Politics Updates Waru: Shawnee Mission East Debate 2011

Shawnee Mission East Debate 2011
Carey
1 WaRu Politics/Spending Updates
Politics Updates WaRu

Politics Updates WaRu ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1
***Elections*** ............................................................................................................................................ 3
Obama Will Win ................................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Obama Wont Win .............................................................................................................................................................................. 7 Too Early To Tell ................................................................................................................................................................................ 9
***Agenda Items*** ...................................................................................................................................12 ***SKFTA*** ..............................................................................................................................................13

SKFTA 1NC ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 14 SKFTA Will Pass .............................................................................................................................................................................. 16 AT: UQ Overwhelms the Link .......................................................................................................................................................... 18 Political Capital Key.......................................................................................................................................................................... 19 KNA Will Pass .................................................................................................................................................................................. 20 AT: TAA Blocks SKFTA .................................................................................................................................................................. 21 SKFTA K2 Global Free Trade Leadership ........................................................................................................................................ 22 SKFTA K2 Alliance .......................................................................................................................................................................... 23 SKFTA Wont Pass ........................................................................................................................................................................... 24 SFKTA K2 Alliance .......................................................................................................................................................................... 25 SFKTA K2 Heg ................................................................................................................................................................................. 26 FTAs Will Pass ................................................................................................................................................................................ 27 FTAs Wont Pass ............................................................................................................................................................................. 28 Columbia FTADrug Cartel ............................................................................................................................................................ 29 Columbian FTA GoodEconomy .................................................................................................................................................... 30 Jobs Bill Will Pass ............................................................................................................................................................................. 31 Jobs Bill Wont Pass .......................................................................................................................................................................... 32 China Sanctions Will Pass ................................................................................................................................................................. 33 China Sanctions Wont Pass .............................................................................................................................................................. 34 Patent Reform Will Pass .................................................................................................................................................................... 35 Patent Reform Wont Pass ................................................................................................................................................................. 36 China Currency Thumper .................................................................................................................................................................. 37
***Political Capital*** ...............................................................................................................................38

No Political Capital ........................................................................................................................................................................... 39
***Random Answers*** .............................................................................................................................43

Dickinson No Vote Switch ................................................................................................................................................................ 44 Snowe And Collins K2 Agenda .......................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
***Spending Updates*** ............................................................................................................................45

Econ High Now ................................................................................................................................................................................. 46 Econ Low Now .................................................................................................................................................................................. 47 Fiscal Discipline Now ....................................................................................................................................................................... 49 No Fiscal Discipline Now.................................................................................................................................................................. 50

Carey
***F.Y.I.***
The politics scenario that I focused the most on this week was SKFTA which stands for the South Korea Free Trade Agreement. This bill would open up trade markets with South Korea and create 300,000 new jobs. This legislation is primarily popular with Republicans in the House and Senate. But, the GOP needs key Democrat votes in the Senate to ensure passage (it is almost certain it will pass in the House). So, if the Affirmative is mainly unpopular with Democrats, then you should run SKFTA b/c the plan would disrupt the momentum the bill is gaining in the status quo with the Dems. Terms KNA=Korean National Assembly (This is their Congress who has to ratify the trade agreement after we do) KORUS=What SKFTA is technically called (South Korea initiated the trade agreement and they named it KORUS or Korea U.S. trade agreement) Columbia FTA (Free Trade Agreement)- This is another pending FTA between the U.S. and Columbia. I included some Columbia FTA good cards because there is a 90% chance that this FTA will be included in the South Korea deal. So, if teams say that by passing SKFTA we will also pass the Columbia deal which is bad then you can read those cards

Carey
***Elections***

Carey
Obama Will Win

Republicans will not go through with scheme to alter electoral college- too costly Kornacki 9/14
News Editor for Salon, Steve Kornacki, Why the GOPs Electoral College Scheme is Probably Doomed, Salon http://www.salon.com/news/2012_elections/?story=/politics/war_room/2011/09/14/gop_electoral_college
The alarm on the left over a plan being promoted by some big-name Republicans in America's sixth largest state that could cost Barack Obama the equivalent of a midsize state in the electoral college next year is understandable -- but it's probably much ado about nothing. As Mother Jones' Nick Baumann wrote on Tuesday, top Republicans in both houses of the GOP-controlled
Pennsylvania Legislature and the state's Republican governor (Tom Corbett) are talking up the idea of doing away with the state's winner-take-all apportioning of electoral votes and instead divvying them up by congressional district. Given that Pennsylvania has favored the Democrats in five state presidential elections, it seems clear which party would benefit most under this arrangement. For instance, by winning the state in 2008, Barack Obama claimed all of its 21 electoral votes. But under a district-based system, that number would have been cut to 11, since he only won nine congressional districts (he would have gotten the extra two by winning the statewide popular vote). That swing wouldn't have mattered much in '08, when Obama racked up 365 electoral votes, but 2012 is looking to be a much closer race -- one in which a swing of a 10 electoral votes either way could make a huge difference. (Thanks to reapportionment, Pennsylvania will be down to 20 electoral votes next year.) With Republicans controlling both the legislative and executive branches in Harrisburg, they have the power to impose a district-based plan if they want to -- and as cynical as it would be, it would also be perfectly legal. And if Pennsylvania were to do it, well, then what would stop other big, Democratic-friendly states where Republicans now control state government (like, say, Michigan) from doing the same thing? Suddenly, we could be talking about dozens of electoral votes being stripped from Obama's column in 2012 -- and from Democratic nominees for years to come. So why
shouldn't Democrats be worried? There are several reasons. One is that state-level politicians often have interests that have nothing to do with the national scene. There's a tendency for outsiders to look at a story like this strictly through the lens of national politics -- Republicans run the state and here's a chance for them to help Mitt or Rick, so of course they'll do it. But changing the electoral vote rules would be a major undertaking for Republicans all over the state, one that would carry all sorts of risks and fallout that they would have to live with. For
instance, Democrats would presumably mobilize like they did in Wisconsin if the GOP were to push this plan. And while Scott Walker and the GOP ultimately got their way in Madison, it came at an enormous price: Walker's popularity is in the tank, several state senators lost their jobs, and state government was essentially paralyzed for months. Would Pennsylvania Republicans really be willing to go to those lengths to impose something like this? Big state capitals are their own little worlds: Is the presidential race really that important to Republicans in Harrisburg? Would
key county and local GOP leaders be satisfied that they and their organizations wouldn't be hurt by fundamentally altering the way the top-of-the-ticket race is handled every four years? And how would each Republican House member feel about his or her district suddenly taking on so much importance? Plus, there's the law of unintended consequences. Sure,
Pennsylvania has been a reliable Democratic state since 1992. But as Dave Weigel noted, it's not like the state is permanently off-limits to the GOP. Just look at last year's midterm elections, which swept Republicans to power in Harrisburg and handed them a U.S. Senate seat. If the economy remains in the pits through November 2012, the state should be very
much in reach for the GOP presidential nominee -- meaning that a district-based scheme could actually end up costing Republicans electoral votes. This was the fear that soured Democrats in
Colorado on a similar plan in that state back in 2004. That year, a wealthy out-of-state donor bankrolled a ballot initiative that would have doled out Colorado's nine electoral votes by district. He was motivated by the results from 2000, when Al Gore lost the state but would have been lifted over the 270 electoral vote mark had Colorado used a district-based scheme. Republicans bitterly resisted the plan: The '04 election was going to be close, and they feared that a few extra electoral votes from their state could put John Kerry over the top nationally. And when the fall rolled around and it became clear that Kerry was very much in contention to win the state outright, Democrats joined them, urging voters to defeat the proposal. The voters listened and it failed by a wide margin, with Bush winning the state -- and all of its electoral votes -- narrowly.
Already, there are signs of resistance among Pennsylvania Republicans. Some GOP House members from marginal districts are apparently worried that it would cause national Democrats to target their districts more intensely. The state party chairman is apparently against it too. It's one thing for a tiny state like Maine or Nebraska to adopt the district-based electoral
vote system. But the stakes are much higher for big states like Pennsylvania. Democrats are right to be on guard against this sort of thing; their vigilance is a reminder to Republicans of the grief they'll face if they ever pursue it -- in Pennsylvania or elsewhere. But chances are that this is as far as this idea will ever go.

Carey
Obama likely to win election, he is the lesser of two evils
Gorenstein 9/14<Staff Reporter for Daily Ticker>

Peter Gorenstein, Obama Will Win Lesser of Two Evils of Election, Daily Ticker http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/obama-win-lesser-two-evils-election-gerald-celente-194420560.html
Odds are Obama will win re-election, says Gerald Celente publisher of the Trends Journal. Head-to-head, the President would defeat the top three GOP candidates - Mitt Romney, Gov. Rick Perry and Rep. Michele Bachmann, he says in the accompanying clip. Why? "He (Obama) will promise the people something while the [Republicans] are promising to take way from them," says Celente, referring to the GOP's focus on spending cuts and restructuring of entitlement programs. In other words, it's not a vote of confidence, it's more about voting for the "lesser of two evils."
Celente thinks there are two dark horse candidates who might be able to beat Obama. Rep. Ron Paul, although he may lack the charisma needed in an era dominated by Hollywood-style campaigning.
Obama is front runner for 2012 election- far ahead of all Republican candidates International Business Times 9/15
Online Informative Newspaper, Republicans Favor Perry, but Obama Still Leads Over GOP Candidates, International Business Times http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/214407/20110915/perry-romney-republicans-obama-2012-election-presidency-poll-gopbachmann.htm There's good news and bad news in the latest Bloomberg Poll for Texas Gov. Rick Perry
regarding his quest for the U.S. presidency in 2012. The good news is Perry leads the Republican field of potential nominees. The bad news is that there are danger signs emerging concerning his ability to win support in the November 2012 general election. Perry, a conservative, is the top choice of Republican
voters and Republican-leaning Independents in the latest Bloomberg National Poll: Perry garnered 26 percent, while former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney attracted 22 percent. All other Republican candidates attracted less than 10 percent. However,
the news is not as good for Perry concerning his prospects for entering the White House. In a hypothetical match-up versus President Barack Obama, a Democrat, Obama leads Perry 49 percent to 40 percent, in the poll's entire sample. What's more, Perry's deficit versus Obama is about twice the deficit for Romney. Obama is ahead of Romney, 48 percent to
43 percent, in the poll's entire sample. Perry also has high negatives from Americans unlikely to vote for a candidate expressing the skepticism he has voiced about the viability of Social Security, evolution science, and whether humans contribute to climate change.
Obama will win 2012 election because Americans will not vote for radical Republicans Conelly 9/13
Staff Writer for TC Palm, George Conelly, President Obama Will Win Re-Election, Because Hes Running Against Part of No TC Palm http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2011/sep/12/letter-president-obama-will-win-re-election-hes/ President Obama will win re-election because he's running against Party of 'No' I predict that President Barack Obama will win in
2012. He will be victorious for two reasons: One is the woefully inadequate list of candidates put forth by the Republican Party. It has been taken over by "tea party terrorists" whose idea of negotiation is to say "no." Polls indicate while some people may disagree with President Obama's policies, they hold the Republican Party in a less favorable view. When offerings like Rick Perry, who calls Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke treasonous, Michele
Bachmann (still concerned about the rise of the Soviet Union) and Sarah Palin (who hasn't declared, but is running), and Ron Paul (who wants to abolish the Federal Reserve Bank), most people would agree that the GOP has been hijacked by the Republican radical right. At least Mitt (the flip-flopper) Romney looks presidential. In short, there are no
moderate Republicans. The second reason is that most Americans are knowledgeable enough to understand that the Republicans, while consistently screaming for lower taxes and a bigger defense budget, are spending most of their time in criticism of the president instead of offering solutions to the country's problems. Obama will be reelected, regardless of low poll numbers
Fritze 9/15
News Reporter for Baltimore Sun, John Fritze, OMalley Praises Rick Perry, Predicts Obama to Win Baltimore Sun

Carey
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/local/politics/2011/09/omalley_praises_rick_perry_for.html
Arguing that both political parties need to create a new narrative as the nation heads into a polarizing 2012 presidential election, Gov. Martin OMalley said Thursday that none of the leading GOP candidates have offered policies that are terribly different than the ones that got us into this mess and he predicted that President Barack Obama would be reelected despite sagging poll numbers. Speaking to a regular breakfast gathering of political reporters in
Washington, OMalley also offered sly praise for the leading GOP presidential candidate, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, for supporting a 2001 law in Texas that permits some illegal immigrants to attend college at in-state tuition rates. The law, similar to one passed in Maryland this year, has recently been used against Perry by his Republican opponents.
Obama guaranteed to be reelected- several reasons Fanning 9/15

Staff Writer for The Summit Daily, John Fanning Obama Wont Lose in 2012 Daily Summit http://www.summitdaily.com/article/20110915/LETTER/110919924/1078&ParentProfile=1055
Obama as the incumbent owns the bully pulpit paid for with our tax money. One could argue the speech he gave to the joint session of Congress on September 8 to introduce his American Jobs Act was the kick off of his campaign for re-election in 2012. One could make the
case the trips following this speech into primarily Republican districts were political rather than policy. Whatever the case, all is paid for with taxpayer dollars. Two, he does not have to participate in a primary. Over the past two decades, no sitting president has been challenged by another candidate from his own party. Three, Obama has delivered health care
to millions of people (voters), and had Osama bin Laden shot in the head. Four, he has the unions in his hip pocket, and they have him in theirs. Five, he has the black vote, probably over 90 percent. Six, he most likely will have the majority of the Hispanic community.
Seven, he has a complicit media. One could refer to most of it as state run. I could cite many instances of where the media is covering for and pulling for him. It began three years ago. ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and his flagship MSNBC could be viewed as state run. Liberals love to cite FOX as right wing. Even if they were, they are but a drop in the viewer puddle. Eight, many in America are proud they elected the first person of color to the highest office
in the land. Many will overlook his dismal performance, his lack of understanding America's exceptionalism, and his total incompetence, and the chip on his shoulder regarding our great country, and vote for him again. You may be wondering, what if the economy does not improve? Oh but it will! Any improvement will be credited to Mr. Obama. His complicit media will see to it. And remember, our country is resilient. The economy will get better no matter what he does or doesn't do. The timing of an improvement could not be better for him. Fourteen months is a long time.

Carey
Obama Wont Win

Obama will lose election- republicans gaining power Fouhy 9/14
Staff Writer for Associated Press, Beth Fouhy, GOP Upset Win in NY Portends Challenge for Obama, AP. 9/14/11 http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/09/14/politics-us-ny-special-election_8678564.html
It sounded improbable on the surface that a New York City congressional district where Democrats have a 3-1 registration edge and have held office for nearly a century could even come close to electing a Republican to the U.S. House. But voter frustration over the sour economy and President Barack Obama's policies made the improbable a reality, as a Republican political novice, Bob Turner, scored an upset victory in a special election Tuesday over David Weprin, a Democratic assemblyman from a prominent local political family. The surprising results in the Brooklyn and Queens-area district portend a perilous national environment for Obama as he prepares to seek re-election next year. Turner said as much when he stepped before cameras to claim victory Tuesday night. "This message will resound for a full year. It will resound into 2012," said
Turner, a retired broadcasting executive. "I only hope our voices are heard, and we can start putting things right again." Weprin called Turner to concede Wednesday morning. With Turner's win, Republicans now hold 242 seats in the House to 192 for Democrats. There is one vacancy. Also Tuesday, Republican Mark Amodei won a landslide victory in a U.S. House special election in Nevada, an important presidential swing state.
Republicans will win election- voters are angry and democrats switching sides Kane and Sonmez 9/14
Staff Writers for Washington Post, Paul Kane, Felicia Sonmez, After Losing Special House Election in New York, Democrats Look Toward 2012, Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/after-losing-special-house-election-in-new-yorkdemocrats-look-toward-2012/2011/09/14/gIQAEJY8SK_story.html The tendency in Washington is to always focus on the next election, so Democrats
spent much of Wednesday trying to shake off the beating they took Tuesday in a special congressional election in New York. They said the results were a wake-up call, a pox on both sides, an anomaly and an atypical special election. They acknowledged that the voters were angry. Anybody who was asleep after 2010 ... they should wake
up, said Rep. Joe Courtney (Conn.), who was swept into office in the Democratic wave of 2006. The fact is that if you spend any time back home in your district, you know this is a climate where you just got to go out and hustle. Voters
who are disgruntled by President Obamas handling of the economy elected a tea party Republican to a district that has been in Democratic hands since 1923. Democrats worry that if the economy does not improve and voter anger does not subside, the 2012 election could be devastating for Obama and congressional Democrats. Ive never seen a feeling like this, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.), who was elected to his first term in the Watergate class of 1974, said of the
voters. Leahy said that the overall attitude was a pox on both your houses for Democrats and Republicans, but suggested that Democrats need to find a way to contain, maybe reverse, this furious state of the electorate.
Lack of support from Jewish voters will cost Obama the election Yakabuski 9/14
Chief U.S. Political Writer for The Globe and Mail, Konrad Yakabuski, Results Leaves Democrats Uneasy about Jewish Vote, The Globe and Mail, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/konrad-yakabuski/result-leaves-democrats-uneasy-about-jewishvote/article2166739/
Almost 80 per cent of Jewish Americans cast their ballot for Barack Obama in 2008. Blacks
were the only racial, ethnic or religious group to vote more en masse for the first African-American presidential nominee. Now, an upset victory by Republican candidate Bob Turner in a heavily Jewish New York City district the first GOP win there since 1923 has reignited speculation that unhappiness with Mr. Obamas policy toward Israel
could cost Democrats critical support among Jews in 2012. The prospect of Mr. Obama becoming another Jimmy Carter the only Democratic presidential candidate since 1920 to win less than 50 per cent of the Jewish vote seems far-fetched. But even modest slippage in support among Jews could put some districts, and swing states like Florida, in the GOP column.

Carey
Obama will lose 2012 election- Republicans can manipulate electoral college votes Baumann 9/14
News Editor for Mother Jones News Organization, Nick Baumann, The GOPs Genius Plan to Beat Obama in 2012, Mother Jones. http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/09/gop-electoral-college-plan-beat-obama-2012
Republican state legislators in Pennsylvania are pushing a scheme that, if GOPers in other states follow their lead, could cause President Barack Obama to lose the 2012 electionnot because of the vote count, but because of new rules. That's not all: There's no legal way for Democrats to stop them. The problem for Obama, and the opportunity for Republicans, is the electoral college. Every political junkie knows that the presidential election isn't a truly national contest; it's a state-by-state fight,
and each state is worth a number of electoral votes equal to the size of the state's congressional delegation. (The District of Columbia also gets three votes.) There are 538 electoral votes up for grabs; win 270, and you're the
president. Here's the rub, though: Each state gets to determine how its electoral votes are allocated. Currently, 48 states
and DC use a winner-take-all system in which the candidate who wins the popular vote in the state gets all of its electoral votes. Under the Republican planwhich has been endorsed by top GOPers in both houses of
the state Legislature, as well as the governor, Tom CorbettPennsylvania would change from this system to one where each congressional district gets its own electoral vote. (Two electoral votesone for each of the state's two senatorswould go to the statewide winner.) This could cost Obama dearly. The GOP controls both houses of the state Legislature plus the governor's mansionthe so-called "redistricting
trifecta"in Pennsylvania. Congressional district maps are adjusted after every census, and the last one just finished up.
That means Pennsylvania Republicans get to draw the boundaries of the state's congressional districts without any input from Democrats. Some of the early maps have leaked to the press, and Democrats expect that the Pennsylvania congressional map for the 2012 elections will have 12 safe GOP seats compared to just 6 safe Democratic seats. Under the Republican plan, if the GOP presidential nominee carries the GOP-leaning districts but Obama carries the state, the GOP nominee would get 12 electoral votes out of Pennsylvania, but Obama would only get eight. Obama will lose 2012 election- even liberals have had enough
Del Beccaro 9/15

Columnist for Big Government, Thomas Del Beccaro, Even in California, Obama is Running Out of Excuses and Time Big Government http://biggovernment.com/tdelbeccaro/2011/09/15/even-in-california-obama-is-running-out-of-excuses-and-time/ In 2008, candidate Obama famously dodged a serious question by telling America that the question was simply above [his]
Three years into his Presidency, voters around the country are clearly voicing their opinion that being held accountable for the failing economy is not above his pay grade. Even in California, perhaps Americas last bastion of liberalism, voters are finally turning on Obama. Around the country, the numbers all point to Obama losing in next years Presidential election. Generic Republicans beat him
pay grade. in polling match ups. Following Democrats loss of the House last year, Republicans just won a special election for a seat in
Perhaps the most telling number, unemployment is above 9% (with no real improvement in sight) and no President has won re-election with unemployment above 8%.
New York that they havent held since 1923.

Carey
Too Early To Tell

Its too early to call the electionunemployment rates and presidential approval are irrelevant Holbrook 8/7/11 Thomas M. Holbrook Posted: 06:44 PM ET Department chair and Wilder Crane Professor of political
science, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thomas-m-holbrook/elections-2012prediction_b_920618.html I suppose it is understandable to focus on Obama's approval rating, though I think it is silly to put too much
stock
in it this far before the election.
Also, given its prevalence in the media, I suppose it is not surprising that some have focused on the unemployment rate, both nationwide and in key states. To say this is not surprising, however, is not the same thing as saying it is a good idea. In fact, academic election forecasters pay relatively little
attention to the unemployment rate when predicting election outcomes, generally focusing on broader indicators, such as change in GDP or change in per capita income. But, more importantly, it is just not a good idea to read too much into any current conditions (whether unemployment, presidential approval, or anything else) this far ahead of the election. As Seth Masket points out, Obama is much more likely to be held accountable for economic conditions a few months prior to the election
than for those we are currently experiencing.
No one knows who is going to win the election and there is no relationship between unemployment, the economy and reelection Holbrook 8/7/11 Thomas M. Holbrook Posted: 06:44 PM ET Department chair and Wilder Crane Professor of political
science, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thomas-m-holbrook/elections-2012prediction_b_920618.html Just how well can you predict election outcomes this far (fifteen months) ahead of time? Let's look at some data. First, consider the relationship between presidential election outcomes from 1948 to 2008 and the unemployment rate in July of the year before the election. I think the bottom line from this figure should be
loud and clear: DON'T EVEN TRY TO PREDICT THE 2012 ELECTION WITH CURRENT (July, 2011) UNEMPLOYMENT DATA! (Sorry for shouting). There is hardly any relationship (r-squared=.07), and slight pattern that does exist is nonsensical, indicating that Obama's best strategy would be to increase unemployment as much as possible. The system for forecasting elections is fundamentally flawed (lulz) Eisenhower and Nelson 2K
http://www.uvm.edu/~dguber/POLS125/articles/eisenhower.htm According to several esteemed political scientists, Al Gore already has the 2000 election in the bag. Friday's Washington Post front page reported that these experts, "who have honed and polished the art of election forecasting have a startlingly good record predicting election results months in advance." On Meet the Press, Tim Russert reverently quoted one professor who told the Post the election is "not even going to be close." This quadrennial number-crunching ritual
doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The principal art these forecasters have honed is the art of spin. And the only startlingly good record they've compiled is a record of dazzling the media. Here's how they do it. 1. Predict the past. Since most election models are recent inventions, most of the elections against which their accuracy is measured predate them.
One political scientist, James Campbell of State University of New York at Buffalo, points out that these retrocasts are "not a very stringent test, since the expected votes used to evaluate the equation are used in estimating the equation." In other words, forecasters fit their models to the quirks of a dozen or so elections and then
congratulate themselves on how closely their models "predict" the outcomes they used to create the models in the first place. Through the magic of retrocasting, numerous unlikely variables can be
correlated with election results. 2. Predict the obvious. Even knowing the answers ahead of time, many models have an uneven record. University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee's Thomas Holbrook successfully retrocasts the outcome of only 10 of 12 elections, choosing the wrong winner in 1960 and 1968. He says that "only two elections are called incorrectly." But how hard are some of these to predict? The last 12 elections include two unsurprising landslides (1952 and 1980) and the easy reelection of five popular incumbents (in 1956, 1964, 1972, 1984, and 1996). This means Holbrook predicts the winner in only three out of five close electionslittle better than a coin toss. 3. Duck the hard calls. The biggest upset of the century was Harry Truman's re-election in 1948. As Campbell notes, 1948 is the only postwar election in which the leader in lateSeptember polls did not win the election. Since most of the models use polling data as an independent variable, most

Carey
forecasters begin their analyses with 1952. 4. Piggyback on polls. Nearly every
model includes some measure of public opinion about the candidates or the incumbent administration. This boils down to predicting how people will vote by asking them ahead of time how they will vote. Through
careful analysis, Campbell discovered, astoundingly, that September and October polls are more accurate than June and July polls, so his model incorporates trial-heat data from September Gallup Polls. 5. Cover your bets.
Forecasts are generally based on economic and public opinion data that change throughout the year. So each time our experts are asked to make a prediction, they plug in different numbers and get a different result. The Post seems particularly impressed that University of Houston's
Christopher Wlezien and the University of Iowa's Michael Lewis-Beck (the professor who said this year's contest is "not even going to be close") separately predicted the outcome of the 1996 presidential election within fractions of a percentage point, "closer to the actual result than the national exit poll." In the October 1996 edition of American Politics Quarterly, LewisBeck predicted Clinton would win 54.8 percent of the two-party vote, and Wlezien predicted 54.5 percent. When the votes were counted, Clinton's share was 54.7 percent. How did Wlezien and Lewis-Beck do it? They issued a series of predictions covering a five-point range. The Wlezien forecast touted by the Post used June 1996 data. But in the same journal, Wlezien recalculated with July data, projecting a 56 percent vote share for Clinton. In the fall 1996 Brookings Review, Wlezien pegged Clinton's share at 55.6 percent, while Lewis-Beck pegged it at 53.3 percent. In May 1996, Wlezien predicted Clinton would get 53 percent, and Lewis-Beck put the number at 50.9 percentfour points off target. The Post overlooks the erroneous May 1996 predictions even though the Post itself published them. If at first you don't succeed, keep guessing, because nobody remembers when you get it wrong. 6. Get lucky in your choice of data. Models can generate alternate projections by using data from different sources as well as different months. Wlezien's model incorporates two independent variables: projected income growth and the incumbent's "job approval" rating. For his July 1996 prediction, Wlezien chose a Gallup Poll that found 57 percent of Americans approved of Clinton's job performance. This was the highest Clinton job approval number in any published poll that month. A CBS poll conducted within days of the Gallup Poll found only a 48 percent job approval rating. Factor in the polls' margins of error, and you've got a range from 44 percent to 60 percent for this variable alone. 7. Shrug off your errors. Lewis-Beck is clearly proud that one of his 1996 predictions was almost dead-on. Yet the model he used in Forecasting Elections predicted a Bush victory in 1992. Yale economist Ray Fair picked the wrong winner in 1996 and 1992, even though he's been refining his model since at least 1976 (he got that one wrong, too). Reading about forecasters' track records is like reading Money magazine's stock and mutual fund picks. They remind
you of their successes but seldom mention their failures. 8. Tweak the numbers. Behind the scenes, forecasters spend the four years between elections revising their equations. In some cases, they "respecify" their models by finding new independent variables to work with. In other cases, they simply "re-estimate"
their equations, changing the weight they attach to each variable. All they're doing is finding a formula that fits the curve of a few data points. If you're allowed to adjust the shape of your curve each time you get a new data point, why should anyone think your formula has any predictive or explanatory value? 9. Add loopholes. Political scientists claim that
econometric models can explain elections because voting follows the same scientific laws year after year. Yet a prior Holbrook model adds a special variable for the elections of 1964 and 1972 to account for the "extremist" ideologies of Barry Goldwater and George McGovern. Fair (who, unlike most, tries to explain elections all the way back to 1916) adds a special variable for the three elections he believes were strongly influenced by war: 1920, 1944, and 1948. But when an election-year war doesn't fit the equation, as in 1968, Fair leaves that variable out. 10. Blame the lack of data. Holbrook told the Post that the 13 elections he analyzes are too small a sample, saying that with 30 cases he'd be much more confident in his model. This assumes that subsequent elections would clarify rather than complicate the range of data to be explained and the array of factors that might explain them. Analyzing elections 120 years apart using the same model is like trying to figure out whether Babe Ruth was a better hitter than Mark McGwire. They didn't face the same pitchers, they played in different stadiums, and the balls are manufactured differently today than in Ruth's day. Similarly, the transition from an industrial to a service economy, the change from one-earner to two-earner households, and the rise of the investor class make it a stretch to compare attitudes about the economy across generations. At bottom, the models rest on three flaws. First,
they assume what they're supposed to prove. They exclude factors such as the strengths of each candidate and each campaign, simply because political scientists don't know how to measure them. Campbell, for instance, decides not to incorporate the candidates' positions on issues in his
model, since this factor is too "subjective" and "extremely cumbersome to calculate." In their efforts to provide "explanations" and "an understanding of what actually causes the vote on Election Day," the forecasters delude themselves: They can't predict or explain elections, because their models don't comprehend any aspect of human behavior that can't be quantified. Second, the models boil down to truisms. They reduce
elections to two independent variables: One measure of the health of the economy, and one measure of incumbent or candidate popularity. The values and coefficients they attach to these variables don't hold steady over time, but the principles do: People are inclined to vote with their pocketbooks, and popular candidates tend to get elected. Imagine that. Third, the models separate objective conditions from the subjective advocates who present them to the electorate. As
Russert put it to James Carville and Mary Matalin, econometric forecasts imply that what's going on in the

Carey
campaign now is "meaningless," because, "It's the economy, stupid." But that phrase, coined by Carville in 1992, made the opposite point. He wasn't forecasting the election's outcome. He was reminding the campaign staff that the economy was a winning message for the campaign. The economy matters in part because
candidates and campaigns make it matter, a subtlety lost on the number-crunchers.

Carey
***Agenda Items***

Carey
***SKFTA***

Carey
SKFTA 1NC
SKFTA will pass now, key Republicans and Democrats have pledged support for the TAA ensuring the momentum and votes to secure passage Needham 9/14
Vicki, Senior Staff Reporter, The Hill, GOP increases pressure on Obama to move on trade deals, http://thehill.com/business-alobbying/181677-boeing-stays-out-of-fray-over-gops-nlrb-bill?page=1#comments Republicans took to the Senate floor Wednesday to urge the Obama administration to immediately
send three pending free-trade agreements to Capitol Hill. The floor speeches are part of a campaign by the
GOP to pressure the White House to reach an agreement with House leadership on passing a worker-aid program that would free up the trade deals for congressional votes, a move supporters argue will create jobs in the stagnating economy. Weve
got to move forward on this, said Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), who along with Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) and at least a dozen other Republicans has vowed to support the streamlined version of the worker-aid bill in order to get the White House to submit the trade deals. The latest pressure from the GOP came a day after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said hell take up a trade preferences bill approved by the House next week. Reid intends to add the worker-aid bill, known as Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), to the trade preferences bill, and send the combined package to the House. The Obama administration is seeking a guarantee that the House will pass TAA before it sends the three trade deals to Congress for approval. Most observers think the agreements have the votes to secure passage in both chambers. <Insert Specific Link> SKFTA solves the alliance and Korean Warpolitical capital is key to passage Wharton 11
Knowledge @ Wharton, Think Tank, U.S.-South Korea Trade Pact: A Turning Point for American Exports?, http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2671 What's more, the fate of the pact has national security implications, says Brian Pomper, a partner at the Akin Gump law firm in Washington, D.C. and a former trade counsel for Sen. Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat who heads the Senate Finance Committee. With a nuclear-armed North Korea once more threatening military
conflict, "some may wonder how can the United States give South Korea a stiff arm" by rejecting the deal? South Korean President Lee Myung-Bak has been widely criticized at home for his weak and indecisive response to a recent artillery attack by North Korea. If Congress rejects the deal, it will be a slap in Lee's face. So beyond economic considerations, Pomper says, "this [deal] is the sort of symbol of U.S. leadership in Asia that many other countries -who are looking at China with a nervous eye -- have been [seeking]. It is reasserting American interests in Asia. The President has put his reputation on the line." What People Tell the Pollsters But is
there, in fact, sufficient political support for such a pact in the United States? Will Democrats, independents and Tea Party followers suspicious of
globalization oppose the pact because of their ideological objections, or fears that their constituents will hold it against them in the 2012 elections? Although the new text of the Korea pact won quick approval from the United Auto Workers union -- because it eliminates tariff and non-tariff barriers to U.S. auto exports to South Korea -- it was quickly rejected by Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO. Trumka argues that the agreement's provisions for investment and government procurement "will encourage off-shoring" by multinationals rather than maximize opportunities for U.S. job growth. Even under the revised treaty, both U.S. and South Korean workers would "continue to face repeated challenges to their exercise of fundamental human rights on the job -- especially freedom of association and the right to organize and bargain collectively," he adds. Pomper says many Americans tell pollsters they support stronger exports, but they don't necessarily link such a desire to bilateral or multilateral agreements that improve access to foreign markets. In other words, exports are not automatically linked with job growth in the U.S. mindset. Lately, the tide of public opinion has been turning even further against free-trade pacts among many independents and conservatives who traditionally back other kinds of initiatives -- such as lower corporate and individual tax rates -that expand opportunities for businesses. Free traders have reportedly done a poor job of explaining how these pacts can promote U.S. jobs by opening up markets. That's the key connection that supporters are promising to make this time around. One such supporter is Frank Vargo, vice president for international economic affairs at the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), who notes that manufacturing exports to South Korea supported 230,000 American jobs in 2008, the last year for which statistics are available. And that's, of course, before the new pact adds to the export flow. Vargo and other supporters have a lot of work to do. For one thing, not everyone believes in such numbers. In a recent Pew Research Center poll, "two-thirds of Tea Party people say that free-trade agreements lead to job losses, and this belief is starting to affect the Republican Party," says Pomper. "The Tea Party is a form of populism, and I am nervous that this view will start to filter up." More broadly, most Americans tell pollsters that trade is fine when it is with countries that are widely viewed as friendly, but not necessarily with others. In the Pew poll, 76% of the respondents said they favored trade with Canada and rated that country highest as a trading partner. More than 50% of respondents were also positive about the benefits of trading with Brazil, the European Union and Japan. But fewer than half of the respondents -- only 45% -- had a positive view of trade with China and South Korea. Why were so few Americans positive about South Korea, a longtime military ally of the United States? Pomper says pollsters believe the explanation is that "many Americans are geographically challenged," confusing South Korea with North Korea, which attracts a lot more attention in the mainstream media. Overall, only 33% of the respondents said that trade agreements have been "good for the U.S." Some 44% were opposed to them, and 46% said that they had been hurt personally by the agreements. In the October Wall Street Journal/NBC News Poll, 53% of respondents said that free-trade agreements have hurt the country, up from 46% in 2007 and only 32% in 1999. Even very-well-educated, upper-income people are now more likely to oppose free trade, according to the poll. Among those earning $75,000 or more, 50% said that free-trade pacts have hurt the United States, up from 24% in 1999. The Tea Party Factor During the fall election season, some Democratic and Republican candidates sought to leverage widespread xenophobia and fear of globalization by suggesting that their opponents had supported free-trade measures that wound up "exporting jobs" to China. David Spooner, a former U.S. trade negotiator who is now an attorney at Squire, Sanders & Dempsey in Washington, D.C., believes, however, that both parties had only limited success with such appeals. Spooner, a Republican, notes that Republican Rob Portman, the U.S. Trade Representative under President Bush, won his race for an Ohio Senate seat by a wide margin despite the fact that his opponent hammered away that Portman, during his tenure as Trade Representative, had supposedly sold out U.S. manufacturing jobs to China. With Portman now in the Senate and other pro-trade Republicans in key positions -- such as new Speaker John Boehner of Ohio and Majority
it is tempting to believe that both the House and the Senate will quickly push through the Korea agreement and then move on to Colombia, Panama and other trade pacts. But everything hinges on the ability of the President to assert his leadership on the Korea deal. "The
Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia --

Carey
President has demonstrated leadership," says Dittrich, "and we have no reason to think that he won't continue to do so." The battle over the Korea agreement seems likely to pit Obama on one side -- along with
pro-trade Republicans. On the other side will be anti-trade Democrats and Tea Party Republicans.
Korean War ensures extinction Hayes and Green 10

Peter and Michael, Professor of International Relations and Director of the Nautilus Institute, The Path Not Taken, the Way Still Open: Denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula and Northeast Asia, http://www.nautil.us.org/fora/security/10001HayesHamalGreen.pdf At worst, there is the possibility of nuclear attack, whether by intention, miscalculation, or
merely accident, leading to the resumption of Korean War hostilities. On the Korean Peninsula itself, key population centres are well within short or medium range missiles. The whole of Japan is likely to come within North Korean missile range. Pyongyang has a population of over 2 million, Seoul (close to the North Korean border) 11 million, and Tokyo over 20 million. Even a limited nuclear exchange would result in a holocaust of unprecedented proportions. But the catastrophe within the region would not be the only outcome. New research indicates that even a limited nuclear war in the region would rearrange our global climate far more quickly than global warming. Westberg draws attention to new studies modelling the effects of even a limited nuclear exchange involving
approximately 100 Hiroshima-sized 15 kt bombs2 (by comparison it should be noted that the United States currently deploys warheads in the range 100 to 477 kt, that is, individual warheads equivalent in yield to a range of 6 to 32 Hiroshimas).The studies indicate that the soot from the fires produced would lead to a decrease in global
temperature by 1.25 degrees Celsius for a period of 6-8 years.3 In Westbergs view: That is not global winter, but the nuclear darkness will cause a deeper drop in temperature than at any time during the last 1000 years. The temperature over the continents would decrease substantially more than the global
average. A decrease in rainfall over the continents would also followThe period of nuclear darkness will cause much greater decrease in grain production than 5% and it will continue for many years...hundreds of millions of people will die from hungerTo make matters even worse, such amounts of smoke injected into the
stratosphere would cause a huge reduction in the Earths protective ozone.4 These, of course, are not the only consequences. Reactors might also be targeted, causing further mayhem and downwind radiation effects, superimposed on a smoking, radiating ruin left by nuclear next-use. Millions of refugees would flee the affected regions. The direct impacts, and the follow-on impacts on the global economy via ecological and food insecurity, could make the present global financial crisis pale by comparison. How the great powers, especially the nuclear weapons states respond to such a crisis, and in particular, whether nuclear weapons are used in response to nuclear first-use, could make or break the global non proliferation and disarmament regimes. There could be many unanticipated impacts on regional and global security relationships5, with subsequent nuclear breakout and geopolitical turbulence, including possible loss-of-control over fissile material or warheads in the chaos of nuclear war, and aftermath chain-reaction affects involving other potential proliferant states. The Korean nuclear proliferation issue is not just a regional threat but a global one that warrants priority consideration from the international community.

Carey
SKFTA Will Pass

The only roadblock to passage is the TAA which is expected to pass next week but the vote will be close Farm Press 9/16
Staff Writer, Farm Press, Senate deal could prompt movement on pending FTAs, http://southeastfarmpress.com/government/senate-deal-could-prompt-movement-pending-ftas Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said this week the path is clear
in his chamber for consideration of trade adjustment assistance (TAA) and long-pending free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea. Reid indicated action on TAA and, later, the FTAs could begin following Senate
consideration of legislation related to transportation funding and disaster assistance, both of which have had some delays in recent days. Still, even with an uncertain timeline, Reid said the trade measures could be considered by the end of the month. The plan going forward is uniquely Washingtonian in its complexity: First, the House passed a bill last week to renew the generalized system of preferences (GSP), a largely non-controversial program designed to provide developing countries reduced trade duties. Following clearance of the transportation and disaster measures, the Senate should soon take
up GSP, attaching TAA provisions, which many Democrats, including President Barack Obama, have made a requirement for consideration of the FTAs. The GSP/TAA bill would then go back to the House, where it is expected to pass. At that point, all political roadblocks should be cleared, and the Administration should be willing to send the FTAs to Capitol Hill for consideration. While new roadblocks could emerge in the form of procedural objections or amendments to the GSP/TAA package before final passage, the path as outlined is the clearest it has been since the agreements were signed more than four years ago. NAWG, U.S. Wheat Associates and other agricultural organizations have been closely watching the FTA
process. The wheat industry has long supported quick passage of the measures, which will help the industry maintain and grow market share in increasingly competitive countries, especially Colombia.
Kirks statements prove passage Korea National 9/13

Staff Writer and Political Analyst, Koreas Global Arirang, US Trade Representative Hopeful of KORUS FTA Passing Nov., http://www.arirang.co.kr/News/News_View.asp?nseq=120322&code=Ne2&category=2 United States Trade Representative Ron Kirk has expressed optimism that Congress will pass
America's pending free trade deals before the annual Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in November. Speaking to reporters on Monday Kirk refused to comment on a detailed timetable saying it will depend on
how fast the White House and Congress reach an agreement on a separate piece of legislation known as Trade Adjustment Assistance, which is meant to help workers who have lost their jobs due to increased imports. Asked whether it
would be embarrassing if the long-pending deals with Korea, Panama and Columbia were not approved before the November APEC summit, Kirk replied that the administration is "more optimistic than that." President Barack Obama also told reporters that Congress is highly likely to move forward on the deals soon. NAFTA proves that Obama can get enough Democrat votes to pass SKFTA Martin 9/12
Eric, Senior Staff Writer, Bloomberg, Trade Deals Wed Obama to Republicans, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0913/trade-deals-wed-obama-to-republicans.html There is a precedent for Obamas predicament. Democratic President Bill Clinton, who succeeded
in passing the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1993, needed support from a majority of Republicans in the House and Senate because most Democrats wouldnt back the pact. More than three quarters of Republicans in each chamber voted for the accord with Mexico and Canada. In the House, 102 Democrats voted for the deal, compared with 156 who voted against it. In the Senate, 27 Democrats supported the accord, while 28 opposed it and one didnt vote. Obama has urged Congress to act on the South Korea, Colombia and Panama agreements negotiated during President George W. Bushs administration,
saying they will spawn export- related jobs as his administration works to reduce the 9.1 percent U.S. unemployment rate.
The South Korea deal, the biggest for the U.S. since Nafta, would boost U.S. exports by as

Carey
much as $10.9 billion in the first year in which its in full effect, according to the U.S. International Trade
Commission. The accord with Colombia would increase exports by as much as $1.1 billion a year. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce says the trade agreements will prevent the loss of 380,000 jobs. The AFL-CIO, the nations largest labor federation, says they will lead to a decline in U.S. manufacturing as jobs go abroad.
Bipartisan support for SKFTAObama has just enough votes for passage Martin 9/12
Eric, Senior Staff Writer, Bloomberg, Trade Deals Wed Obama to Republicans, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0913/trade-deals-wed-obama-to-republicans.html Its a testament to todays partisanship that procedural differences have held up the free-
trade agreements this long, John Murphy, vice president of international affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
in Washington, said in an interview. Senate leaders from both parties ended the impasse on Aug. 3, agreeing to vote on the aid and then take up the trade deals after their one-month recess. Its time to clear the way for a series of trade agreements that would make it easier for American companies to sell their products in Panama, Colombia and South Korea -- while also helping the workers whose jobs have been affected by global competition, Obama said in his Sept. 8 speech. In a first step, the House voted on Sept. 7 to renew trade preferences on goods from developing nations, which expired last year. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, told reporters he would use the preferences bill as a vehicle to renew the Trade Adjustment Assistance. McConnell, Boehner House Speaker John Boehner, an Ohio Republican, said in August that he
supported the job-creating trade bills. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Obamas request for Congress to pass the trade deals an encouraging sign for economic opportunity on Aug. 16 in Louisville, Kentucky. Obama hasnt found common ground very frequently with Republicans,
who said in November his top political priority is to deny Obama a second term, called Michael Moore, a professor at George Washington University in Washington and an economist in the Bush administration, said in an interview. Im sure the presidents economic advisers are saying, We can get
cooperation from Republicans, look bipartisan and we can get something that looks good for the election, which is export jobs. The Colombia free-trade agreement faces the strongest Democratic
opposition because the labor-rights plan the administration negotiated wasnt included in drafts of the bill. Intimidation, Violence Representative Sander Levin, a Michigan Democrat, said he wont support the Colombia deal because its government fails to protect workers from intimidation and violence. Colombia continues to have its problems and will be more controversial, Levin said in an interview. He said he will vote for the South Korea and Panama accords. Senator Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat and chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, supports
all three deals. Senate Democrats from other states with substantial farm employment are also likely to support the trade agreements because they would open markets for agricultural exports, said Moore, the George Washington University professor. Republicans in the House aligned with the Tea Party will probably support the trade accords while opposing the worker aid, Moore said. Sixty-seven of the 87 freshmen House Republicans, led by Representatives Rick Berg of North Dakota and Tom Reed of New York, sent Obama a letter in March urging him to submit the pacts for approval. The administration seems to have figured out that in order to win, theyre going to have to rely on Republican votes, William Reinsch, president of the National Foreign Trade Council and a Commerce
Department official in the Clinton administration, said in an interview. You take your friends where you find them.

Carey
AT: UQ Overwhelms the Link

Momentum building fore SKFTA but no guarantee of passage Wall Street Journal 9/8
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904836104576557302254955170.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Mr. Obama has insisted that a scaled-back version of Trade Adjustment Assistanceat about half the cost of the expired programbe passed alongside the three pacts. "The next step is to nail down the specifics on a
bipartisan, bicameral path forward to complete it all in a timely fashion," an administration official said. "We're not there yet, but we're making headway." The two sides have moved closer to a deal on the sequencing of votes on the trade deals and job-retraining program,
according to congressional aides and business representatives that are pushing for passage of the whole trade package. Under a plan being worked out to ensure that both the trade agreements and job-retraining program move together, the path to the trade bills begins with House approval of the duty-free program. The House-passed bill is retroactive and would renew duty-free treatment for mostly raw materials and parts imported by U.S. manufacturers through July 2013. The Senate is now expected to attach the job-retraining program to the bill and send it back to the House. Once Mr. Obama sends up the free-trade agreements for an up-or-down vote, the House will hold separate votes on the three trade pacts and the bill combining the duty-free and job-retraining programs. If passed, the bill to renew duty-free access for developing countries and funding for job retraining would then be ready
to be signed into law, and the trade pacts would be
sent to the Senate for approval. Several

retraining programs before the trade pacts are submitted.
lawmakers confirmed key aspects of the plan Wednesday,
though aides cautioned that some details of the sequencing of votes still need to be ironed out. At separate events, Mr. Hatch and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) said the Senate would likely take up the bill to renew the duty-free and job-
Mr. Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) said in August that they had found a "path forward" for the Senate to take up the trade deals and job-retraining program this month. That breakthrough was made possible after a dozen Republican senators pledged to ensure that the Trade Adjustment Assistance bill can clear the 60-vote hurdle for floor consideration. One of those senators, Roy Blunt of Missouri, said the group would be willing to support a vote to renew the retaining program even if it is attached to the duty-free bill. A Republican Senate aide said the 60 votes should be there to pass the joint bill and send it back to the House, so "the administration needs to uphold their end of the deal and submit the FTAs as soon as possible."
House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) Tuesday reiterated his vow to allow a vote on the retraining program "in tandem" with the trade pacts in a letter to Mr. Obama. But administration officials said some details still need to be worked out on the House side. "We hope to see the same progress in the House that we saw in the Senate before recess," the administration official said.

Carey
Political Capital Key

Pol cap necessary and only SKFTA saves the alliance Kim 9/6
Sukhan Kim senior partner specializing in international trade at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP "Pushing the FTA to the finish line" koreajoongangdaily.joinsmsn.com/news/article/Article.aspx?aid=2941157 Despite these hurdles, the time has come The U.S. Congress will return from its summer recess next week and will be poised to consider the Korea-U.S. (Korus) FTA. The National Assembly is likewise preparing to ratify the deal during its fall session. Until now, political gamesmanship over other issues has kept President Barack Obama from sending implementing legislation to Capitol Hill. The time has come for both countries to clear the final hurdles and ratify the Korus FTA quickly - or risk the loss of a boon to the bilateral relationship.
Notwithstanding widespread agreement among Republicans and Democrats that the Korus FTA will help stimulate exports and job growth in the United States, passage remains mired in partisan bickering over unrelated domestic issues. The key obstacle to ratification in recent months has been the renewal of Trade Adjustment Assistance - a program that assists U.S. workers
laid off due to imports. President Obama seeks to link ratification of the Korus FTA with TAA renewal, but Republicans on Capitol Hill are balking at this political maneuver. Many observers question the wisdom of this use of the Korus FTA as a bargaining chip to improve the prospects for TAA renewal, but the political reality for President Obama is that the Democratic political base, already eyeing Obamas re-election campaign in 2012, demands it. There have been other political impediments to the ratification of the FTA in the United States. The recent battles over the government budget and debt ceiling were bitterly fought and produced a hostile political climate. Now, President Obama is preparing to unveil, after the upcoming Labor Day weekend, major new spending initiatives to increase U.S. employment. With unemployment hovering above 9 percent, job creation is now the number one political issue in the country. However, Republicans and Democrats disagree sharply on how to fix the problem - particularly when it comes to government spending. The upcoming fight over jobs legislation is likely only to exacerbate the existing climate of distrust between the parties on economic matters and will not be conducive to reaching a bipartisan deal to pass the Korus FTA. Further, the legislative calendar for the next several months is already packed. In the weeks ahead, Congress will take up a number of highly contentious bills, including patent reform, highway funding and renewal of authority for the Federal Aviation Administration. Legislative wrangling over these bills will further distract from the FTA. Despite these hurdles, the time has come for political leaders
in both countries to exercise decisive leadership, disentangle the FTA from other issues and find an expeditious path to ratification. President Obama has already expended great political capital to reshape the Korus FTA as a deal to call his own and to promote its passage. He has described it is a key element of his strategy to create new jobs through expanded trade, and he has sent Ron Kirk, his chief trade negotiator, on a state-by-state tour to promote the deal. And, there is little question that Korus FTA implementing legislation would secure enough votes on Capitol Hill to pass. Moreover, the business community is clamoring for its passage, and even some unions now support it. Given all that President Obama has put into the success of the FTA, he must now commit to action and get the deal done. If he acts quickly and takes advantage of the current
Congressional willingness to consider the deal, ratification within the next two months seems feasible. As for Korea, its political leaders must rise above the political fray and do what is best for Koreas long-term national interests. These include, of course, the tangible economic benefits that the Korus FTA would deliver for many of Koreas key enterprises. The benefits also include positive ripple effects from the increased trade and investment flows from the United States that the FTA would bring. As U.S. commercial interests in Korea expand, the U.S. commitment to protect those interests in Korea will be stronger, buttressing the bilateral security relationship. At the same time, an enhanced U.S. commercial presence in Korea will strengthen Koreas hand in dealing with the United States as it will give Korea greater say. In short, as the U.S. stakes in Korea grow, so will Koreas leverage vis-a-vis the United States. The FTA is not merely a trade deal.
It is essentially a political deal at the highest levels between the two countries that they are committed to deepening their strategic partnership. This enhanced relationship with the United States will also promote Koreas interests in many ways internationally. Indeed, there is
no better way to enhance the bilateral relationship at this time - and for Korea to help itself - than for both countries to finally get on with ratification of Korus FTA.

Carey
KNA Will Pass

Korea will ratify SKFTA as long as we do Lies 9/15
Mitch, Staff Writer, Capital Press, Embassy official: FTA delay threatens deal, http://www.capitalpress.com/orewash/ml-seoul-freetrade-agreement-092311 Wayman said U.S. support for the pact is critical because the progressive party here, which
opposes the pact, is poised to do well in next year's national assembly elections. And elected officials here won't pass the agreement until they have assurances the Obama administration and Congress are prepared to adopt it. The pending pact is supported by South Korean President Lee Myung-bak, Wayman said. "President Lee is strongly behind it and wants to get it done before the state visit Oct. 13," Wayman said. Lee is scheduled to visit President Barack
Obama in Oct. 13 in Washington, D.C., the third time the two presidents have met. Mark Tokola, second in command at the embassy, said ratifying the pact "will create thousands of jobs here." In the U.S., Wayman said, the agreement is expected to create 70,000 jobs and provide export opportunities for U.S. goods and services. "If the FTA goes through, it is going to open up a world of opportunity," Wayman said. Michael Fay, agriculture director of the embassy, said U.S. agricultural exports to Korea could increase substantially if the agreement is ratified. The agreement would dissolve tariffs and improve transparencies in trade policy, he said. Phytosanitary barriers have shut off Korea from U.S. fresh blueberries. Tariffs on other U.S. goods, such as wine, which has a 15 percent tariff, have priced U.S. producers out of the market, Fay said. U.S. wine sales fell from 18 percent of market share to 11 percent after the July 1 beginning of the European Union free trade agreement with South Korea, Fay said. European wine sales in July, conversely, were up 65 percent from July 2010 .
Despite the uncertainty surrounding the pact between the U.S. and South Korea, Wayman said he is optimistic the Korean government will pass it. "My best guess is that it will pass here by the end of the
year," he said, "but that is by no means guaranteed."

Carey
AT: TAA Blocks SKFTA

Despite previous opposition, Republicans in the House will pass the TAA ensuring the passage of SKFTAObama has worked out a deal Needham 9/14
Vicki, Senior Staff Reporter, The Hill, GOP increases pressure on Obama to move on trade deals, http://thehill.com/business-alobbying/181677-boeing-stays-out-of-fray-over-gops-nlrb-bill?page=1#comments As a result, Obama would lose some leverage in winning a vote on TAA once he sends the three trade deals to Congress. Reid, an opponent of the three trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama said
once the House passes the TAA trade preferences package, he will clear the three trade deals. But
Reid said he would not move the trade deals through the Senate until the House approves the other package, setting up a political decision for House GOP leaders. Many House Republicans do not like the TAA program. As
But they have a lot of support over here quite a bit of support Democrats and I think overwhelming support by Republicans. So thats why I intend to move forward on those. Though Reid has suggested that House leaders and the White House have worked out a deal that will allow the worker-assistance program and the three trade agreements to be approved, a spokesman for the U.S. Trade Representative said theres no firm deal in place. The spokesman said trade officials are continuing to work with Congress to move the trade deals and TAA, and that they look forward to completing the process as soon as possible.
most everyone knows here, I dont like them, Reid said of the trade agreements. I dont like any of the three of them.
GOP will support the TAA allowing SKFTA to pass next week Palmer 9/13
Doug, Senior Staff Writer, Reuters, Momentum builds for U.S. action on trade deals, http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/13/ususa-trade-deals-idUSTRE78C7QW20110913?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews (Reuters) - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Tuesday said the Senate would soon begin debate on a
bill to help retrain workers thrown out of work by foreign competition, setting the stage for President Barack Obama to submit three long-delayed trade deals to Congress. The Nevada Democrat told
reporters he would soon bring up legislation for two trade programs -- Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), which is a worker retraining program, and the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), which waives duties on imports from developing countries. Reid told reporters he would follow that with action on a separate bill to crack down on China currency manipulation. President Barack Obama has insisted Congress pass TAA along with the trade deals with South Korea, Colombia and Panama. Many Republicans are skeptical of the merits of the nearly 50-year-old retraining and income assistance
program and objected to an earlier White House plan to include TAA in the implementing legislation for the South Korean trade deal. But Representative Kevin Brady, a Texas Republican, said on Tuesday he believed the White House, Senate leaders and House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner now have agreed on a "very tight process" for moving the trade deals and a separate bill to renew Trade Adjustment Assistance." "I'm optimistic that we can get this done and get this done very soon," Brady said in remarks to the anti-unilateral sanctions business group, USA Engage. Still, neither
Boehner's office or the U.S. Trade Representative's office confirmed a deal. All three trade deals were signed more than four years ago and have been sitting on Obama's desk since January 2009. Over the past year, Obama has moved more aggressively to get the deals approved. But the push hit a snag over TAA, since many Democrats
feared Republicans would kill the bill if not shielded by the popular Korean pact. TAA was
expanded in 2009 to cover more workers and to provide better benefits. But those changes expired early this year and Republicans balked at renewing them. Because of the crowded Senate calendar, the earliest the TAA-GSP bill is likely to come up is next week. The package would then go to the House, where it is expected to be passed in tandem with the trade pacts.

Carey
SKFTA K2 Global Free Trade Leadership

SKFTA key to US global free trade leadership The International Herald Tribune, November 9, 2010, p. 6
The South Korean government has its own political problems. In 2008, huge street protests against imports of American beef nearly toppled the government. Mr. Obama should still press - within reason. Seoul can certainly commit to more transparency in setting pollution and fuel economy rules - allowing American automakers to have a voice in the process. It needs to specify how it will bring its sanitary regulations on imported beef into line with international norms. Mr. Obama also needs to make clear to lawmakers, especially those in his own party, that this agreement is essential to cementing relations with a strategic partner and one of Asia's most dynamic economies. Automakers and beef producers could lose a lot if this deal goes sour. The symbolic value of these agreements is also important. Global trade is recovering from its 2009 collapse. And so far there have been no full-out trade wars. But protectionism - trade barriers, but mostly high and unfair export subsidies - is on the rise. In Washington, members of Congress are itching to punish China for its currency manipulation. A weakening dollar is sparking protectionist sentiment in many other countries. The United States, which once carried the mantle for open trade, not only needs to avoid trade brawls. It also must stand up to protectionist pressures and make the case that for the world economy to recover, it needs an open trading system.
Passage reduces global protectionist pressures Asia Pulse, November 8, 2010, p. online
South Korea and the United States are holding additional negotiations on their bilateral free trade agreement (FTA) to set the stage for its ratification. The two countries intend to conclude the talks when President Lee Myung-bak meets with his U.S. counterpart Barack Obama on the sidelines of the G20 Seoul Summit this week. It is fortunate that Seoul and Washington are making last-ditch efforts to save the free trade deal that has not yet won approval by either country's parliament since the FTA's signing in June 2007. It would be better for the two sides to clear the hurdle to enjoy the benefits of the accord without further delay. A conclusion of the ongoing negotiations would be meaningful if it comes during the G20 summit. The U.S. may reaffirm its commitment to the spirit of free trade amid rising concerns about protectionism. This could also be a shot in the arm in international efforts to avoid a potential currency war and address global imbalances.
Korea-US FTA sets the foundation for other deals The Globe and Mail (Canada), November 3, 2010, p. B15
The way Mr. Hufbauer sees it, the South Korea agreement will clear the way for finalizing deals with Colombia and Panama, followed by the Trans Pacific Partnership, involving Pacific Rim nations such as New Zealand, Chile and Vietnam. The U.S. could even insist on completing the stalled Doha negotiations at the World Trade Organization, Mr. Hufbauer said. Engagement by the United States on trade would change the game. The country's political division on the issue - a Wall Street Journal poll in October showed 53 per cent of the population said free-trade agreements had hurt the U.S. - is one the biggest factors holding up Doha, said John Curtis, a distinguished fellow at the Waterloo, Ont.-based Centre for International Governance Innovation and a former chief economist at Canada's Trade Department. Still, trade will be a "dog fight" in Congress, he said. Many of the Republicans who won on Tuesday are part of the Tea Party movement, which has a nationalistic bent. The tradeoff for support on broader free-trade agreements could be protectionist measures such as "Buy America" stipulations in spending programs, Mr. Hufbauer said. If freer trade leads to stronger growth in the world's biggest economy, then some minor trade irritants might be the price for U.S. trading partners such as Canada. That's a bitter pill for Jayson Myers, the head of the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, one of the country's biggest industry groups. U.S. politicians "are more sensitive to local politics than ever," Mr. Myers said from Montreal. "Any piece of economic legislation coming out of Congress now has the potential to have some form of protectionism wrapped around it."

Carey
SKFTA K2 Alliance
Failure to pass SKFTA by April collapses the alliance Lies 9/15
Mitch, Staff Writer, Capital Press, Embassy official: FTA delay threatens deal, http://www.capitalpress.com/orewash/ml-seoul-freetrade-agreement-092311 SEOUL, South Korea -- A U.S. diplomat here said it is critical the Obama administration and Congress
start moving soon to ratify the pending U.S.-Korea free trade agreement. "If we don't have the free trade agreement passed by April of next year, we're in trouble," said Jim Wayman, political counselor for the U.S. Embassy here. "The longer the delay, the greater the chances of failure," he said.
Wayman's comments came as part of a U.S. Embassy briefing Sept. 15 to an Oregon business delegation, which is on a 13day trade mission to Asia.

Carey
SKFTA Wont Pass

Carey
SFKTA K2 Alliance
Failure to pass SKFTA will wreck the allianceseen as a major betrayal Lee 8-29
Chi Dong, YonHap News Agency, http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2011/08/30/52/0301000000AEN20110830000400315F.HTML
A collapse in the United States of a free trade pact with South Korea would deal a heavy blow to the alliance, with many South Korean policymakers seeing it as a "betrayal," a think tank affiliated with U.S. Congress said Monday. It would also undercut Washington's efforts to maintain its economic clout in Northeast Asia, according to the Congressional Research Service
(CRS). The warning came amid a protracted delay in U.S. steps toward ratifying the agreement, dubbed KORUS FTA. It remains uncertain when the Barack Obama administration will submit a related bill to Capitol Hill. Lawmakers return from a month-long recess Sept. 6. "A collapse of the KORUS FTA would probably have a profound
symbolic effect, particularly upon the way South Koreans view the alliance," the agency said in a report made public on Monday. If the deal is rejected or subjected to a prolonged delay by Washington, the report said, if would be a "psychological blow to many South Korean policymakers, many of whom would likely see it as a betrayal." South Korea's policymakers believe
that they made "politically costly concessions" when they accepted Washington's request for additional deals on autos, beef, labor and the environment last year, the agency said. The FTA was initially signed in 2007. The CRS said a failure
of the FTA would lend credence to arguments in South Korea that the "U.S. commitment to Korea and Northeast Asia is declining." The fate of the trade pact could also affect the U.S. campaign to "institutionalize its economic presence in East Asia," it added.

Carey
SFKTA K2 Heg
Failure to pass the deal annihilates US credibility Palmer 9/6
Doug Palmer "UPDATE 2-PREVIEW-U.S. trade deals face tricky approval path" Sept 6 www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/06/usatrade-congress-idUSN1E7851P420110906
After a heated fight this summer over the U.S. debt ceiling, cooler-headed Republicans and Democrats could come together this fall to pass three long-delayed free trade agreements.
But to get past distrust built up on each side, business groups anticipate a series of votes on related trade issues leading up to the pacts with South Korea, Colombia and Panama, each signed more than four years ago. The process is expected to begin on Wednesday with action on an expired program that helps domestic manufacturers by waiving duties on goods from developing countries. Former U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab said she was optimistic Congress would soon pass the trade deals but worried the effort could fail if the White House "overplays its hand" on Trade Adjustment Assistance.
The trade deals are expected to boost U.S. exports by about $13 billion, helping to create or support about 70,000 jobs at a time of stubbornly high U.S. unemployment. Imports, particularly from South
Korea, are also expected to rise so many of Obama's allies in organized labor and other groups on the left oppose the pacts.
But nations around the world see such deals as important to growth and have been busily negotiating them. Schwab criticized Obama for not moving faster and allowing rival deals between Canada and Colombia and the European Union and South Korea to go into
effect first. The White House and Republicans have locked horns this year over TAA, a longstanding program to help retrain workers who have lost their jobs because of foreign competition. The program was expanded in 2009 to cover service industry workers and provide more generous benefits. Those reforms have expired, but the core program continues. Many Republicans, with a strong push from the party's anti-spending Tea Party wing, question the need for TAA and its effectiveness. Democrats argue it is a key part of the U.S. social safety net. Earlier this year, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp, a Michigan Republican, struck a deal with the White House and a key Senate Democrat on a slimmed down version of TAA that includes many of the 2009 reforms. But Republicans in both the House of Representatives and the Senate objected to White House plans to include the revamped program in the implementing legislation for the South Korea deal. Democrats feared the program would be killed if not shielded by legislation for one of the trade pacts, which under previously agreed rules cannot be amended. So, the administration and Congress have been looking for a separate path to get both TAA and the trade deals approved. Administration officials have said Obama will submit the pacts for congressional approval after the exact timing and sequence of votes have been agreed. In a speech on the Senate floor, Republican Leader Mitch McConnell urged Obama to "send them to Congress today so we can finally ratify them." VOTES IN HOUSE AND SENATE One industry official, who asked not to be identified, said he expected the process to begin on Wednesday with House renewal of the Generalized System of Preferences, a program that allows developing countries to sell thousands of goods in the United States without paying duties. That bill would then be sent to the Senate, which is expected to amend the GSP legislation by attaching the TAA compromise negotiated earlier this year. The combined package would return to the House, where it would await Obama's formal submission of the trade deals. The House would then vote "in tandem" on the four pieces of legislation, sending the GSP-TAA bill to Obama's desk for his signature. The three trade deals would go to the Senate for final congressional action before going to the White House. Because of the relatively few legislative days in September, the process could stretch into next month. Several congressional aides noted some details remain to be worked out, but said they expected a roughly similar process. Also, some lawmakers could push for votes on China currency legislation and other controversial trade issues, potentially further delaying or jeopardizing the trade deals. House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer told reporters on Tuesday Democrats would renew their push for a vote on a bill to deal with "currency manipulation" as part of their efforts to create and protect jobs in the United States. Schwab, who was former President George W. Bush's chief negotiator when each of the deals was signed, said she believed approving the "TAA compromise is a small price to pay for the free trade agreements. That's the view of the business community and I share that view." But the sequencing of votes matters, and Schwab said she feared the effort could collapse if Obama insists the Republican-controlled House approve TAA before he submits the trade pacts to Congress for votes. Failure to pass the trade deals would hurt U.S.
It would also undermine the Obama administration's own efforts to craft a regional free trade agreement with eight other countries in the Asia Pacific region, she said. "If these things don't go through this
manufacturers, farmers and service companies eager to expand exports to three countries, she said.
fall, we have zero credibility. Zero. Not just in the Trans-Pacific Partnership talks but in other international negotiations," Schwab said.

Carey
FTAs Will Pass

Trade deals will passTAA progress and bipartisan support Barkley 9/12
Tom, Staff Writer and Political Analyst, Wall Street Journal, Kirk Working With Senate On Trade Deals, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904265504576567244253741086.html?mod=googlenews_wsj WASHINGTONU.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk said Monday talks on passing free-trade
agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama are focused on the Senate, where the administration hopes to renew funding for a job-retraining program. The timing of any votes on the three trade pacts will depend on how soon a deal can be reached to pass the retraining program, known as Trade Adjustment Assistance, he said. "We're continuing to work so we can get TAA done and move forward with the FTAs," Mr. Kirk told reporters on the sidelines of a conference. When
asked whether a failure to pass the trade pacts by the time President Barack Obama hosts Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation leaders in November, Mr. Kirk said the administration is "more optimistic than that." However, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R., Utah), the top Republican on the Finance Committee, called for Mr. Obama to send up the pacts immediately. "I simply cannot
understand the president's continued delay," Mr. Hatch said in opening remarks for a hearing to consider several trade nominees. "I am confident that, once the president submits these agreements, they will pass Congress with broad bipartisan support." Committee Chairman Sen. Max Baucus (D., Mont.) said Trade Adjustment Assistance must be passed with the trade deals to ensure that opening markets overseas is done in a way that "puts American jobs first" Congress finally began making progress toward passing the Bush-era trade deals last week, when the House passed a tariff bill that is expected to serve as the vehicle to renew TAA. The Obama administration has insisted that
a scaled-back version of the retraining programat about half the level of fundingbe passed alongside the three pacts.
SKFTA will passTAA progress proves Rueters 9/13

Staff Writer, Rueters, Rep Brady optimistic US to OK trade deals very soon, http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/13/usa-tradedeals-idUSW1E7JM02220110913 (Reuters) - A senior Republican lawmaker said he was optimistic the U.S. Congress would
pass three long-delayed trade deals with South Korea, Panama and Colombia "very soon". Representative Kevin Brady said his understanding was the White House, Senate leaders and House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner have agreed on a "very tight process" for moving the trade deals and a separate bill to renew Trade Adjustment Assistance." Brady, chairman of a House subcommittee on trade, said he hoped the Senate would pass a TAA bill as early as next week and send it to the House for approval. That would set the stage for the White House to submit the trade pacts. (Reporting
by Doug Palmer, Editing by Neil Stempleman)

Carey
FTAs Wont Pass

Carey
Columbia FTADrug Cartel

Colombia FTA key to counteract Chavez, promote Colombian stability and eliminate regional drug production Roberts 8
James M., a research fellow for economic freedom and growth in the Center for International Trade and Economics., 2/27/2008 [Big Labor & The Truth About Colombia Contrary to the propaganda of special interests, the U.S.-Colombia TPA would help the economies of both countries. Failure to ratify would damage the United States' reputation in the region, would hinder progress in the war
on drugs, and could push Colombia toward the embrace of Venezuelan President Hugo Chvez. Congress
should put national security ahead of partisan politics and ratify the U.S.-Colombia TPA. SELECTIVE DEAFNESS Although the AFL-CIO leaders met with some anti-TPA union leaders and government officials in Colombia, including President lvaro Uribe, they went out of their way to avoid any encounters with the heads of the many trade unions that represent 80,000+ Colombian workers in export industries (e.g., cut flowers, mining, petroleum products, coffee, textiles, sugar, and bananas). These representatives fervently favor the TPA and the new investments and jobs that it would bring. Apparently, the Big Labor visitors did not want to risk hearing anything from pro-TPA Colombian labor leaders that might contradict their pre-ordained conclusions. It seems that U.S. unions don't want facts to get in the way of their publicity stunts. Colombia has a tragic history of violence dating back to 1948, when a ruthless Cuban sociopath named Fidel Castro joined other Latin leftists in fomenting urban riots and rural violence that became known as the Bogatazo and La Violencia, respectively. Their intention was to overthrow the democratic government that had ruled Colombia for 150 years. At the time, a multilateral meeting was being in held in Botoga that led to the creation of the Organization of American States. A protest event, bankrolled by Argentinean strongman Juan Pern, was attended by many of the rioters, including the young Comrade Castro. The riots claimed thousands of lives, including Colombian soldiers and revolutionaries, as well as innocent bystanders. Colombia's civil war in the 1950s, coupled with Castro's call to revolution in the 1960s, created new insurgent groups like the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). In the 1980s, the Colombian government failed to stop the rise of Pablo Escobar's Medellin Cartel and other murderous narco-traffickers, leading some on the Right to form "paramilitaries" that waged war against drug traffickers, the FARC, and the chaos generated by the political Left. In the
1990s, FARC pursued the overthrow of the government of Colombia but also turned to the lucrative businesses of drug trafficking, kidnapping, and extortion. The combination of FARC, drug traffickers, and paramilitaries nearly destroyed the Colombian state. Cooperation between U.S. and Colombian administrations-first by Presidents Andres Pastrana and Bill Clinton and then by Presidents lvaro Uribe and George W. Bush--led to the rollout of "Plan Colombia" in 1999. This bold, multi-year commitment to rebuild the Colombian state has helped the
government to recover control of territory and extend security to the towns and the countryside. More
than 30,000 paramilitaries have disarmed, the FARC is on the run, and violence is down significantly. Despite the progress of Plan Colombia, the culture of violence continues, and the U.S. is Colombia's largest export market for cocaine. Ratification of the TPA would help Colombia to strengthen the government institutions that fight the scourge of illicit drugs. URIBE'S SUCCESS Big Labor's script for stopping the U.S.-Colombia FTA calls for heavy emphasis on the history of violence against Colombian labor leaders and alleged impunity granted to their assailants by the government. However, the number of murders of trade unionists has dropped by 75 percent since President Uribe took office, with only three killings so far in 2008. As a result of successful efforts to reduce crime and boost economic growth, President Uribe's approval rating is near 70 percent. As reported in Reuters, "The Colombian government has tripled spending on protection for unionists, human rights activists, and other at-risk individuals and established a special unit to prosecute crimes against trade unionists." In fact, a large percentage of attacks against leaders of public-sector unions had nothing at all to do with the victim's union affiliation. Many of the crimes ensued from "normal" motives (i.e., robbery) but are categorized as "anti-union violence" by leftists to further their anti-globalization, protectionist agenda. The best way to change Colombia's culture of violence is to develop a large, well-educated middle class. The TPA would move Colombia in that direction by integrating its economy into the globalized market, thus increasing its prosperity and economic growth. If Congress listens to the AFL-CIO and
votes down the U.S.-Colombia TPA, it will deliver a potential knock-out blow to President Uribe, the United States' best friend in the region. A failed TPA will lead Colombians and people from other countries in Latin America to conclude that the U.S. is not a reliable partner. Effectively, it would be a vote of "no confidence" in the Colombian people, which would be a public relations bonanza for Venezuelan President Hugo Chvez and the FARC narco-terrorists he is trying to legitimize in order to
undermine the Uribe government. Chvez aims to rule the "Gran Colombia" that was (briefly) headed by Simon Bolivar 200 years ago, and Colombia is the jewel in would-be Emperor Hugo's crown. A defeated TPA would put at risk the considerable progress made by Plan Colombia, into which Congress has poured hundreds of millions of dollars since 1999. Chvez
would be emboldened to increase his already extensive collusion with the Colombian drug cartels, which
are now on the run. The cartels are increasingly redirecting their products through Venezuela to Europe (through West Africa) and to the U.S. (through Haiti and the Dominican Republic--destabilizing them along the way).

Carey
Columbian FTA GoodEconomy

Colombia FTA provides necessary support to the current government, facilitates efforts to boost the economy USTR 7
The Case for the U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement, http://www.ustr.gov/assets/Document_Library/Fact_Sheets/2007/asset_upload_file782_13309.pdf 3. Strengthen peace, democracy, freedom and reform. In 2000, much of Colombia was controlled by three terrorist groups and ruthless narcotics trafficking cartels. With U.S. assistance and trade preferences under ATPA, the
Colombian people are transforming their nation. They have achieved solid progress in economic growth, social development, and reducing violence and illegal activities. The progress made is real but critical challenges remain. The terrorist and paramilitary groups are weakened but not defeated. Violence continues to threaten all sectors of Colombian society as well as cause displacement and economic hardship. The people of Colombia are addressing these problems aggressively and decisively, but need the continued help of the United States. The U.S.-Colombia free trade agreement is a critical tool to provide licit jobs and economic alternatives to violence. Colombia is a vibrant democracy, with a history
of free elections, a free press, and solid opposition political parties. Since President Uribe took office in 2002, Colombia has increased the size of its security forces and re-established a state presence in every municipality in the country. Uribes strong approval ratings -- over 70 percent in recent polls shows that this sustained commitment to improving Colombias record in human rights and workers rights is broadly shared in Colombia. 4. Promote economic growth and poverty reduction. An increasingly open market has given Colombia the tools to fight corruption and increase transparency and the rule of law. Through continued U.S. assistance and approval of the U.S.-Colombia free trade agreement, Colombia can become a self-sufficient partner in the region. As such, Colombia will derive the full benefits of the global economy, and can join the growing partnership of countries along the Pacific coast of the Americas to solidify open markets and strengthen democracy in the region. The resulting increased economic activity will create additional jobs and opportunities in the formal sector and will positively influence Colombias efforts to reduce poverty. Growth has averaged 5.2 percent
since 2002 (6.8 percent in 2006); poverty has declined from 60 percent in 2000 to 45 percent in 2006; and net foreign investment (flow) has nearly quadrupled from $2.3 billion in 2002 to $8.9 billion in 2006.

Carey
Jobs Bill Will Pass

Carey
Jobs Bill Wont Pass

Jobs Bill cant pass the Senateno GOP of Democrats support Well 9/13
Dan, Senior Staff Writer, Newsmax.com, McConnell: Obamas Jobs Bill Wont Pass Senate, http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/mcconnell-obama-jobsbill-senate/2011/09/13/id/410824 In the first few days after President Barack Obama gave the outline of his $447 billion jobs plan Thursday,
Republicans withheld criticism. But after the president revealed the programs details Monday, which include tax hikes to finance spending plans, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell went straight for the jugular Tuesday, The Hill reports. The proposal has no chance of passing the Senate, thanks to the higher taxes on businesses and the wealthy that Obama has proposed, McConnell said. The specifics we got yesterday only reinforce the impression that this was largely a political exercise, McConnell said. They undermine the presidents claim that its a bipartisan proposal, because much of what hes proposing has already been rejected on a bipartisan basis. The half-trillion-dollar tax hike the White House proposed [Monday] will not only face a tough road in Congress among Republicans, but from Democrats too.
Wont pass, center dems hate it Bouie 9/14 (Jamelle Bouie on Wednesday, September 14, 2011 - 11:45 Presidential Adventures in Herding Cats, Political
Correspondent for The Nation. http://www.thenation.com/blog/163376/presidential-adventures-herding-cats With a few faces notwithstanding (Evan Bayh, who left the Senate, and Blanche Lincoln, who lost her re-election bid),
those senators are still around, and they still present significant obstacles to progressive legislation. Here is Politico with the centrist reaction to the American Jobs Act, which
promises to deliver much-needed stimulus to a faltering economy: Terrible, Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) told POLITICO when asked about the presidents ideas for how to pay for the $450 billion price tag. We shouldnt increase taxes on
ordinary income. There are other ways to get there. That offset is not going to fly, and he should know that, said Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu from the energy-producing Louisiana,
referring to Obamas elimination of oil and gas subsidies. Maybe its just for his election, which I hope isnt the case.[] Every dollar that is spent on the jobs billis not going to be available to Congress to deal with
the debt, said Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, an independent who caucuses with Democrats. And to me, the top
priority of ours should be long-term major debt reduction. Poor economic conditions are crucial to Democratic success next year, and conservative Democrats would be much better off with an American Jobs Act than
they would without. Despite this, they insist on attacking the president and his proposals. As
Matthew Yglesias points out, this behavior is almost unheard of among Republicans, even those that represent moderate and liberal states.
Wont pass the dems are split structurally Bouie 9/14 (Jamelle Bouie on Wednesday, September 14, 2011 - 11:45 Presidential Adventures in Herding Cats, Political
Correspondent for The Nation. http://www.thenation.com/blog/163376/presidential-adventures-herding-cats
This dissent with the White House even extends to Democratic strategists and activists, who are increasingly dissatisfied with the president. Politico reports: On a high-level campaign conference call Tuesday afternoon, Democratic donors and strategists commiserated over their disappointment in Obama. A source on the call described the mood as awful People feel betrayed, disappointed, furious, disgusted, hopeless, said the source. With the exception of progressive
lawmakers in the House (which isnt insignificant), Democrats arent enthused about the American Jobs Act or President Obamas broader effort to regain control of the conversation. This should tell us somethingDespite his status as
party leader, Barack Obama cant control the actions of Democratic lawmakers, activists or elites, and his overall influence is limited by structural factors within and outside of the Democratic Party. Last weeks speech was a fantastic defense of liberal ideas, but as is almost always the case,
presidential rhetoriceven when its strongdoes little to address the structural obstacles to better policy. In other words, the barriers to progressive policies are high, enduring and exist throughout the political system.

Carey
China Sanctions Will Pass

Carey
China Sanctions Wont Pass

China Currency Bill wont pass in Congressno GOP support and other issues come first Sullivan and Eckert 9/13
Staff Writers, Reuters, Senate leader vows push on China currency bill http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/13/us-usa-china-currency-idUSTRE78C7JU20110913 U.S. lawmakers have been threatening legislation since 2005 to punish Chinese exports with tariffs designed to offset the effect of China's stockpiling of U.S. dollars to hold down the value of the yuan, also called the renminbi. The closest any currency legislation has come to passage was last year, when the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives passed a bill, but the Senate took no action. With Republicans now controlling the House and signaling they
want to focus on other China trade issues, it is not clear Reid's bid will succeed. Reid's renewed drive for a currency bill comes amid angst about stubbornly high U.S. unemployment and the huge U.S. trade deficit with China, which hit a record $273 billion in 2010 and
could surpass that this year. The yuan, which traded at around 6.4 per dollar on Tuesday, has risen about 3 percent so far this year and 6.7 percent since its depegging by the Chinese government in June 2010. Reid said he would bring up
the bill after the Senate votes on disaster aid, highway funding and legislation related to trade agreements. He said the Senate would produce a stand-alone bill with the support of opposition Republicans.
REPUBLICAN SEES MISTAKEN FOCUS Analysts previously thought lawmakers might attach currency legislation to a trade bill as part of the process of passing U.S. free trade pacts with Colombia, Panama and South Korea. The left wing of the Democratic Party opposes those trade pacts and Reid's gesture could be a sop to them. A Democratic aide said the party had not decided which of the competing currency bills from 2010 to pursue. Each of the proposed bills would make it easier for the U.S. government to take punitive action against China over the yuan. Last year, the House passed a bill treating "undervalued currencies" as an export subsidy. It died in the Senate but would have allowed U.S. companies to seek countervailing duties on a case-by-case basis against imports that benefit from China's currency practices. Republican
leaders who now control the House have shown little enthusiasm for China currency legislation. Earlier on Tuesday, Representative Kevin Brady, who chairs the House Ways and Means subcommittee on trade, said it would be wrong to "punish" U.S. consumers for China's currency practices by slapping duties on Chinese goods. He said lawmakers "made a mistake" in the past by focusing exclusively on
exchange rate concerns when there were so many other challenges in the U.S.-China trade relationship. "China's currency is a perennial problem and a high priority but it is not the only challenge facing us," Brady said in a speech to the business group USA Engage. The House Ways and Means Committee plans a hearing in "early fall" on China trade concerns, Brady said.

Carey
Patent Reform Will Pass

Carey
Patent Reform Wont Pass

Carey
China Currency Thumper

China Currency bill is being pushed next week Sullivan and Eckert 9/13
Staff Writers, Reuters, Senate leader vows push on China currency bill http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/13/us-usa-china-currency-idUSTRE78C7JU20110913
The Senate will try to pass legislation in coming weeks aimed at forcing China to stop holding its currency below market value, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said on Tuesday. Many U.S. lawmakers and economists say China deliberately undervalues its currency, the yuan, against the dollar to give its companies an unfair price advantage in international trade. China rejects this criticism. " One of the things we're going to do is Chinese currency, which is a jobs bill," Reid told a news conference.

Carey
***Political Capital***

Carey
Yes Political Capital

Despite opposition, Obama still has ability to make deals with Congress
VoaNews 9/16<Broadcast Institution for USFG>

Obama Continues to Push on Jobs Bill Voice of America News. http://blogs.voanews.com/breaking-news/2011/09/16/obama-continues-push-on-jobs-bill/
U.S. President Barack Obama called again for Congress to pass his jobs creation plan, as he spoke to students Friday at a science and technology high school outside Washington, D.C. In remarks made before signing a bill on patent reform, Mr. Obama called on Congress to pass the American Jobs Act and send it to the White House right away. He also invited his
student audience to read the jobs bill on the White House website .Mr. Obama has been traveling across the country promoting his $447 billion proposal .
He says it will boost the struggling U.S. economy by helping small businesses and creating nearly 2 million jobs. He says it will put construction
workers and teachers back to work. House Speaker John Boehner dismissed Mr. Obamas plan Thursday during a speech before the Economic Club of Washington. Boehner said excessive regulation, government spending and the current tax code threaten job creation .
But despite widespread Republican opposition, Boehner said there are opportunities within the presidents proposal for common ground. The White House says it will fully pay for the jobs package, stabilize the deficit and debt over 10 years ,
and go beyond the $1.5 trillion target of additional savings that a joint congressional committee must achieve. President Obama will announce a long-term deficit and debt-reduction plan next week.

Carey
No Political Capital
Obama is losing political capital and is soon to be a has-been jobs bill doesnt help Douthat 9/13 (Ross, Staff Writer, The Sydney Morning Herald, Obama facing abyss as time runs out,
http://www.smh.com.au/business/obama-facing-abyss-as-time-runs-out-20110912-1k5ys.html, September 13, 2011) MAT Finally, instead of pivoting from the Recovery Act to deficits and entitlement reform, the
Democratic majority spent all of its post-stimulus political capital trying to push a costly new healthcare entitlement and a cap-and-trade bill through Congress. Both policies were
advertised, intermittently, as deficit reduction, but neither came close to addressing the real long-term drivers of the nation's debt. And they left congressional Democrats to campaign for re-election in 2010 as the custodians of record deficits as well as sky-high unemployment. Now, Obama has groped his way to an agenda that looks more like
what Rivlin originally recommended. His speech to Congress last week suggested he intends to campaign for re-election on what should have been the blueprint for his first four years in office: a short-term stimulus highlighted by a payroll tax cut, a medium-term push to overhaul the tax code and
a plan for long-term entitlement reform. To Republicans, this agenda holds out the possibility that a second Obama term might feature more opportunities for compromise and common ground. But to voters pondering whether to
make that second term happen, it amounts to a request for a presidential do-over - a tacit admission that the first-term agenda has been less than successful, and a plea for a second chance to get things right. If the answer to that plea turns out to be ''no'', then Obama's political epitaph should be taken from the Victorian verse of Dante Gabriel Rossetti: ''Look in my face; my name is Might-havebeen; I am also called No-more, Too-late, Farewell.'' Obama is spending all his political capital on jobs nothing is left for anything else Philly 9/8 (Philly.com Article Collections, The Inquirer Daily News, POINT: Don't expect miracles on job growth,
http://articles.philly.com/2011-09-08/news/30130709_1_jobs-plan-american-economy-rare-tax, September 8, 2011) MAT President Obama goes into Thursday's big speech on creating jobs with one hand tied behind
his back. Republicans have used their filibuster power in the Senate and control of the House to block any jobs plan that would make a real difference in helping the economy, and there is no sign that will change. The fundamental problem in the American economy is simple: With so
many people unemployed and underemployed - some 24 million - there is not enough demand for what the U.S. economy can produce. The solution is to pump more money into the economy to get it going, just as if priming a pump to get water flowing again. Republicans and the president should be able to find common ground on some significant steps toward that end. Extending or even expanding this year's payroll tax cut would put more than $100 billion into the hands of people who will actually spend it, instead of merely padding the investment accounts of wealthy taxpayers. Paying for roads, bridges, schools and other construction projects is the kind of investment for which long-term borrowing is justified, because it produces longterm benefits, as well as creating short-term jobs. Sending more aid to state and local governments would help keep their taxes down while maintaining existing jobs and vital public services. Yet Republicans say that job-creating efforts along those lines would have to be offset by cuts elsewhere. That would just shift money around, totally negating any net benefit to the economy as a whole. It's true, the country would have to pay for a lot of the new recovery efforts with borrowed money. Much of the new borrowing, though, will come from cash that would otherwise stay idle or go elsewhere. U.S. companies are sitting on $2 trillion of idle money, and federal borrowing helps recycle dollars that were spent on our gaping trade deficit with China. Given Republican opposition, Obama will probably be forced to use all his
political capital just to take steps that should be no-brainers: extending the payroll tax cut and continuing unemployment insurance. Republicans have questioned the payroll tax cut a rare tax cut they don't automatically embrace - professing concern for keeping Social Security financially sound. It's an ironic argument, coming from a party that made a major effort to privatize Social
Security.
Obama has now lost all political capital OMB rejection was the last straw Cohen 9/6 (Steven, Executive Director, Columbia Universitys Earth Institute, Huffington Post, Hopeless Obama,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-cohen/hopeless-obama_b_950260.html?ir=Green, September 6/ 2011) MAT President Barack Obama is the brightest guy to be president since John F. Kennedy. He's well-educated and has the ability to inspire, but his presidency has slipped into the gray mists of fog, confusion, and drift. The stimulus probably averted economic disaster, but was too small to really jump-start the economy. The budget deal and the debt limit debacle could not have been played much worse. In recent days the White House staff couldn't even

Carey
manage to schedule a jobs speech without messing up, and no one believes the president has the political capital needed to get a jobs program through Congress anyway. The economic
crisis has become a crisis of confidence, made worse by a president whose every move seems governed by political calculation about the 2012 vote. As bad as all of that has been, I still hung on. I was convinced he could turn it around. That changed last week, when a misguided president and his equally misguided team of economic and
political hacks threw the new air pollution rule under the bus. Now I give up. I will not stay home on election day, and I'm sure I will end up voting for him, but hope has turned into hopelessness. The problem is that the benefits measured by OMB come to all of us, but some of the costs come to the kind of people who donate money to our cash and carry political campaigns. Obama and his advisors have rejected the sustainability perspective on economic growth. The disgusting part of
this turn of events is that they know better. They understand that a clean environment has many more economic benefits than costs. First, there are reduced expenditures for health care. Second, clean air has economic value that is difficult to quantify. Imagine you are a wealthy business person thinking about moving your business or your family. Are you going to move someplace where the air is orange and makes your kids sick? Third are the benefits of technological innovation undertaken to comply with regulation. In seeking to meet new standards, engineers are given the resources to develop engines that pollute less or air conditioners that use less electricity. All of these factors stimulate rather than stunt economic growth. It's true that regulations are not cost free. Little of value in life is. It costs time and money when a driver stops at a red light. But the cost is lower than the cost of a road system without rules. Stopping is cheaper than crashing. Killing the air rule was pure politics. But it was bad politics. I guess his political consultants hope that President Obama can neutralize his
opposition by moving in their direction. The only problem is that instead of looking moderate, the president looks unprincipled. I may have no place better to bring my vote, but I have lost most of my motivation to support the president. While civic responsibility will bring me to the polls, many of the people who voted for President Obama in 2008 are going to sit on their hands and stay away from the voting booth in November 2012. By caving into the unthinking short-term interests of the most reactionary segment of the business community, the President managed to abandon his principles and disappoint his allies in the business and environmental community. I have a difficult time seeing the political benefit in
adopting the position of people who will never support you. The moment the president discarded EPA's carefully reasoned, scientifically sound air pollution regulations was the moment I abandoned hope. My guess is that I was not the only one to head toward the door.
Debt Ceiling, unemployment, and economy have all killed political capital Staropoli 9/15
Adam, World Senior Reporter, The Cowl, Obama Unveils His Latest Jobs Plan, http://www.thecowl.com/world/obama-unveils-hislatest-jobs-plan-1.2592059
There is no doubt that the August political fight over deficit cuts and the debt ceiling was a dramatic blow to President Obama's political capital. The president left the battle dramatically weakened with many questioning his leadership capabilities in a country still feeling the pains of a stagnant economy and a national unemployment rate of 9.1 percent.
Now, with the 2012 presidential election picking up speed and the president's re-election prospects looking more difficult with each passing day, it is within Obama's political interests to put all the focus on jobs.
Obama has no capitalunemployment, poverty and education Palermo 9/15

Joseph A., Associate Professor of American History @ California State University and American Policy Analyst, The Huffington Post, A President Standing in Quicksand, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/a-president-standing-inq_b_964351.html It was never a question whether or not President Obama can make a stirring speech. We've heard them before and I've tapped my foot to them. His failure lies in the delivery of those great-sounding items he outlines with inspiring rhetoric. We all know that in the Republican House of Representatives John Boehner, Eric Cantor, and the boys are going to tear apart Obama's "American Jobs Act" like wild dogs ripping up a wildebeest carcass. They'll throw on Obama's desk the offal of the bill and deny him the good meaty stuff that might have made a difference in working people's lives. Obama and the
Democrats are in trouble politically not because they did too much to help hurting Americans, but because they did too little. How else do you explain the President's plummeting poll numbers in a solidly Democratic state like California? The huge Wall Street banks got a lot of tender loving care while struggling mortgage holders and unemployed workers were left to fend for themselves. There's no clearer example that oligarchic corporate interests have "captured" not only the
regulatory agencies of government, but the government itself. A lot of this misplaced Tea Party rage at government is because of the fact that the government has become a tool to impose an agenda that is great for ruling corporate and banking

Carey
elites but terrible for everybody else. The people who were snookered into predatory mortgage loans got nothing while the bankers and the lenders who did the snookering got a fat federal bailout and a huge chunk of free money from the Federal Reserve. There's no justice in that and it has a great big "D" stamped on it. No amount of eloquent speechifying is going to change that. The political wizards around Obama do not understand how demoralizing the
Obama presidency has been for his most enthusiastic supporters. Their candidate turned out to be a Chicago pol with a veneer of populism. Running for reelection in 2012 as "at-least-I'm-betterthan-the-Republican" candidate is exactly the Tweedle-Dee narrative Obama's supporters had hoped he had broken out of in 2008. Why did Obama allow the Republicans to define him? And why did he surrender his political capital
to Republicans like Olympia Snowe and "Democrats" like Max Baucus and Ben Nelson? These characterless
hacks could never win a national election. They should have been forced to bend to the interests of the person who won the election of 2008 by 10 million votes, not the other way around. Which brings me back to the "Jobs Bill." The only piece of the bill that's likely to pass is a national version of "Georgia Works," which looks to me like another program designed to beat up unemployed people by forcing them to work for their unemployment checks. A national "Georgia Works" program will do nothing to address the unemployment crisis while undermining labor unions and putting more downward pressure on wages. Republican politicians love "Georgia Works," that alone should breed suspicion about its merits for working people. When Obama first became president right-wing talk radio hosts were making noises about him wanting "reparations"; instead, if he signs a national "Georgia Works" scheme into law it'll be more like imposing a new form of slavery. In the bigger picture the nation already tried all the bedrock Republican social policies -- call it "right-wing social engineering" -and they failed miserably. Every time Obama embraces Republican policies as part of yet another compromise he undermines his own political position because those policies are also doomed to failure; hence, he's standing in quicksand. The Bush years were all about terror alerts, fear, and war; the Obama years have been all about austerity, foreclosures, and rolling back public institutions. The high unemployment, increasing poverty, foreclosures, Gilded Age
inequality, and the destruction of vital public services relating to health and education marches on year after year, with little more than apologetics from elites tied to both major parties and the corporate media.

Carey
***Random Answers***

Carey
Dickinson No Vote Switch

Presidents dont influence votesno switch Dickinson 9
Matthew, Harvard Professor and PhD in Governmental Studies and member of the Brookings Institute, Middlebury Blogs, Sotomayor, Obama and Presidential Power, What is of more interest to me, however, is what her selection reveals about the basis of presidential power. Political
scientists, like baseball writers evaluating hitters, have devised numerous means of measuring a presidents influence in Congress. I will devote a separate post to discussing these, but in brief, they often center
on the creation of legislative box scores designed to measure how many times a presidents preferred piece of legislation, or nominee to the executive branch or the courts, is approved by Congress. That is, how many pieces of legislation that the president supports actually pass Congress? How often do members of Congress vote with the
presidents preferences? How often is a presidents policy position supported by roll call outcomes? These measures, however, are a misleading gauge of presidential power they are a better indicator of congressional power. This is because how members of Congress vote on a nominee or legislative item is rarely influenced by anything a president does. Although
journalists (and political scientists) often focus on the legislative endgame to gauge presidential influence will the President swing enough votes to get his preferred legislation enacted? this mistakes an outcome with actual
evidence of presidential influence. Once we control for other factors a member of Congress ideological and
partisan leanings, the political leanings of her constituency, whether shes up for reelection or not we can usually predict how she will vote without needing to know much of anything about what the president wants. (I am ignoring the importance of a presidents veto power for the moment.) Despite the much publicized and celebrated instances of
presidential arm-twisting during the legislative endgame, then, most legislative outcomes dont depend on presidential lobbying. But this is not to say that presidents lack influence. Instead, the primary
means by which presidents influence what Congress does is through their ability to determine the alternatives from which Congress must choose. That is, presidential power is largely an exercise in agenda-setting not
arm-twisting. And we see this in the Sotomayer nomination.

."

Carey
***Spending Updates***

Carey
Econ High Now

Carey
Econ Low Now

The Economy is collapsing as poverty is increasing Investor's Business Daily 9/14
Who's Accountable For Failure?, p. A12 Economy: The data are in, and they aren't pretty:
The economy continues to fall apart, with seemingly little immediate hope for a turnaround. If you were looking for a referendum on the failures of Obamanomics,
this is it. New data from the Census Bureau show just how badly things have gone since President Obama confidently strode into office in January 2009. For a country as wealthy as America, the economic degradation is shocking: VPoverty hit a
17-year high in 2010, jumping to 15.1% from 14.3% in 2009. Some 46.2 million Americans were poor last year, the most ever in the 52 years that such data have been kept. VOne in five, or 22%, of all children lived in poverty last year. For those under 6 years of age, it was even worse: one of every four, or 25.3%. VReal median
household income dropped 2.3% from $50,599 to $49,445. VEmployer-based health coverage shriveled by 1.5 million, as 1.8 million people were added to government insurance rolls. The number of uninsured rose to 49.9 million in
2010 from 49 million. This is the noxious fruit of Obamanomics: more poverty, declining incomes and, despite the
promises made under ObamaCare, fewer people with health insurance. We'd like to be a little optimistic, but it's not easy. The White House has just put forward a $457 billion stimulus package disguised as what it calls the "American Jobs Act." Even if passed, based on recent experience, it wouldn't work. But then, the administration at this point doesn't care about that.
US growth decreasing Bhaskaran 8/30

Manu Bhaskaran is a partner and head of economic research at Centennial Group Inc, an economics consultancy, The Edge Singapore, August 22, 2011, My Say: Remain on guard for more market volatility, http://theedgesingapore.com/blog-heads/manubhaskaran/32108-manu-bhaskaran-remain-on-guard-for-more-market-volatility.html DOA: 8/30/11 Growth has been disappointing in the US, with economic growth in 1H2011 a severe
disappointment. By year-end, the fiscal stimulus will turn into an increasing fiscal drag, deducting from growth rather than supporting it. Indicators for the
housing and labour markets have been poor. Companies appear to be stepping up restructuring efforts " which means cost-cutting, retrenchments and squeezing
There have been some positive factors but these are likely to only soften the slowdown, rather than prevent or reverse it. Oil prices have fallen in recent weeks, bringing petrol prices down, providing some support to the consumer. However, oil prices are still higher than they were a year ago and have edged up again of late. Long-term interest rates have fallen sharply as well. But will US companies that have refused to spend out of the huge cash hoard that they have been accumulating when long-term rates were 2.8% really start rushing to hire workers and expand capacity because rates are now 2.3%? Not really. The reason companies are hesitating to invest and hire is because they are uncertain about the future. Recent events would have added to this uncertainty, not improved it;
suppliers. All this will be positive in the longer term but, in the near term, it will undermine job and income growth for consumers;
No econ recovery domestic and European debt crisis Saphir 9/12 ( Ann Saphir, writer of economics for reutors, Fischer says fed can do little now to spur the economy, Sep 12, 2011,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/12/us-usa-fed-fisher-idUSS1E78B1WQ20110912
There is little the Federal Reserve can do at this point to help a U.S. economic recovery battered by problems at home and abroad, a top Fed official said on Monday, adding that he believes it is it incumbent on politicians to attack fiscal problems. Richard Fisher, president of the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank, did not outright reject further monetary easing, but he emphasized he remains skeptical that such action would be fruitful. His comments echoed his own dissent to the U.S. central bank's decision last month to
commit to ultra-low interest rates until at least 2013, a stance driven not by fears of reigniting inflation, but because he did not believe the move would do any good. "If I believe further accommodation or some jujitsu with the yield curve will do the trick and ignite sustainable aggregate demand, I will support it," Fisher told the National Association of Business Economics on Monday. "But the bar for such action remains very high for me until the fiscal authorities
do their job, just as we have done ours. And if they do, further monetary accommodation may not even be necessary." He said uncertainties over the domestic fiscal and regulatory outlook and a reignited European debt crisis have knocked the wind from the U.S. economic recovery.

Carey
Econ wont recover for a decade IBT 9/14

Ibtimes staff writer, international business times, 5 factors that could lead to a slow growth economy, http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/213850/20110914/gdp-baby-boom-housing-exports-recession-jobs-unemployment-retirement-seniorcitizen.htm It's a scenario that many Americans, if not most, probably do not want to hear about: the United States enters an
era called a "new normal" slow-growth economy -- perhaps for as long as a decade. The evidence supporting that "new normal' GDP growth argument, one in which the U.S. GDP grows at no greater than 2.0-2.5% per year, is compelling. It's a substantially lower growth rate than the nation is accustomed to, and it will constrain corporate revenue growth and earnings growth and stock prices, among other ripple effects. The U.S. has already registered below-trend GDP growth at this recovery's start (mid-2009 to present), and the economy recently hit an even softer patch: an unacceptable 1.0 percent GDP growth in the second quarter, after a minuscule 0.4 percent gain in the first quarter. Instability with market crushes the economy. Montgomery 9/17
Daryl Montgomery, 9/15/11, economic reports indicate the economy is going to keep falling, organizer of the New York Investing meetup, a group of 3000+ independent investors and traders that provides the public with unbiased economic and market informationhttp://seekingalpha.com/article/293905-economic-reports-indicate-u-s-economy-heading-down Default notices on U.S. home mortgages rose 33% in July. Retail sales and food services rose only 0.0% -- adjusted for inflation they were negative. The
CPI inflation measure for August came in at 0.4%, almost as high as it was in July. Weekly jobless claims rose again this week, coming in at 428,000. All are pointing to an economy in trouble. The Great Recession began in the housing market after subprime loans started to default in large numbers in 2007. The U.S. economy will continue to have difficulties until all the excesses are ringed out of house prices. Government policy has instead been geared toward stabilizing the market with temporary fixes. The Federal Reserve instituted a number of programs to funnel money into the mortgage markets to
protect the banks that had too much exposure to real estate loans and the Obama administration has created programs like HAMP (Home Affordable Mortgage Program) to lower the foreclosure rate. Banks themselves have avoided or delayed foreclosures as long as possible because they don't want the properties on their books. All the government's efforts have certainly slowed down the rate of foreclosures and that may ultimately be all that they accomplish. A 33% increase of
foreclosure notices in July indicates a new wave of foreclosures is likely next year. Meanwhile, U.S. retail sales are declining if you take inflation into account. Retail sales increased strongly with rising home prices in the first years of the 2000s, but after the housing market turned south they have yet to recover. They have been held up by trillion dollar plus
annual federal budget deficits, Federal Reserve money printing, and government stimulus programs including the "Cash for Clunkers" gift to the auto industry. Despite all of these efforts, retail sales and food services were up 0.0% in July (the same 0.0% for jobs created in August). The mainstream media reported 0.1%, but this is only the retail sales
component of the report. The report is not adjusted for inflation, so even if retail sales rose 10% a year, but inflation was also 10%, there would be no actual growth (although that is not the
story you would get from mainstream news sources).

Carey
Fiscal Discipline Now

Fiscal discipline now- New spending paid for in tax breaks, cuts to medicare and taxes Calmes and Binyamin 9/13 (By JACKIE CALMES and BINYAMIN APPELBAUM Published: September 13, 2011
Bigger Economic Role for Washington New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/14/us/politics/jobs-bill-could-helpeconomic-growth-some-forecasters-say.html Mr. Obama proposed limiting itemized deductions for families with taxable income of $250,000 or more a year, ending
tax breaks for oil companies and corporate jet owners, and cutting out a tax break for investment-fund managers. The White House says the tax changes would take effect in 2013 and estimates they would raise $467 billion in additional revenue over 10 years. More likely some of the proposals in the bill could be passed piecemeal or could be included in a broader deficit-reduction plan crafted by a congressional supercommittee charged with finding at least $1.2 trillion in savings over the next 10 years. Mr. Obama will submit his own deficit plan of more than $2 trillion over 10 years to the committee on Sept. 19, administration officials said. That plan will include budget cuts, including to programs such as Medicare, not just tax increases like the ones he's proposing to pay for his jobs bill, administration officials
said.
Tax breaks are cut Calmes and Binyamin 9/13 (By JACKIE CALMES and BINYAMIN APPELBAUM Published: September 13, 2011
Bigger Economic Role for Washington New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/14/us/politics/jobs-bill-could-helpeconomic-growth-some-forecasters-say.html The largest chunk of Mr. Obama's tax package comes from limiting itemized deductions for families with more than $250,000 in yearly taxable income and individuals with more than $200,000, including those for homemortgage interest, state and local property taxes and charitable donations. The White House says that measure would
raise roughly $400 billion over 10 years. For those affected, the proposal would limit the value of itemized
deductions to 28 cents for each dollar of income deducted. Currently, the value of deductions for higher-income earners can be as much as 33 cents or 35 cents on the dollar because they're in the 33% and 35% tax brackets. Mr. Obama also
proposed raising $41 billion over 10 years by reducing or eliminating some tax credits and allowances for oil and gas companies, including repeal of a deduction for intangible drilling and development costs and eliminating one method for recovering the capital costs of wells. Another proposed change would affect hedge funds and investment partnerships. Currently, many managers of
those firms hold what is known as carried interest in their investments and receive much of their compensation through the appreciated value when those stakes are sold. Those gains are taxed at the capital-gains rate, now at a maximum of 15%. Mr. Obama proposed taxing those gains as regular income. Another provision would require corporate jet
owners to depreciate them at the same rate as commercial airliners, seven years instead of five. That would boost taxes by $3 billion over 10 years. White House officials said Mr. Obama decided
to release these measures ahead of releasing his complete deficit-reduction plan so the jobs bill would move on a path separate from and faster than the congressional supercommittee.
Fiscal discipline now, new federal shifts have secured the dollar and reduced public investment risks, saving billions Calmes and Binyamin 9/13 (By JACKIE CALMES and BINYAMIN APPELBAUM Published: September 13, 2011
Bigger Economic Role for Washington New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/14/us/politics/jobs-bill-could-helpeconomic-growth-some-forecasters-say.html
If it works, the shift should modestly cut credit costs for businesses and consumers. Macroeconomic Advisers estimated that the Fed could raise gross domestic product by about 0.4 percentage points over two years, increasing jobs by about 350,000 over the same period. An impact of that magnitude would be roughly the same as the Fed achieved through its recentlycompleted purchase of $600 billion in Treasury securities, popularly known as QE2. Under the new plan, the Fed would be absorbing more risk for each dollar it invests; 10-year Treasury securities are riskier than oneyear securities because the investor makes a longer commitment. By shifting its portfolio, the Fed would seek to drive investors into even riskier assets, reducing borrowing costs.

Carey
No Fiscal Discipline Now

Current fiscal policy is ineffective, no permanent consolidation ensures future spending Bloomberg 9/13 (San Francisco Chronicle, Bloomberg, Bloomberg Talk, Analysis of Deficit Crises.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/09/13/bloomberg1376-LRINPG1A74E90152BIAPS5NV0LGI0PND99JFQBHH.DTL
The U.S. fiscal policy plans so far will do little to reduce the country's current account deficit, the International Monetary Fund said. "Looking ahead, the differing magnitudes of fiscal adjustment
plans across the world will help lower imbalances within the euro area and reduce emerging Asia's external surpluses," the IMF said in its report. "The relative lack of permanent consolidation measures in the U.S.
suggests that fiscal policy will contribute little to lessening the U.S. external deficit." The
U.S. current-account deficit widened to $119.3 billion in the first quarter amid surging oil costs that boosted imports at the beginning of 2011.

Carey
***Thumpers***

Carey
Jobs Bill Thumper

Jobs bill is Washingtons top priority Kocieniewski 9/13 (Tax Plan for Jobs Bill Has Familiar Ring By DAVID KOCIENIEWSKI Published: September 13, 2011,
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/14/business/economy/white-house-offers-tax-plan-for-jobs-bill.html To pay for his $447 billion jobs bill, President Obama is once again proposing an assortment
of tax increases on wealthy individuals and corporations. But the White House also says its plan should be viewed as a rough framework, because its top priority is to get the jobs bill enacted. If Congress approves the presidents jobs plan, it could instead pay for it with
Obama focused on Jobs Bill now VoaNews 9/16<Broadcast Institution for USFG>
Obama Continues to Push on Jobs Bill Voice of America News. http://blogs.voanews.com/breaking-news/2011/09/16/obama-continues-push-on-jobs-bill/
U.S. President Barack Obama called again for Congress to pass his jobs creation plan, as he spoke to students Friday at a science and technology high school outside Washington, D.C. In remarks made before signing a bill on patent reform, Mr. Obama called on Congress to pass the American Jobs Act and send it to the White House right away. He also invited his student audience to read the jobs bill on the White House website .Mr. Obama has been traveling across the country promoting his $447 billion proposal. He says it will boost the struggling U.S. economy by helping small businesses and creating nearly 2 million jobs. He says it
will put construction workers and teachers back to work. House Speaker John Boehner dismissed Mr. Obamas plan Thursday during a speech before the Economic Club of Washington. Boehner said excessive regulation, government spending and the current tax code threaten job creation. But despite widespread Republican opposition, Boehner said there are opportunities within the presidents proposal for common ground. The White House says it will fully pay for the jobs package, stabilize the deficit and debt over 10 years, and go beyond the $1.5 trillion target of additional savings that a joint congressional committee
President Obama will announce a long-term deficit and debt-reduction plan next week
must achieve.

Politics Updates Waru: Shawnee Mission East Debate 2011

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Politics Updates Waru: Shawnee Mission East Debate 2011

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Shawnee Mission East Debate 2011

1 WaRu Politics/Spending Updates