of terrorism prevents the US from being able to militarily or coercively intervene in that country’s affairs. Your author concludes the only reason the list is problematic is it allows neoconservative approaches towards those countries, but we solve that better

Jackson, Professor in International Politics at Aberystwyth University, 2007 ~Richard, "Critical reflection on counter-sanctuary discourse",  In: M. Innes, ed. Denial of sanctuary: understanding terrorist safe havens, p. 30-33~
A related problem for the "terrorist sanctuaries" discourse is that it has always
AND
approaches to terrorism and the ongoing problem of civilian-directed state terror.

Net-benefit is taking Cuba off the list causes the affs impacts –

First neoliberalism – removing Cuba from the terror list simply allows the US to get a foot in the door – we’ll increase ties with Cuba

The Boston Globe, 2013 (2/19/2013, "Cuba’s reforms pave way for new US policy, too", The Boston Globe, http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2013/02/09/cuba-reform-create-opportunity-drag-policy-into-century/xER2NTTXGsxdLej0miHwFM/story.html)
The Cuban-American population, which has historically opposed any loosening of US policy
AND
both. This would include boosts to US farm companies while helping Cubans.

That improves relations with Latin America as a whole – the aff makes the US appear benign

Thale and Boggs, 2013, Washington’s Office on Latin America’s Program director and Officer for Cuba
(Geoff and Clay, 3/5/2013, "Cuba and the Terrorist List", Washington Office on Latin America)
http://www.wola.org/commentary/cuba_and_the_terrorist_list
On February 21, the Boston Globe reported that senior State Department officials were considering
AND
retire in 2018, effectively putting an end date on the Castro era.

American engagement in Latin America threatens progressive political action and re-entrenches neoliberalism

Renique Associate Professor in the Department of History at the City College of the City University of New York 10— ( Gerardo, "Latin America today: The revolt against neoliberalism", Socialism and Democracy, 19:3, 9/20/10, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08854300500284561~~23.UcnZQvnVCSo)//AS
In opposition to this agenda, the new subaltern movements offer a politics of hope
AND
to defeat other leftwing and popular movements and to largely isolate the Cuban regime

Second, the War on Terror –

Aff frees up resources to be used for the War on Terror

Levy 11 – Lecturer and Doctoral Candidate at the Josef Korbel School of International Affairs at the University of Denver, received the Leonard Marks Essay Award of the American Academy of Diplomacy, masters degree from Columbia in International Affairs. (Arturo Lopez-Levy, "A Call for Cuba’s Removal from the List of State Sponsers of Terrorism", Center for International policy/Latin American Working Group, 12/1/11, http://www.lawg.org/storage/documents/Cuba/lawg_cip_dec_2011.pdf)// EO
So, let me discuss the first issue, why including Cuba on the terrorist
AND
of its demobilization, making this a non issue, the presence of members

Chinese influence in Cuba is high now.

Xinhua 7/24 (7/24/13, "Chinese leader stresses close ties with Cuba," http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90883/8340137.html)//DR. H

Chinese leader Liu Yunshan said Wednesday that China and Cuba are closely tied with common aspiration and belief despite the two countries being geographically far apart.
Liu, a member of the Standing Committee of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC), made the remark as he met with Jose Ramon Balaguer, head of the International Department of the Communist Party of Cuba.
Liu said the new Chinese leadership with Xi Jinping as general secretary of the CPC Central Committee cherishes the time-honored friendship between China and Cuba. The leadership will continue to work with the Communist Party of Cuba to step up the exchange of experience in governance, boost cooperation in various fields, promote friendly contact between the two countries and peoples and open up a new era of China-Cuba friendship.
Liu praised the new achievements Cuba has made in its socialist development and briefed the guests about the domestic situation of China.
Balaguenr said Cuba places great importance on relations between the two countries and their ruling parties. He expressed readiness to work with China to maintain and advance the rapid development of Cuba-China relations. He briefed Liu on the current situation of Cuba and the Communist Party of Cuba.

Changes in US-Cuba policy effect overall influence in Latin America – crowds China out.

Doherty 8 (Patrick, "An Obama Policy for Cuba," McClathy Newspapers, December 12, cuba.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2008/obama_policy_cuba_9301)

With his national security team in place, President-elect Barack Obama’s foreign policy
AND
Hugo Chavez, drugs, immigration, energy insecurity - will simply fester.

Chinese influence in Latin America is key to maintain their economic growth.

Arnson et al. ’9 (Cynthia Anderson, Mark Mohr, Riordan Roett, writers for Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, "Enter the Dragon? China’s Presence in Latin America", http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/EnterDragonFinal.pdf) (JN)

China’s role in Latin America is, above all, based on trade, despite
AND
region. Thus, Latin America represents a substantial market for Chinese goods.

Chinese economic decline causes great power war.

Kane 01 ~Thomas Kane, PhD in Security Studies from the University of Hull 26 Lawrence Serewicz, Autumn, http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/01autumn/Kane.htm~~

Despite China’s problems with its food supply, the Chinese do not appear to be
AND
China’s government might try to ward off its demise by attacking adjacent countries.

Their scholarship is bankrupt — reject it

Jones and David ’9 Martin and Smith, M. L. R.(2009)’We’re All Terrorists Now: Critical—or Hypocritical—Studies "on"
Terrorism?’,Studies in Conflict 26 Terrorism,32:4,292 — 302, April

Nevertheless, the notion that an inherent pro-state bias vitiates terrorism studies pervades
AND
hand experience of groups like the Taliban, Al Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiyah. 

1AC focus fails

Taft-Kaufman, 95  (Jill, professor, Department of Speech Communication And Dramatic Arts, at Central Michigan University, Southern Communication Journal, Spring, proquest)

The postmodern passwords of "polyvocality," "Otherness," and "difference," unsupported
AND
political agendas, institutions, agencies, and the budgets that fuel them.

1) Focus on extinction is ethical – extinction would be enormously painful

2) Util is inevitable – they just shift util to be about what group of people is worth the most, even if util is bad only they make it about something other than numbers which is worse

3) All lives infinitely valuable—only ethical option is maximizing number saved

Cummisky, 96  (David, professor of philosophy at Bates, Kantian Consequentialism, p. 131)

Finally, even if one grants that saving two persons with dignity cannot outweigh and
AND
conclusion that the more persons with dignity who are saved, the better.

4) Extinction is unique because those suffering also are affected along with future generations – none of their authors assume our impacts

Large impacts always outweigh smaller ones – they are using cognitive biases to trick you into being immoral – don’t fall for it

YUDKOWSKY 2006 (Eliezer, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence, "Cognitive biases potentially affecting judgment of global risks," forthcoming in Global Catastrophic Risks, August 31)*we don’t endorse gendered language used by Eliezer Yudkowsky

Three groups of subjects considered three versions of the above question, asking them how
AND
one must usually jump several orders of magnitude to detect the difference experimentally.

2NC

Removing Cuba from the terror list increases US influence in the broader region.

Chow 13 (Emily, 2/6/13, "Remove Cuba from the terrorist list21" Latin American Working Group, http://www.lawg.org/action-center/lawg-blog/69-general/1138-obama-wants-progress-on-cuba-remove-cuba-from-the-terrorist-list)

If the Obama Administration wants to see progress in our relationship with Cuba over the
AND
countries in one big move, this is the way to do it.

Cuba’s key to broader Latin American influence –

Perez 10 (David, Yale Law School, working with Koh former Dean of Yale Law and Legal Advisor to the State Department , "America’s Cuba Policy: The Way Forward: A Policy Recommendation for the U.S. State Department", Spring, 2010, Harvard Latino Law Review, 13 Harv. Latino L. Rev. 187)

Cuba, despite its size and isolation, is a keystone nation in Latin America
AND
throughout Latin America, and would go a long way toward creating goodwill. 

China-US Influence in Latin America is Zero-sum –

1. Resources, Purchasing power, and Geographic Proximity.

Valencia 6/24 (Robert, Contributing Writer at Global Voices Online and the World Policy Institute, 6/24/13, "US and China: The Fight for Latin America," http://www.worldpolicy.org/blog/2013/06/24/us-and-china-fight-latin-america)//DR. H

During the first weekend of June, U.S. President Barack Obama and
AND
United States, which has long considered Latin America as its "backyard."
The key question now is will Latin American countries lean more toward China or the United States, or will it find a way to balance the two against each other? Right now, Latin American countries are increasingly confident thanks to burgeoning economic and political integration by way of trading blocs, and they’re demanding to be treated as an equal player.
As a sign of its growing importance, China and the United States have courted Latin America more than usual. In May, President Barack Obama visited Mexico and Costa Rica while Vice President Joe Biden visited Colombia, Brazil, and Trinidad and Tobago. Shortly after these trips, President Xi went to Mexico and Costa Rica to foster economic cooperation.
China’s active involvement in Latin American geopolitics can be traced back to 2009. Chinalco
AND
market while the United States holds first place with 24.5 percent.
China has the upper hand with the Latin American leftist countries in terms of infrastructure
AND
of soy from Argentina, up from 52 million in 2011 and 2010.

2. U.S. neglect, costs, and politics.

Fergusson 12 (Robbie, Masters in China In The International Arena from the University of Glasgow,  e-International Relations, 7/23/12, "The Chinese Challenge to the Monroe Doctrine," http://www.e-ir.info/2012/07/23/does-chinese-growth-in-latin-america-threaten-american-interests/)//DR. H

The Chinese economic threat to the U.S in the region
The U.S is still the most important economic partner for Latin America,
AND
-economic independence of the U.S that Latin America is exerting.
This is also symptomatic of a deep paradox in the American thinking about how to
AND
– as a lower cost, less politicized alternative to the United States.

Increasing economic engagement with Cuba destroys its domestic industries, and integrates it into the global neoliberal order – turns case

Gonzalez 03 – law professor (Carmen, Assistant Professor, Seattle University School of Law, Tulane Environmental Law Journal, Vol. 16, p. 685, 2003, "Seasons of Resistance: Sustainable Agriculture and Food Security in Cuba", http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=987944-http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=987944, ZBurdette)

Notwithstanding these problems, the greatest challenge to the agricultural development strategy adopted by the
AND
embargo that Cuba was able to embark upon a radically different development path.
Cuba was able to transform its agricultural development model as a consequence of the political
AND
end of Cuba’s economic isolation may only be a matter of time.415
It is unclear how the Cuban government will respond to the immense political and economic
AND
S. rice imports in the first half of the twentieth century.418
Cuba is once again at a crossroads—as it was in 1963, when
AND
crisis or as a path-breaking achievement worthy of pride and emulation.
The history of Cuban agriculture has been one of resistance and accommodation to larger economic
AND
and economic pressure from the United States and from the global trading system.

Neoliberal engagement of Latin America results in loss of value to life, political oppression, military intervention, and environmental destruction – makes extinction inevitable

Makwana 06 – (Rajesh, STWR, 23rd November 06, http://www.stwr.org/globalization/neoliberalism-and-economic-globalization.html-http://www.stwr.org/globalization/neoliberalism-and-economic-globalization.html, ZBurdette)

Neoliberalism and Economic Globalization
The goal of neoliberal economic globalization is the removal of all barriers to commerce, and the privatization of all available resources and services. In this scenario, public life will be at the mercy of market forces, as the extracted profits benefit the few, writes Rajesh Makwana.
The thrust of international policy behind the phenomenon of economic globalization is neoliberal in nature. Being hugely profitable to corporations and the wealthy elite, neoliberal polices are propagated through the IMF, World Bank and WTO. Neoliberalism favours the free-market as the most efficient method of global resource allocation. Consequently it favours large-scale, corporate commerce and the privatization of resources.
There has been much international attention recently on neoliberalism. Its ideologies have been rejected by influential countries in Latin America and its moral basis is now widely questioned. Recent protests against the WTO, IMF and World Bank were essentially protests against the neoliberal policies that these organizations implement, particularly in low-income countries.
The neoliberal experiment has failed to combat extreme poverty, has exacerbated global inequality, and is hampering international aid and development efforts. This article presents an overview of neoliberalism and its effect on low income countries.
Introduction
After the Second World War, corporate enterprises helped to create a wealthy class in society which enjoyed excessive political influence on their government in the US and Europe. Neoliberalism surfaced as a reaction by these wealthy elites to counteract post-war policies that favoured the working class and strengthened the welfare state.
Neoliberal policies advocate market forces and commercial activity as the most efficient methods for producing
AND
corporations and affluent countries to secure their financial advantage within the world economy.
The policies were most ardently enforced in the US and Europe in the1980s during the
AND
, economic and political leverage, they continue to further their neoliberal objectives.
There is a consensus between the financial elite, neoclassical economists and the political classes
AND
the most likely means of reducing poverty and inequality in the poorest regions.
There is a huge discrepancy between the measurable result of economic globalization and its proposed
AND
economic growth per capita grew to over 8 between 1980 and 2000.)
Neoliberalism has also been unable to address growing levels of global inequality. Over the last 25 years, the income inequalities have increased dramatically, both within and between countries. Between 1980 and 1998, the income of richest 10 as share of poorest 10 became 19 more unequal; and the income of richest 1 as share of poorest 1 became 77 more unequal (again, not including China).
The shortcomings of neoliberal policy are also apparent in the well documented economic disasters suffered
AND
and medical expertise throughout the region and with other countries around the world.
The dramatic economic and social improvement seen in these countries has not stopped them from
AND
economic dominance has been and continues to be the USA’s main economic objective.
According to Maria Páez Victor:
"Since 1846 the United States has carried out no fewer than 50 military invasions and destabilizing operations involving 12 different Latin American countries. Yet, none of these countries has ever had the capacity to threaten US security in any significant way.  The US intervened because of perceived threats to its economic control and expansion.  For this reason it has also supported some of the region’s most vicious dictators such as Batista, Somoza, Trujillo, and Pinochet."
As a result of corporate and US influence, the key international bodies that developing
AND
project contracts. They all gain considerably from the neo-liberal model.
So influential are corporations at this time that many of the worst violators of human rights have even entered a Global Compact with the United Nations, the world’s foremost humanitarian body. Due to this international convergence of economic ideology, it is no coincidence that the assumptions that are key to increasing corporate welfare and growth are the same assumptions that form the thrust of mainstream global economic policy.
However, there are huge differences between the neoliberal dogma that the US and EU
AND
to achieving development by imposing an ideology that suits their own economic needs.
The US and EU also provide huge subsidies to many sectors of industry. These devastate small industries in developing countries, particularly farmers who cannot compete with the price of subsidized goods in international markets. Despite their neoliberal rhetoric, most ’capitalist’ countries have increased their levels of state intervention over the past 25 years, and the size of their government has increased. The requirement is to ’do as I say, not as I do’.
Given the tiny proportion of individuals that benefit from neoliberal policies, the chasm between what is good for the economy and what serves the public good is growing fast. Decisions to follow these policies are out of the hands of the public, and the national sovereignty of many developing countries continues to be violated, preventing them from prioritizing urgent national needs.
Below we examine the false assumptions of neoliberal policies and their effect on the global economy.
Economic Growth
Economic growth, as measured in GDP, is the yardstick of economic globalization which
AND
economic growth is the only way to prosper a country and reduce poverty.
Logically, however, a model for continual financial growth is unsustainable. Corporations have to go to extraordinary lengths in order to reflect endless growth in their accounting books. As a result, finite resources are wasted and the environment is dangerously neglected. The equivalent of two football fields of natural forest is cleared each second by profit hungry corporations.
Economic growth is also used by the World Bank and government economists to measure progress
AND
growth have proved impossible due to the inadequacy of the statistical measures employed.
The mandate for economic growth is the perfect platform for corporations which, as a result, have grown rapidly in their economic activity, profitability and political influence. Yet this very model is also the cause of the growing inequalities seen across the globe. The privatization of resources and profits by the few at the expense of the many, and the inability of the poorest people to afford market prices, are both likely causes.
Free Trade
Free trade is the foremost demand of neoliberal globalization. In its current form,
AND
pushing smaller producers in developing countries out of the market and impeding development.
With this self interest driving globalization, economically powerful nations have created a global trading regime with which they can determine the terms of trade.
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the US, Canada, and Mexico is an example of free-market fundamentalism that gives corporations legal rights at the expense of national sovereignty. Since its implementation it has caused job loss, undermined labour rights, privatized essential services, increased inequality and caused environmental destruction.
In Europe only 5 of EU citizens work in agriculture, generating just 1.6 of EU GDP compared to more than 50 of citizens in developing countries. However, the European Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) provides subsidies to EU farmers to the tune of £30 billion, 80 of which goes to only 20 of farmers to guarantee their viability, however inefficient this may be.
The General Agreement on Trade and Services (GATS) was agreed at the World
AND
services are instead granted to corporate interests through the GATS and TRIPS framework.
These examples represent modern free trade which is clearly biased in its approach. It fosters corporate

MARKED

 globalization at the expense of local economies, the environment, democracy and human rights. The primary beneficiaries of international trade are large, multinational corporations who fiercely lobby at all levels of national and global governance to further the free trade agenda.
Liberalization
The World Bank, IMF and WTO have been the main portals for implementing the
AND
this group, and market liberalization has been another of their key policies.
According to neoliberal ideology, in order for international trade to be ’free’ all markets should be open to competition, and market forces should determine economic relationships. But the overall result of a completely open and free market is of course market dominance by corporate heavy-weights. The playing field is not even; all developing countries are at a great financial and economic disadvantage and simply cannot compete.
Liberalization, through Structural Adjustment Programs, forces poorer countries to open their markets to
AND
economic risk; hence the EU and US heavily protect their own markets.
A liberalized global market provides corporations with new resources to capitalize and new markets to
AND
They would then be in a better position to compete in international markets.

1NR

Limits are key to participation.
Rowland 84 (Robert C., Baylor U., "Topic Selection in Debate", American Forensics in Perspective. Ed. Parson, p. 53-4)

The first major problem identified by the work group as relating to topic selection is
AND
of broad topics that has led some small schools to cancel their programs.

5. Limits are key to education.
Bukatko and Daehler 12 – (Danuta Bukatko, Marvin W. Daehler, workers at Gengage learning center in Canada citing work done by Robbie Case- professor emeritus of education and a highly respected researcher in the field of child cognitive development director of the University of Toronto’s Institute of Child Study, "Child Development:A Thematic Approach", pg. 286)JM
*broader topics require increased processing of new information- that directly trades off with information retention

Other theorist in this field have advanced a limited-resource model of the cognitive
AND
for the task of remembering.  As children grow older, they can mentally

Effecting the economies of both states isn’t enough – Mastanduno says engagement requires structural linkage – which means trade expansion

Sheen, 2 –  associate professor at the Graduate School of International Studies, Seoul National University (Seongho, The Korean Journal of Defense Analysis, Vol. XIV, No. 1, Spring 2002, "US Strategy of Engagement During the Cold War and Its Implication for Sunshine Policy" http://www.kida.re.kr/data/2006/04/14/seongho_sheen.pdf-http://www.kida.re.kr/data/2006/04/14/seongho_sheen.pdf) footnote 22
22 Speaking of different strategies of economic statecraft, Michael Mastanduno distinguishes: "Whereas
AND
Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1992), pp. 53–58.

This means trade has to be the mechanism of the plan – engagement is a deliberate expansion of economic ties, not an effect

KARAKASIS, 8 – MA in INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS at Instabul Bilgi University (VASILEIOS, "THE IMPACT OF EUROPEANIZATION ON GREECE’S ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY TOWARDS TURKEY", http://www.academia.edu/667112/The_Impact_of_Europeanization_on_Greeces_Engagement_Strategy_towards_Turkey-http://www.academia.edu/667112/The_Impact_of_Europeanization_on_Greeces_Engagement_Strategy_towards_Turkey)
This policy is accompanied by an economic pillar. By economic engagement what can be
AND
a critical part of the electorate to whom political elites must respond.50 

Violation - Removing Cuba from the terror list does not directly expand economic ties – its effects
Walsh 13
(Edward T., April 2, "Cuba and the United States: Time to lean forward," http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/04/02/2797068/cuba-and-the-united-states-time.html-http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/04/02/2797068/cuba-and-the-united-states-time.html, jkim)
New Secretary of State John Kerry must decide within a few weeks whether to recommend
AND
status of the embargo and the current trade and travel restrictions it imposes.

The sanctions the aff lifts are independently not T

State Department no date—"State Sponsors of Terrorism", http://www.state.gov/j/ct/list/c14151.htm-http://www.state.gov/j/ct/list/c14151.htm) EL

Countries determined by the Secretary of State to have repeatedly provided support for acts of
AND
countries designated under these authorities: Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria.

"Economic" issues are trade and investment, not counterterrorism
Orland 8 – Brian Orland, Research Intern at Strategic Foresight Group, Former Research Intern at Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies in New Delhi, Graduate of Davidson College in Political Science, "India’s Sri Lanka Policy: Towards Economic Engagement", IPCS Research Papers, April, http://www.ipcs.org/pdf_file/issue/1445888596RP16-Brian-SriLanka.pdf

On the economic side, increased trade and investment have been the impetus for improved
AND
forum for increased communication and cooperation on non-economic issues like counterterrorism.

Removing selective restrictions on specific goods isn’t "economic" because it doesn’t broadly affect economic life
Davidsson 3 – Elias Davidsson, Human Rights Researcher and Activist, Reporter for the Arab American News, Contributing Editor for Global Research, "The Mechanism of Economic Sanctions: Changing Perceptions and Euphemisms", November, www.aldeilis.net/english/attachments/2877_econsanc-debate.pdf?

"Economic sanctions", a mode of coercion in international relations resuscitated in recent years
AND
effect is primarily to convey displeasure, rather than to affect the economy.

Tournament: St Marks | Round: 5 | Opponent: Barstow SR | Judge: Eric Lanning

1NC

Immigration is Obama’s top priority, it will pass and capital is key
Matthews, 10/16/13 (Laura, International Business Times, "2013 Immigration Reform Bill: ’I’m Going To Push To Call A Vote,’ Says Obama2013 Immigration Reform Bill: ’I’m Going To Push To Call A Vote,’ Says Obama" http://www.ibtimes.com/2013-immigration-reform-bill-im-going-push-call-vote-says-obama-1429220)

When Congress finally passes a bipartisan bill that kicks the fiscal battles over to early next year, the spotlight could return to comprehensive immigration reform before 2013 ends.
At least that’s the hope of President Barack Obama and his fellow Chicagoan Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., chairman of the Immigration Task Force of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and one of the most vocal advocates for immigration reform in the House of Representatives.
"When we emerge from this crazy partisan eruption from the Republicans, there will be a huge incentive for sensible Republicans who want to repair some of the damage they have done to themselves," Gutierrez said in a statement. "Immigration reform remains the one issue popular with both Democratic and Republican voters on which the two parties can work together to deliver real, substantive solutions in the Congress this year."
Reforming the status quo has consistently been favored by a majority of Americans. Earlier
AND
skilled visas (71 percent) and increased border security (68 percent).
The Senate passed its version of a 2013 immigration reform bill in June that includes, but is not limited to, a pathway to citizenship for immigrants without documentation and doubling security on the southern border. But that measure has stalled in the House, where Republicans are adamant they will take a piecemeal approach.
The momentum that lawmakers showed for reform has been sapped by the stalemate that that has shut down the government for 16 days and brought the U.S. to the brink of default. The Senate has agreed on Wednesday to a bipartisan solution to break the gridlock.
When the shutdown and default threat is resolved (for a time), that’s when Obama will renew his push to get Congress to move on immigration reform. On Tuesday the president said reform will become his top priority.
"Once that’s done, you know, the day after, I’m going to be pushing to say, call a vote on immigration reform," Obama told Univision affiliate KMEX-TV in Los Angeles. "And if I have to join with other advocates and continue to speak out on that, and keep pushing, I’m going to do so because I think it’s really important for the country. And now is the time to do it."
The president pointed the finger at House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, for not allowing the bill to be brought to the floor for a vote. Boehner had promised that the Senate’s bill would not be voted on unless a majority of the majority in the House supports it — the same principle he was holding out for on the government shutdown before he gave in.
"We had a very strong Democratic and Republican vote in the Senate," Obama said. "The only thing right now that’s holding it back is, again, Speaker Boehner not willing to call the bill on the floor of the House of Representatives. So we’re going to have to get through this crisis that was unnecessary, that was created because of the obsession of a small faction of the Republican Party on the Affordable Care Act."
Republicans are opposing the Democratic view of immigration reform because of its inclusion of a 13-year path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. They said this amounted to "amnesty." Some Republicans prefer to give them legal resident status instead.
Immigration advocates have also been urging Obama to use his executive authority to halt the more than 1,000 deportations taking place daily. Like the activists, Gutierrez said the government shutdown didn’t do anything to slow the number of daily deportations.
Some Republicans who welcomed Sen. Ted Cruz’s filibuster over Obamacare because it shifted the focus from immigration.
"If Ted ~didn’t~ spin the filibuster, if we don’t make this the focus, we had already heard what was coming," Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, told Fox News on Tuesday. "As soon as we got beyond this summer, we were going to have an amnesty bill come to the floor. That’s what we would have been talking about. And that’s where the pivot would have been if we had not focused America on Obamacare."
Still, pro-immigration advocates are hopeful they can attain their goal soon. "With more prodding from the president and the American people," Gutierrez said, "we can get immigration reform legislation passed in the House and signed into law."

Their 1AC proves that the plan would be a political disaster and not feasible b/c of administrative costs and market thinness

Haims and Dick, RAND Policy Analysts, 12 – *Marla C. Haims (Former RAND Global Health Initiative Director, Ph.D. and M.S. in industrial and systems engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison; B.A. in psychology, Miami University) and Andrew W. Dick (Senior RAND Economic analyst, Ph.D. in economics, Stanford University), "Extending U.S. Medicare to Mexico; Why It’s Important to Consider and What Can Be Done," Fall 2012, article 5, http://www.rand.org/pubs/periodicals/health-quarterly/issues/v2/n3/05.html.) EL

The four policy options presented above differ greatly in their practical and political feasibility.
AND
groups, such as the American Medical Association, and the general population. 

Immigration reform generates an effective base of IT experts - solves cyberterror

*top 20 firms conclude H1-B visa requestors are oversees – increasing IT experts, the majority of which are overseas, cannot come to the US, talented students that have tremendous ability to develop tech and scientific advances don’t have the ability to come to the US – collapses response mechanisms
McLarty 09 – (Thomas F. III, President – McLarty Associates and Former White House Chief of Staff and Task Force Co-Chair, "U.S. Immigration Policy: Report of a CFR-Sponsored Independent Task Force", 7-8, http://www.cfr.org/ publication/19759/us_immigration_policy.html) 

We have seen, when you look at the table of the top 20 firms
AND
going to strengthen, I think, our system, our security needs.

A successful cyber-attack ensures accidental nuclear war

Fritz 09 – (Jason, BS – St. Cloud, "Hacking Nuclear Command and Control", Study Commissioned on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament, July, www.icnnd.org/Documents/Jason_Fritz_Hacking_NC2.doc)

The US uses the two-man rule to achieve a higher level of
AND
of mass DDoS attacks, real world protests, and accusations between governments.

====Living in accord with the Tao precludes taking action to prevent death. As mere humans, we are oblivious to the overarching meaning of the universe and thus any action we take is unproductive and immoral – 3 impacts – ethics, value to life, and a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Kirkland 98 -  Ph.D. in East Asian Languages and Cultures, specialist in Asian Religions, Associate Professor of Religion at UGA, (1996, Russell Kirkland, "’RESPONSIBLE NON-ACTION’ IN A NATURAL WORLD : PERSPECTIVES FROM THE NEI-YEH, CHUANG-TZU, AND TAO-TE CHING" HARVARD CONFERENCE ON TAOISM AND ECOLOGY CB)====

Once upon a time, several years ago, I had the opportunity to engage
AND
, not even — or more correctly said, especially not — ourselves.

The alternative is to do nothing in order to appreciate the flow of the Tao – only inaction in face of interventionism solves.

Kirkland 96 – Ph.D. in East Asian Languages and Cultures, specialist in Asian Religions, Associate Professor of Religion at UGA (1996, Russell Kirkland, Ph.D. in East Asian Languages and Cultures, specialist in Asian Religions, Associate Professor of Religion at UGA, "The Book of the Way," 24-29 CB)

The focus of the Daode jing is something called "the Tao (or Dao
AND
most powerful force in existence, and nothing can thwart its unceasing operation.

Economic engagement is long-term strategy for promoting structural linkage between two economies – the plan is neither.

Mastanduno, 1 – professor of Government at Dartmouth College (Michael, "Economic Engagement Strategies: Theory and Practice" http://web.archive.org/web/20120906033646/http://polisci.osu.edu/faculty/bpollins/book/Mastanduno.pdf

The basic causal logic of economic engagement, and the emphasis on domestic politics,
AND
chain runs from economic interdependence through domestic political change to foreign policy accommodation.

Engagement towards a government must be conditional, the plan isn’t

Haass and O’Sullivan, 2k - *Vice President and Director of Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution AND a Fellow with the Foreign Policy Studies Program at the Brookings Institution (Richard and Meghan, "Terms of Engagement: Alternatives to Punitive Policies" Survival _{vol. 42, no. 2, Summer 2000, http://www.brookings.edu/~~/media/research/files/articles/2000/6/summer20haass/2000survival.pdf}

Many different types of engagement strategies exist, depending on who is engaged, the
AND
private sector in the hopes of promoting forces that will eventually facilitate cooperation.

That violates the word "its".

Glossary of English Grammar Terms, 05  
(http://www.usingenglish.com/glossary/possessive-pronoun.html)

Mine, yours, his, hers, its, ours, theirs are the possessive pronouns used to substitute a noun and to show possession or ownership.
EG. This is your disk and that’s mine. (Mine substitutes the word disk and shows that it belongs to me.)

3. Good is not good enough – precise definition outweighs – don’t allow new 1AR answers to this card.

Resnick 01 – Dr. Evan Resnick, Ph.D. in Political Science from Columbia University, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Yeshiva University, "Defining Engagement", Journal of International Affairs, Spring, 54(2), Ebsco

CONCLUSION
In matters of national security, establishing a clear definition of terms is a precondition
AND
"engagement," they undermine the ability to build an effective foreign policy.

Text: The United States federal government should develop a Medicare insurance program with the Mexican Ministry of Health for American citizens living in Mexico if and only if Mexico agrees to:

- Enhance transparency by protecting the free flow of information,

- Expand targeted performance-based funding to the Mexican states,

- Allow monitoring and reporting of crimes directly to a federal body,

- And increase police wages, training, and equipment.

Conditions key – creates political pressure to enact the counterplan.

Reyes et al 12, (Alex Velez-Green, Robin Reyes, and Anthony Ramicone, September, The Institute of Politics is a non-profit organization located in the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, "GOVERNMENTAL, JUDICIAL AND POLICE CORRUPTION," http://www.iop.harvard.edu/sites/default/files_new/research-policy-papers/TheWarOnMexicanCartels.pdf)

Thirdly, recognizing that functioning police forces are essential to ensure the safety of noncorrupt
AND
remain independent of local political pressures by reporting directly to a federal agency.

That solves organized crime.

Sabet 10 (Daniel, May 2010, "Police Reform in Mexico: Advances and Persistent Obstacles," Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Mexico Institute, University of San Diego Trans-Border Institute, Daniel Sabet is a visiting professor at Georgetown University’s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/dms76/policefiles/Sabet_police_reform.pdf)

At no time in Mexico’s history has there been a greater need for professional police
AND
creating an effective police force operating ¶ within the confines of the law.

That causes CBW warfare which escalates to extinction.

CSIS 9 (Center for Strategic and International Studies, "Revolution 6 - Conflict," Global Strategy Institute," gsi.csis.org/index.php?Itemid=5926id=3026option=com_content26task=view)

The shift from interstate to intrastate war and the increasing capacity of non-state
AND
these technologies, as in power generation, while deterring the nefarious ones. 

2. Latin American instability.
Bagley 1 (Bruce, "GLOBALIZATION AND TRANSNATIONAL ORGANIZED CRIME: THE RUSSIAN MAFIA IN LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN," School of International Studies at the University of Miami Coral Gables, November 15, http://www.as.miami.edu/international-studies/pdf/Bagley20GLOBALIZATION202.pdf)

The dangers and risks to Lain American governments and societies that emanate from expanding Russian
AND
, effective democratic governance and long-run regime stability throughout the hemisphere.

this adv is nonsensical—the status quo solves— it says that in the case of an Asian war, if there was also instability in Mexico, we would have a hard time focusing on Asia—no evidence that Asia war is coming now
Mexican economy growing and second half surge expected
Financial Times 7/22 ("Mexico: bouncing back?", 7/22/13, http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2013/07/22/mexico-bouncing-back/~~23axzz2ZpODok4P)//WL

More signs perhaps that Mexico’s economy is sputtering back to life? On Monday,
AND
consensus now is for GDP to expand by 2.7 per cent.
And, Mexico’s economy is resilient
TWI 12 (Thomas White International, January 27, 2012,"Mexico: The glow of economic resilience lightens the shadows of violence", http://www.thomaswhite.com/world-markets/mexico-the-glow-of-economic-resilience-lightens-the-shadows-of-violence/ )Wave3seo

But, surprisingly, the Mexican economy has so far remained somewhat impervious to all
AND
demand fluctuations, adds to Mexico’s luster in the eyes of large manufacturers.
ASEAN solves stability
Noi 07 – (Goh Sui Noi, @ Straits Times, 8-23-07 ~Asean ’holds key to building stable East Asian region’;  S’pore official says grouping plays vital role by providing neutral platform, lexis~

GOVERNMENTS in the East Asian region have realised that it is in their nations’ interests
AND
legal basis to the grouping, is expected to deepen integration within Asean.

No overpopulation.

Wise, 1/9 – contributing editor at Travel + Leisure and Popular Mechanics, he has also written for The New York Times Magazine, Esquire, Details, Men’s Journal, and many others(Jeff, "About That Overpopulation Problem," Slate, January 9, 2013, http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/01/world_population_may_actually_start_declining_not_exploding.html, SMS)
*Cites UN Predictions and academic reports

The world’s seemingly relentless march toward overpopulation achieved a notable milestone in 2012: Somewhere
AND
women tend to produce far more children than the native-born do.

Offshore balancing inevitable – attempts to shift away from it culminate in war.

Walt 11 – ~Stephen, Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University, "What I told the Navy this year," 6-10, http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/06/10/what_i_told_the_navy_this_year~~

I had the privilege of delivering a keynote speech to the Naval War College’s Current
AND
, and how much more blood and treasure we squander before we do. 

Decline facilitates US multilateralism—paves the way for a soft landing that prevents their transition impacts.

He 10—Professor of Political Science at Utah State University ~Kai He (Postdoctoral fellow in the Princeton-Harvard China and the World Program at Princeton University (2009–2010) and a Bradley fellow of the Lynda and Harry Bradley Foundation (2009–2010), "The hegemon’s choice between power and security: explaining US policy toward Asia after the Cold War," Review of International Studies (2010), 36, pg. 1121–1143~
*Heg encourages power maximization
*Decline forces them to worry about security. Leads to multilateralism/OSB
*US willing to pay lock-in price to constrain peer competitor
*1990’s prove
*Multilateralism creates a soft landing during decline 

When US policymakers perceive a rising or a stable hegemony, the anarchic nature of
AND
multilateral institutions in order to constrain other states’ behaviour for its own security.
US foreign policy towards Asia preliminarily supports the power-perception hegemonic model. When
AND
Asian allies, the US words with the sword became unreliable at best.
During President Clinton’s first tenure, how to revive US economy became the first priority
AND
eroding political and military influence after the strategic retreats in the early 1990s.
However, the US ’new economy’ based on information technology and computers revived policymakers’
AND
military engagement in the region through extensive security cooperation with other Asian states.
The selective engagement policy of the US in the late 1990s was substantially expanded by
AND
nature of the hegemonic dominion strategy during the George W. Bush administration.
What will the US do in the future? The power-perception hegemonic model
AND
depends on how US policymakers perceive the rise and fall of US hegemony.
If historical learning can help US policymakers cultivate a prudent perception regarding US hegemony,
AND
security in the future anarchic, multipolar world. Pg. 1141-1143

Heg doesn’t solve stability but destabilizes the world turning their impact

Cambanis 12 – ~Thanassis, fellow at The Century Foundation, is the author of "A Privilege to Die: Inside Hezbollah’s Legions and Their Endless War Against Israel", "The lonely superpower," http://bostonglobe.com/ideas/2012/01/22/the-lonely-superpower/FRkSf1s5n9lXku4VqvEtqJ/story.html~~

Now, however, with a few decades of experience to study, a young
AND
be much safer for a unipolar superpower, not more costly and hazardous.

BLOCK

You MUST be able to establish a theoretical baseline for topicality evaluating anything else – "knowing it when you see it" is an awful standard

Hayden 13 (Dr. Craig Hayden is an assistant professor in the International Communication Program at American University’s School of International Service. "Engagement" is More Convenient than Helpful: Dissecting a Public Diplomacy Term.", http://intermap.org/2013/06/20/engagement-is-more-convenient-than-helpful-dissecting-a-public-diplomacy-term/
The term engagement matters because it implies a specific practice, to facilitate a certain objective or outcome, and yet it doesn’t actually identify a practice. And as Wallin notes, it’s hard to discern engagement in relation to public diplomacy if we don’t have some standards or definition. Public diplomacy watchers and scholars may "know it when they see it," but I’m not sure how this helps provide constructive critique.

Unipolarity is destroying bipartisan compact needed to sustain support for multilateralism—makes our policies erratic and incoherent.

Kupchan 26 Trubowitz 7—Professor of International Affairs @ Georgetown University 26 Professor of
AND
, No. 2 (Fall 2007), pp. 7–44~

The conditions that sustained liberal internationalism have of late been rapidly disappearing, dramatically weakening
AND
class tensions; and political pragmatism has been losing ground to ideological extremism.
The polarization of the United States has dealt a severe blow to the bipartisan compact
AND
politics, may be the hardest single thing at this particular time."5
Prominent voices from across the political spectrum have called for the restoration of a robust
AND
an overarching strategy that can unite the United States and its allies."7
These exhortations are in vain. The halcyon era of liberal internationalism is over;
AND
as selective and judicious as it is purposeful. Pg. 8-10

AND, unipolarity directly trades off with US leadership.

Ikenberry 6—Professor of Politics and International Affairs @ Princeton University ~G. John Ikenberry, Liberal International Theory in the Wake of 911 and American Unipolarity, 22 January 2006, pg. http://tinyurl.com/6v3vtyy-http://tinyurl.com/6v3vtyy~~

Liberalism and American Hegemony - A final crisis point in liberal internationalism is that the postwar liberal project depended on enlightened American hegemony—and now that hegemony is more problematic. Like the balance of power, American hegemony has been more of a pre-condition for the emergence of liberal order than its champions might admit. But the character of that hegemony is under strain and changing.
For half a century, the United States held the keys to global order—
AND
it correctly, this American-style liberal hegemonic order can last indefinitely.
A grand bargain stands behind this American-led liberal order. In the past
AND
same time the irritations associate with American dominance appear to be are growing.
It might be useful to think of this dynamic this way: the United States
AND
—liberal hegemon and traditional great power—are increasingly in conflict.30
So the danger to liberal internationalism lies with its greatest champion. The United States
AND
thinks about the provision of international rules, institutions, and public goods.
CONCLUSION - The United States, together with allied European and East Asian partners,
AND
global order is now a reality that America itself must accommodate itself to.
*US key - US provides the framework of cooperation
*Multilat allows the world to bandwagon instead of resist
*Multilat = open market, intergovernmental institutions, 26 cooperative security

Only the transition solves disease.

Weber et al 07 – ~Steven, professor of political science and director of the Institute of International Studies at the University of California, Berkeley, Naazneen Barma, Matthew Kroenig, and Ely Ratner, all Ph.D. candidates at U.C., Berkeley and research fellows at its New Era Foreign Policy Center, Foreign Policy, January/February, 2007, Issue 158, l/n~
*Hegemony prevents disease solutions – that’s Fidler – the US will be focused on keeping other countries under its control instead of the threat of diseases – poor countries where diseases are most commonly developed due to close proximity with farm animals breeds extreme diseases –
The same is true for global public health. Globalization is turning the world into
AND
Southeast Asia or sub-Saharan Africa. America can’t change that alone.

Attempts to sustain heg cause Russian war.

Press TV 09 – ~"Medvedev lashes out at US hegemony," Sept 15 http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=10620926sectionid=351020602~~

Russia’s President has slammed America’s global dominance saying all nations have the right to remark on the policies of a state whose actions affect the world.
 Speaking at the opening of a global security conference in the central Russian city of Yaroslavl on Monday, Dmitry Medvedev said those problems of one country, have the potential to lead to international conflict.
 "This happens immediately and incompetence and reluctance to solve one’s own problems inflict damage not only to your country but to a huge number of other countries," he added.
 The Russian president also lashed out at what he thought the "ill-thought-out" policies of a country that led to the global financial melt down.
 Medvedev did not refer to the United States by name but the target of his comments was clear.
 His remarks came shortly before the US President Barack Obama delivered a key speech in New York, where he described the global economic crisis as Washington and Wall Street’s "collective failure".
 Earlier in March the Kremlin had suggested that the international community should have a say when the world’s richest countries make decisions with global implications.
 Medvedev’s comments further developed those ideas, attacking efforts by any party to advance what he called "utopian projects of global supremacy … ’Global Caliphate’ or ’Benevolent Hegemony’".
 There can be no "high-flown justification for military adventures, suppression of rights and freedoms — of any illegal activities," he stressed.

Extinction.

Helfand and Pastore 09 – ~Ira Helfand, M.D., and John O. Pastore, M.D., are past presidents of Physicians for Social Responsibility.
March 31, 2009, "U.S.-Russia nuclear war still a threat", http://www.projo.com/opinion/contributors/content/CT_pastoreline_03-31-09_EODSCAO_v15.bbdf23.html~~

President Obama and Russian President Dimitri Medvedev are scheduled to Wednesday in London during the
AND
alert status of nuclear weapons that existed  in 1995 remains in place today.  

Asian war is unlikely – all potential conflicts are solved by regional stability initiatives throughout the region

Bitzinger and Desker 08 – (senior fellow and dean of S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies respectively (Richard A. Bitzinger, Barry Desker, "Why East Asian War is Unlikely," Survival, December 2008, http://pdfserve.informaworld.com-/678328_731200556_906256449.pdf)

The Asia-Pacific region can be regarded as a zone of both relative insecurity
AND
this suggests that war in Asia – while not inconceivable – is unlikely. 

====AFF Choice checks – we won’t read the counterplan against conditional affs, but against unconditional affs it’s core neg ground.====
Kahl and Brimley 8 — Colin Kahl, Assistant Professor in the Security Studies Program at Georgetown University, Fellow at the Center for a New American Security, holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from Columbia University, and Shawn Brimley, Bacevich Fellow at the Center for a New American Security, 2008 ("The Case for Conditional Engagement in Iraq," Policy Brief — Center for a New American Security, March 6^th, Available Online at http://www.cnas.org/node/155, Accessed 07-15-2013)

President Bush and his successor have only three basic choices on strategy for Iraq: unconditional engagement, conditional engagement, or unconditional disengagement.  Only a policy of conditional engagement can help translate recent security gains into something more sustainable.

Topic Education – the core question of economic engagement is whether or not it should be conditional – the two are in tension with one another.

Kim and Kang 9 — Sung Chull Kim, Professor of Northeast Asian Studies at the Hiroshima Peace Institute, and David C. Kang, Professor of International Relations and Business at the University of Southern California, 2009 ("Introduction: Engagement as a Viable Alternative to Coercion," Engagement with North Korea: A Viable Alternative, Edited by Sung Chull Kim, Published by SUNY Press, ISBN 1438427867, p. 9)

The five states, anchored by the Six-Party Talks, have had a
AND
as they try to end North Korea’s nuclear ambitions constitute a challenging issue. 

Best literature base.

Busch 9 — Benjamin C. Busch, Master’s Candidate at the Naval Postgraduate School, Major in the United States Air Force, holds a B.S. from the United States Air Force Academy, 2009 ("Cognitive Bargaining Model: An Analysis Tool for Third Party Incentives?," Master’s Thesis Submitted to the Naval Postgraduate School, December, Available Online at http://edocs.nps.edu/npspubs/scholarly/theses/2009/Dec/09Dec_Busch.pdf, Accessed 07-16-2013, p. 3-4)

To answer how to maximize the effects of incentives, it is necessary to look
AND
and debates surrounding positive incentives, and identifies some important gaps in knowledge.

Obama leaks.

Thompson 08, Michael, staff writer for Associated Content, 11-5-. ~Associated Content, The Obama Administation’s First Leak, http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1182373/rahm_emanuel_the_obama_administrations_pg2_pg2.html?cat=9~~

So how does candidate Obama’s camp spring virtually no leaks during a 20-month
AND
front, Barack Obama already is being tested by leaks within 24 hours.

So does the federal government.

Wilson and Dilulio 98, Professors of Political Science and UCLA and Princeton, James Q. Wilson and John J. ~American Government: Institutions and Policies, p. 291~

American government is the leakiest in the world . The bureaucracy, members of Congress
AND
not against the law for the press to receive and print government secrets.

====3. Time Frame – counterplan requires 5 more policies to be implemented before the aff – ’Resolved’ implies immediacy.====
Words and Phrases 64 (Permanent Edition)

Definition of the word "resolve," given by Webster is "to express an opinion or determination by resolution or vote; as ’it was resolved by the legislature;" It is of similar force to the word "enact," which is defined by Bouvier as meaning "to establish by law".

4. Certainty of the plan – the counterplan only occurs if Mexico says yes – "Should" is mandatory.

Nieto 9 – Judge Henry Nieto, Colorado Court of Appeals, 8-20-2009 People v. Munoz, 240 P.3d 311 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009)

"Should" is "used . . . to express duty, obligation,
AND
be allocated for the purpose of parents’ federal tax exemption to be mandatory).

Tournament: Greenhill RR | Round: 1 | Opponent: All Rounds | Judge:
please ignore the and#34;Round numberand#34; part.