Immigration wont pass

Obama plan alienated conservatives and wont pass Meckler TODAY 2-17 [Laura, Staff Writer, Wall Street Journal, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323495104578310280625025410.html, White House Immigration Plan Linked,+ "If a Democrat, the president or anyone else puts out what they want on their own, it's going to be different than what you have a bipartisan agreement, but the only way we're going to get something done is with a bipartisan agreement," he said Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union." He added that Mr. Obama had "given us the space" to negotiate a deal and that he was optimistic the Senate could succeed. Some argued Sunday that the release could help the process by allowing Republicans to attack the president and put distance between their effort and Mr. Obama. One GOP Senate aide allowed for that possibility, but said the greater likelihood is that the events confirm fears of conservatives that Mr. Obama will push the legislation to the political left in a way they will be unable to support. Rubio said its dead on arrival Hart 2/16, Benjamin Hart is a staff writer @ Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/16/rubio-immigration-reform_n_2703722.html Hours after USA Today obtained the first draft of President Obama's immigration reform plan, the office of Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) put out a press release signaling the lawmaker's strong opposition . Its a mistake for the White House to draft immigration legislation without seeking input from Republican members of Congress," the statement begins, before going on to call the bill "half-baked and seriously flawed" and declaring that "if actually proposed, the Presidents bill would be dead on arrival in Congress."

Immigration will pass

CIR passes now, bipartisan and senators see it as a priority Gannet News 2-13 Gannet news service February 13, 2013 Immigration reform priority for
senators http://triblive.com/usworld/nation/3481415-74/senate-bipartisancommittee#axzz2Kq4OCor7 WASHINGTON A sense of urgency permeated the Senate's first immigration reform hearing of the 113th Congress on Wednesday as lawmakers and Obama administration officials said they see a rare chance for compromise on one of the nation's most divisive issues. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the United States is at a unique moment in history with a real chance to pass bipartisan immigration reform in this session of Congress. For the first time in recent memory , we are seeing a bipartisan consensus emerge about what those commonsense steps should be, Napolitano said. We must not miss this opportunity. President Obama, in his state of the union speech on Tuesday night, urged lawmakers to pass a bipartisan bill that he can sign into law. Senate Republicans have expressed an increased willingness to tackle the issue as a way to reach out to Latino voters, who overwhelmingly supported Obama and Democratic congressional candidates in last fall's election. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the committee's chairman, said he is determined that the panel will vote on legislation this spring. If the committee is able to pass a bill, the legislation would then go to a vote of the full Senate. Two Democrats and two Republicans on the committee are among a bipartisan group of eight senators working on a compromise bill that includes stronger border security and an earned pathway to citizenship for the 11 million illegal immigrants already living in the United States. Our window of opportunity will not stay open long, Leahy said. If we are going to act on this issue, we must do so without delay. While senators asked tough questions of Napolitano and other witnesses, the overall tenor of the hearing was much more positive about immigration reform than a hearing in the House last week

CIR will pass now, bipartisan support and Obama is pushing Martin 2-13 Gary Martin February 13, 2013 Obama: Immigration reform makes good economic
sense http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Obama-Immigration-reform-makesgood-economic-4273468.php WASHINGTON President Barack Obama cast immigration reform in economic terms Tuesday as he prodded Congress to create a path for citizenship for undocumented immigrants and provide employers with highly skilled workers needed to compete globally. Our economy is stronger when we harness the talents and ingenuity of striving, hopeful immigrants, Obama said to a standing ovation and applause from a joint session of Congress. Obama seized on the political momentum and used his State of the Union speech to praise lawmakers in the Senate and House for working together on the emotionally charged issue. Send me a comprehensive immigration reform bill in the next few months and I will sign it right away, he said. In the Republican rebuttal, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., a co-author of a bipartisan Senate immigration measure, agreed with the president that the immigration system needs fixing. Rubio said we can help our economy grows if we have a legal immigration system that allows us to attract and assimilate the world's best and brightest. He stopped short of endorsing a path to citizenship while calling for a responsible, permanent solution to the problem of those who are here illegally. And, Rubio said: We must first follow through on the broken promises of the past to secure our borders and enforce our laws. The president's speech comes one day before the Senate Judiciary

Committee takes up the bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform plan. Sweeping legislation still faces hurdles, particularly in the Republican-controlled House. Illegal immigration is a drain on the economy and amnesty is not the answer, said Rep. Lamar Smith, R-San Antonio, a member of the House Judiciary subcommittee on immigration. Smith said that amnesty actually makes matters worse by providing an incentive for more immigrants to come to the U.S. illegally. Tuesday night, the president said immigration reform would benefit the economy by leveling the playing field for both workers and employers. He called on Congress to streamline the legal immigration system for families, workers and to attract highly skilled entrepreneurs and engineers who will create jobs. Obama said immigration reform should include border security, building upon the progress of his administration, which increased the number of Border Patrol agents and saw illegal crossing on the Southwest border plunge to the lowest levels in 40 years. And he called for a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who pass background checks, pay taxes, learn English and stand at the back of the line behind the folks trying to come here legally. The speech was applauded by congressional Democrats elected on vows to reform immigration laws. I'm glad immigration reform was a focal point of tonight's speech, said Rep. Pete Gallego, D-Alpine. Immigration reform is the right thing to do for our country and a necessity for America's economic future. Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-San Antonio, said Obama is putting his full weight behind immigration reform. I think the president's efforts are paying off.

Immigration reform good

Visas are key to cybersecurity preparedness McLarty 9 (Thomas F. III, President McLarty Associates and Former White House Chief of Staff and Task Force Co-Chair, U.S. Immigration Policy: Report of a CFR-Sponsored Independent Task Force, 7-8, http://www.cfr.org/ publication/19759/us_immigration_policy.html)

when you look at the table of the top 20 firms that are H1-B visa requestors, at least 15 of those are IT firms. And as we're seeing across industry, much of the hardware and software that's used in this country is not only manufactured now overseas, but it's developed overseas by scientists and engineers who were educated here in the United States. We're seeing a lot more activity around cyber-security , certainly noteworthy attacks here very recently. It's becoming an increasingly dominant set of requirements across not only to the Department of Defense, but the Department of Homeland Security and the critical infrastructure that's held in private hands. Was there any discussion or any interest from DOD or DHS as you undertook this review on the security things about what can be done to try to generate a more effective group of IT experts here in the U nited S tates, many of which are coming to the U.S. institutions, academic institutions from overseas and often returning back? This potentially puts us at a competitive disadvantage going forward. MCLARTY: Yes. And I think your question largely is the answer as well. I mean, clearly we have less talented students here studying -- or put another way, more talented students studying in other countries that are gifted, talented, really have a tremendous ability to develop these kind of technology and scientific advances , we're going to be put at an increasingly disadvantage. Where if they come here -- and I kind of like Dr. Land's approach of the green card being handed to them or carefully put in their billfold or purse as they graduate -- then, obviously, that's going to strengthen , I think, our system, our security needs .
We have seen,

Cyber-vulnerability causes great power nuclear war Fritz 9 | Researcher for International Commission on Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament [Jason, researcher for International Commission on Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament, former Army officer and consultant, and has a master of international relations at Bond University, Hacking Nuclear Command and Control, July, http://www.icnnd.org/latest/research/Jason_Fritz_Hacking_NC2.pdf] This paper will analyse the threat of cyber terrorism in regard to nuclear weapons. Specifically, this research will use
open source knowledge to identify the structure of nuclear command and control centres, how those structures might be compromised through computer network operations, and how doing so would fit within established cyber terrorists capabilities, strategies, and tactics. If access to command and control centres is obtained, terrorists could fake or

actually cause one nuclear-armed state to attack another, thus provoking a nuclear response from another nuclear power. This may be an easier alternative for terrorist groups than building or acquiring a nuclear weapon or dirty bomb themselves. This would also act as a force equaliser, and provide terrorists with the asymmetric benefits of high speed, removal of geographical distance, and a

relatively low cost. Continuing difficulties in developing computer tracking technologies which could trace the identity of intruders, and difficulties in establishing an internationally agreed upon legal framework to guide responses to computer network operations, point towards an inherent weakness in using computer networks to manage nuclear weaponry. This is particularly relevant to reducing the hair trigger posture of existing nuclear arsenals. All computers which are connected to the internet are susceptible to infiltration and remote control. Computers which operate on a closed network may also be compromised by various hacker methods, such as privilege escalation, roaming notebooks, wireless access points, embedded exploits in software and hardware, and maintenance entry points. For example, e-mail spoofing targeted at individuals who have access to a closed network, could lead to the installation of a virus on an open network . This virus could then be carelessly transported on removable data storage between the open and closed network. Information found on the internet may also reveal how to access these closed networks directly. Efforts by militaries to place increasing reliance on computer networks, including experimental technology such as autonomous systems, and their desire to have multiple launch options, such as nuclear triad capability, enables multiple entry points for terrorists. For example, if a terrestrial command centre is impenetrable, perhaps isolating one nuclear armed submarine would prove an easier task. There is evidence to suggest multiple attempts have been made by hackers to compromise the extremely low radio frequency once used by the US Navy to send nuclear launch approval to submerged submarines. Additionally, the alleged Soviet system known as Perimetr was designed to automatically launch nuclear weapons if it was unable to establish communications with Soviet leadership. This was intended as a retaliatory response in the event that nuclear weapons had decapitated Soviet leadership; however it did not account for the possibility of cyber terrorists blocking communications through computer network operations in an attempt to engage the system. Should a warhead be launched, damage could be further enhanced through additional computer network operations. By using proxies, multi-layered attacks could be engineered. Terrorists could remotely commandeer computers in China and use them to launch a US nuclear attack against Russia. Thus Russia would believe it was under attack from the US and the US would believe China was responsible. Further, emergency response communications could be disrupted, transportation could be shut down, and disinformation, such as misdirection, could be planted, thereby hindering the disaster relief effort and maximizing destruction. Disruptions in communication and the use of disinformation could also be used to provoke uninformed responses. For example, a nuclear strike between India and Pakistan could be coordinated with Distributed Denial of Service attacks against key networks, so they would have further difficulty in identifying what happened and be forced to respond quickly. Terrorists could also knock out communications between these states so they cannot discuss the situation. Alternatively, amidst the confusion of a traditional large-scale terrorist attack, claims of responsibility and declarations of war could be falsified in an attempt to instigate a hasty military response. These false claims could be posted
directly on Presidential, military, and government websites. E-mails could also be sent to the media and foreign governments using the IP addresses and e-mail accounts of government officials. A sophisticated and all encompassing

combination of traditional terrorism and cyber terrorism could be enough to launch nuclear weapons on its own, without the need for compromising command and control centres directly.

ECON IMPACT
CIR is solves economy

Hinojosa-Ojeda 12 Founding Director of the North American Integration and Development Center at
UCLA Ral Hinojosa-Ojeda, The Economic Benefits of Comprehensive Immigration Reform Cato Journal, Vol. 32, No. 1 Winter 2012 The historical experience of legalization under the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act indicates that c omprehensive i mmigration r eform would raise wages, increase consumption, create jobs, and generate additional tax revenue. Even though IRCA was implemented during a period that included a recession and high unemployment (199091), it still helped raise wages and spurred increases in educational, home, and small business investments by newly legalized immigrants. Taking the experience of IRCA as a starting point, we estimate that c omprehensive i mmigration r eform would yield at least $1.5 trillion in added U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) over 10 years. 1 This is a compelling economic reason to move away from the current vicious cycle where enforcement-only policies perpetuate unauthorized migration and exert downward pressure on already low wages, and toward a virtuous cycle of worker
empowerment in which legal status and labor rights exert upward pressure on wages.

CLIMATE IMPACT
SMOOTH IMMIGRATION DEBATE K2 PRESERVE CAPITAL FOR WARMING Koons 2-1 Andy Koons, writer for the Daily Iowan, February 1st, 2013, "Koons: Immigration reform not done" www.dailyiowan.com/2013/02/01/Opinions/31576.html And make no mistake: Obama will be given credit if immigration reform passes. A big win this early in his second term will strengthen the wind already at his back from his election. Obamacare passed after almost two years of work and sucked the president dry of electoral goodwill. If Republicans dont use immigration to sap Obamas political capital, Obama will have enough remaining momentum to take on climate change before the midterms.

AEROSPACE
Immigration reform prevents a shortage in the aerospace industry. Thompson 9 (David, President American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, and Dr. Richard Aubrecht, Vice President of Strategy and Technology Moog, Inc., The Aerospace Workforce, Federal News Service, 12-10, Lexis)
And finally, despite our best

efforts to increase the domestic supply of well-qualified aerospace engineers and scientists, it is AIAA's view that that alone will not be sufficient to fully address the problems that our country is going to face over the next decade or so. And so we further advocate a reexamination of immigration laws and visa levels so that we can more effectively attract from around the world the best and brightest young people
that want to come to our country and build their lives and careers here to strengthen our aerospace sector and the nation as a whole. In addition, within this general framework, AIAA and a number of other engineering societies across a variety of fields have advocated the pursuit of policies specifically focused on emphasizing the two middle initials in the STEM acronym, namely technology and engineering. I think we

are farther behind in those areas or we risk falling farther behind in those areas than we perhaps do in the bracketing letters of science and math. All are important, but as we look out over the next decade, the challenges in engineering and technology may even be
worse -- more severe than the challenges in the basic sciences and math. REP. EDWARDS: Thank you. And I'm sure we could go on but my time has expired, Madame Chairwoman. REP. GIFFORDS: Dr. Aubrecht, did you want to add -- (inaudible)? MR. AUBRECHT: Yes. Just to come back to the point that you made there in terms of immigration policy, we employ about 9,000 people in 26 countries around the world. We're headquartered in Buffalo, and that's where the center of our aerospace business is, but we've fields, and a number

taken this technology into all kinds of other of cases where we'd like to bring people in from outside the U.S. and we just simply have a terrible time trying to get visas for these people to come in. So I don't think we're going to be able to meet the needs from a technological staffing standpoint unless you open up the immigration. People from all over the world would just love to come to the U.S. and work on these programs. This is where it's happening. But they just can't get the visas. Nuclear war. Tellis 98 (Ashley, Senior Political Scientist RAND, Sources of Conflict in the 21st Century, http://www.rand. org/publications/MR/MR897/MR897.chap3.pdf)
This subsection attempts to synthesize some of the key operational implications distilled from the analyses relating to the rise of Asia and the potential for conflict in each of its constituent regions. The first key implication derived from the analysis of trends in Asia suggests that

American air and space power will continue to remain critical for conventional and unconventional deterrence in Asia. This argument is justified by the fact that several subregions of the continent still harbor the potential for full-scale conventional war . This potential is most conspicuous on the Korean peninsula and, to a lesser degree, in South Asia, the Persian Gulf, and the South China Sea. In some of these areas, such as Korea and the Persian Gulf, the United States has clear
treaty obligations and, therefore, has preplanned the use of air power should contingencies arise. U.S. Air Force assets could also be called upon for operations in some of these other areas. In almost all these cases, U.S.

air power would be at the forefront of an American politico-military response because (a) of the vast distances on the Asian continent; (b) the diverse range of operational platforms available to the U.S. Air Force, a capability unmatched by any other country or service; (c) the possible unavailability of naval assets in close proximity, particularly in the context of surprise contingencies; and (d) the heavy payload that
can be carried by U.S. Air Force platforms. These platforms can exploit speed, reach, and high operating tempos to sustain continual operations until the political objectives are secured. The entire range of warfighting capabilityfighters, bombers, electronic warfare (EW), suppression of enemy air defense (SEAD), combat support platforms such as AWACS and J-STARS, and tankersare relevant in the Asia-Pacific region, because

many of the regional contingencies will involve armed operations against large, fairly modern, conventional forces, most of which are built around large land armies, as is the case in Korea, China-Taiwan, India-Pakistan, and the Persian Gulf . In addition to conventional combat, the demands of unconventional deterrence will increasingly confront the U.S. Air Force in Asia. The Korean peninsula, China, and the Indian subcontinent are already arenas of WMD proliferation . While
emergent nuclear capabilities continue to receive the most public attention, chemical and biological warfare threats will progressively become future problems. The delivery systems in the region are increasing in range and diversity. China already targets the continental United States with ballistic missiles. North Korea can threaten northeast Asia with existing Scud-class theater ballistic missiles. India will acquire the capability to produce ICBM-class delivery vehicles, and both China and India will acquire long-range cruise missiles during the time frames examined in

this report.

Labor crisis in aerospace now temporary workers key to industry competitiveness and innovation AIAA 10 [American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, "Recruiting, retaining, and developing a world-class aerospace workforce: An AIAA Information Paper, presented at the AIAA's 13th Annual AIAA Congressional Visits Day in March 2010, pdf, http://www.doleta.gov/brg/indprof/aerospace_report.pdf] Without a strong aerospace workforce, the United States will lose the resulting economic and national security benefits. Incentives are needed for industry to invest in domestic aerospace workforce development, and for U.S. students to choose an engineering career. Barriers to employing talented foreign nationals must also be removed. Aerospace
represents about $200 billion (or 1.5%) of the domestic economy and in 1997 provided a $56 billion positive trade balance. The aerospace

workforce is the foundation of the industrys success, yet unique workforce demographics present challenges. Figure 11 shows the age distribution of the aerospace business workforce compared to the total U.S. workforce. Up to half of the current aerospace workforce will be eligible for retirement within five years. Aerospace workforce composition does not match
national demographic averages. Compared to the total US workforce, the aerospace industry and NASA have a disproportionately large percentage of workers aged 4055, and a disproportionately small percentage of workers younger than 40. Student loans, research dollars to support universities, and service scholarships can provide incentives for younger workers to consider aerospace and join the industry. If talented young engineers are not recruited, retained, and developed to replace the workforce generation that is near retirement, then the U.S. stands to lose the valuable economic and critical national security benefits of the domestic aerospace industry. As shown in Figure 22, large

percentages of engineers are working outside the science and engineering professions. Engineering students burdened with college loans are seeking greener pastures. As shown in Figure 33, aerospace engineering
salaries are low compared to other industries. If the U.S. is to retain its edge in this industry, salaries need to rise and incentives given for entering the industry. Further, since 1980, the number of nonacademic science and engineering jobs has grown at more than four times the rate of the U.S. labor force as a whole2. With

a growing number of science and engineering jobs anticipated, the supply of visas set aside under law for highly qualified foreign workers, 65,000 a year4 is not enough. A decline in student, exchange, and temporary high-skilled worker visas issued since 2001 interrupted a long-term trend of growth. The number of student visas and of temporary high-skilled worker visas issued have both declined by more than 25% since FY 2001. These declines were due both to fewer applications and to an increase in the proportion of visa applications rejected2.To add to the supply pressures of science and engineering workers in our economy, there is increased recruitment of highskilled labor, including scientists and engineers, by many national governments and private firms. For example, in 1999, 241,000 individuals entered Japan with temporary high-skill work visas, a 75 percent increase over 19925. Research and development [R&D] expenditures keep the aerospace industry strong and help maintain US leadership in this sector. As
shown in Figure 46, the R&D tax credit is working to increase corporate spending on this important activity. In the early 1990s, after implementation of the R&D tax credit legislation, private expenditures on R&D rose2. Yet even with this incentive, U.S. industry research and development funding is lagging. In 2001, US industry spent more on tort litigation than on research and development4. Perhaps as a result, American companies are lagging in patents. In 2005, only four American companies ranked among the top 10 corporate recipients of patents granted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office4. And to further add to this distressing R&D dollars situation, federal research funding is lagging as well. The amount invested annually by the US federal government in research in the physical sciences, mathematics, and engineering combined is less than what Americans spend on potato chips7,8. RECOMMENDATIONS To remain globally competitive, the

U.S. must adopt policies to increase our talent base in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), must educate, engage, and retain STEM professionals using means consistent with generational changes in technologies and markets, and must provide incentives for investment in research and development that helps to attract applicable talent. The AIAA recommends policies
in three areas to achieve these goals: incentives for college students to study engineering, and corporate incentives for investing in the aerospace workforce, and immigration for STEM professionals. In the area of incentives for college students to study engineering, forgivable loan programs should be implemented for students who study engineering and enter the domestic technical workforce. Service scholarships should be created to pay college for students who desire to and will serve in aerospace-related U.S. government agencies after graduation. In addition, investments must be made in aerospace research infrastructure and increasing R&D funding to universities, since good research opportunities attract talented students into graduate STEM studies. R&D dollars provide a fourfold return by supporting graduate students, generating knowledge, creating innovation opportunities for small businesses around universities, and building the next generation of talented engineers. In the area of corporate incentives for investing in the aerospace workforce, targeted tax credits or incentives should be instituted for domestic aerospace workforce development expenses. An IR&D-like program for aerospace workforce development should be established by allowing a small percentage of government contract funding to aerospace companies to go into a development fund to be used on effective programs to expand domestic workforce capabilities. In addition, the R&D tax credit should be made permanent, providing stability to corporate fiscal policies, and thereby fostering a critical technology and engineering research environment that attracts the best and brightest into the technology and engineering fields. Lastly, in

the area of immigration, barriers should be removed so that the US may retain talented foreign nationals in STEM professions critical to the aerospace industry.

Iran Negotiations
Obama focusing on Iran negotiations Middle East Online 2-13 February 13, 2013 Can the United States Strike a Deal with Iran?
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=56954 The road to a U.S.-Iranian agreement is littered with obstacles -- grave mutual distrust being one of them. There is little optimism among experts that a breakthrough is imminent. For one thing, Iran is almost certain to want to defer any major strategic decision until a new President is elected next June to replace the sharp-tongued Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. To strike a deal with Iran, the United States would also need to assure its Arab allies in the Gulf that they would not fall under Iranian hegemony or lose American protection. Guarantees would no doubt have to be given. Israel, Americas close ally, poses a more substantial obstacle. It is totally opposed to any deal which would allow Iran to enrich uranium, even at the low level of 3.5%. Wanting no challenge to its own formidable nuclear arsenal, Israels longstanding aim has been to halt Irans nuclear programme altogether. To this end it has assassinated several Iranian nuclear scientists and joined the United States in waging cyber warfare against Iranian nuclear facilities. Its belligerent prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, has for years been pressing Obama to destroy Irans nuclear programme and -- better still -- bring down the Islamic regime altogether. Faced with these obstacles, it is clear that any U.S. deal with Iran would require careful preparation. Obama would need to mobilize strong domestic support if he is to confront Americas vast array of pro-Israeli forces. They include Congressmen eager to defend Israeli interests at all costs (as was vividly illustrated by the recent Chuck Hagel confirmation hearings), powerful lobbies such as AIPAC, media barons, high-profile Jewish financiers like Sheldon Adelson, a phalanx of neo-con strategists in right-wing think tanks, influential pro-Israelis within the Administration, and many, many others. The cost in political capital of challenging them could be very substantial. Nevertheless, elected for a second term, he now has greater freedom and authority than before.

Gun Control
Obama is pushing Gun control Stirewalt 2-12 February 12, 2013 Chris Stirewalt Gun Control Will Crowd Out Other Obama Policy
Points http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/12/gun-control-will-crowd-out-other-obama-policypoints/ There will be all of those things and more in what promises to be a flurry of policy provisions befitting a re-elected president determined to have a transformative second term. He may not match Bill Clintons record for longest-ever (1 hour, 28 minutes and 49 seconds in 2000), but Obama will certainly not be wrapping up quickly. But whatever Obama talks about, it is likely to be overshadowed by his call for a gun ban in response to mass shootings and a steady tide of urban shootings, particularly in his hometown of Chicago. The Constitution instructs the president from time to time to update Congress on the state of the union and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient. The tradition since 1790 has been for presidents to do this once a year, but the Framers included the line in order to make sure that there was at least some communication between the legislative and executive branches. Presidents since Woodrow Wilson have needed little encouragement to tell Congress whats on their minds, especially the current chief executive. Obama talks to, about and around Congress constantly. So all that Obama says tonight about immigration, taxes, stimulus and global warming will have been heard and re-heard by the lawmakers Obama is ostensibly there to talk to. The real purpose of States of the Union addresses since Lyndon Johnson moved his speech to primetime from the sleepy midday affairs of his predecessors is to talk to the folks at home and to get the political press to restate your talking points. The speeches are predictable news events that allow for lavish coverage and great pictures lots of cheering, the big Stars and Stripes, etc. What the president says can be analyzed, re-analyzed and dissected for the evening, and, since Obama will give partial versions of the speech in three campaign stops, for days afterward. But the full laundry list of policies wont make it through the media wringer. Despite Obamas claims that Washington can walk and chew gum at the same time he surely knows by now that it cannot. But whatever Obama talks about, it is likely to be overshadowed by his call for a gun ban in response to mass shootings and a steady tide of urban shootings, particularly in his hometown of Chicago. In the case of this speech, it seems inevitable that his push on gun control will predominate. Its an issue that his political base adores, it being an article of faith on the American left that limiting gun sales will reduce gun crime. Add to that the double bias in favor of the issue in the press dramatic stories for the if it bleeds it leads set and a policy that fits overall view in the establishment press that firearms are bad. To that end, the president will use the parents and survivors of the Newtown, Conn. tragedy and other victims of gun violence to personalize his message on gun control. Reports will follow these breadcrumbs and produce the stories that reinforce the presidents message. People getting shot and killed makes for better copy than sequestration or out-year entitlement reform or green jobs or whatever fiscal and economic crisis the government and the nation are currently stumbling through. But the risk here for Obama is that for all of his pivots and policy pounding, the speech may end up being recalled as one about gun control. On each subsequent retelling, the storyline will grow shorter and shorter but guns will never drop from the lead. And given the deep resistance, even among some his own party, to gun control, in political conflict over the subject will never go away. So, if Obama means to see gun control enacted in his second term, he will never have a better chance to sell it than he will tonight. But the president had better be prepared to sacrifice much of the rest of his agenda to make this a reality.

And even then, he will have to consider whether he wants to make this his legacy project especially when voters remain bleak-minded on the economy and the world grows more dangerous by the day.

Economy
US not key to global economy- emerging economies more important The Economist 07 (America's vulnerable economy, 11/15/07, http://www.economist.com/node/10134118) Swoap
The best hope that global growth can stay strong lies instead with emerging economies. A decade ago, the thought that so much depended on these crisis-prone places would have been terrifying. Yet thanks largely to economic reforms, their annual growth rate has surged to around 7%. This year they will contribute half of the globe's GDP growth, measured at market exchange rates, over three times as much as America. In the past, emerging economies have often needed bailing out by the rich world. This time they could be the rescuers.Of course, a recession in America would reduce emerging economies' exports, but they are less vulnerable than they used to be. America's importance as an engine of global growth has been exaggerated. Since 2000 its share of world imports has dropped from 19% to 14%. Its vast current-account deficit has started to shrink, meaning that America is no longer pulling along the rest of the world. Yet
growth in emerging economies has quickened, partly thanks to demand at home. In the first half of this year the increase in consumer spending (in actual dollar terms) in China and India added more to global GDP growth than that in America. Most emerging economies are in healthier shape than ever (see article). They are no longer financially dependent on the rest of the world, but have large foreign-exchange reservesno less than three-quarters of the global total. Though there are some notable exceptions, most of them have small budget deficits (another change from the past), so they can boost spending to offset weaker exports if need be.

Government stimulus fails- reduces private investment and kills the economy longterm WSO 12 (Wall Street Oasis, Threes a Crowd: The Failure of Keynesian Economics, Part 2, 6/21/12,
http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/blog/three%E2%80%99s-a-crowd-the-failure-of-keynesian-economics-part-2) Swoap A central failure in Keynes thought becomes obvious when you ask yourself this simple question:where does the government get the additional money to spend in excess of its tax revenue? Deficit spending must be financed. Government bonds must be sold to acquire the money. There are two options here: the debt can be sold to the federal reserve which pays with base money it creates at zero cost, causing money stock expansion through the banking system. Thats a monetary policy, however, and we must analytically preclude a change in that in order to evaluate pure Keynesian fiscal policy. So instead, suppose the government sells the bonds to financial transactors and other private citizens. The government now has more money to spend, but those private parties now have less to spend. Why should current expenditure rise? It probably doesnt, due in part to simple credit rationing. When the government enters the financial markets to borrow hundreds of billions of dollars it has to sell its bonds at low enough prices and high enough yields to find buyers. In short, it

raises bond interest rates (yields), causing other rates to rise by arbitrage. Now it can spend the money it acquired. There are two offsets, however. First, at the higher interest rates, private sector borrowers will borrow and spend less than they would at the lower rates. Government borrowing thus crowds out some private investment spending. Second, at the higher interest rate people increase their private saving (since savings now earn more), reducing their consumption spending to do so. So, yes, government spending goes up, but private consumption and investment spending decline equivalently. No meaningful increase in aggregate demand, output, or employment occurs . Worse, the decline in private investment likely reduces capital formation, productivity growth, and hence economic growth in the long-run . In objection to this argument, Keynesians noted that domestic interest rates did not reliably correlate with
government borrowing in the way classical credit rationing theory implied. Admitting that fact, economist Robert Barro responded that, when the government borrows to finance additional deficit spending, citizens may correctly anticipate the additional future taxation they will have to bear to pay off interest and principle on the added public debt. In response, such rational taxpayers would increase their present saving reducing their current consumer spending - so they could pay those future taxes. The effect of increased current government spending on total expenditure would again be offset.

Economic decline empirically doesnt lead to war Naim 10 (Moises, a Senior Associate in the International Economics program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, It
Didn't Happen, Foreign Policy, January/February 2010, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/01/04/it_didnt_happen) Swoap

Just a few months ago, the consensus among influential thinkers was that the economic crisis would unleash a wave of geopolitical plagues. Xenophobic outbursts, civil wars, collapsing currencies, protectionism, international conflicts, and street riots were only some of the dire consequences expected by the experts. It didn't happen . Although the crash did
cause severe economic damage and widespread human suffering, and though the world did change in important ways for the worse -- the International Monetary Fund, for example, estimates that the global economy's new and permanent trajectory is a 10 percent lower rate of GDP growth than before the crisis -- the

scary predictions for the most part failed to materialize. Sadly, the same experts who failed to foresee the economic crisis were also blindsided by the speed of the recovery. More than a year into the crisis, we now know just how off they were. From telling us about the imminent collapse of the
international financial system to prophecies of a 10-year recession, here are six of the most common predictions about the crisis that have been proven wrong:

Predictions are exaggerated- economic collapse wont happen Vomund 12 (David, wenty years of investment and portfolio management experience, owner of Vomund Investment Management,
Market Pulse: It's (still) OK to be optimistic, North Lake Tahoe Bonanza, 7/4/12, http://www.tahoebonanza.com/article/20120704/NEWS/120709972/1061&ParentProfile=1050) Swoap The financial and even the general media

report day after day all the dire consequences from the inevitable collapse of the European Union. While I agree that there would be serious problems if countries default, and for sure the shock waves would be felt here, the worst case is far from inevitable. We all well recall the inflation and record high interest rates and
gasoline prices in the mid-70s, the even greater inflation and rates in 1981, odd and even days at the pumps, the sentiment after the 1987 crash (here we go again, another depression), subsequent mini-crashes and selling when Iraq invaded Kuwait, the Y2K scare, the sell-off after 9/11.

The worst-case scenarios so many thought inevitable had the market, our economy and even in some ways society itself collapsing in a death spiral. Of course, nothing of the sort happened. Why? Worst-case outcomes were not in
anyone's interest so appropriate actions were taken. My point once again is that while it's easy to sign on to the worst and usually the most logical case often merely a straight-line extension of current trends doing so has seldom if ever been profitable. In fact, doing just the opposite has been enormously profitable. Buying stocks in 1974, or in August of 1982, or after the 1987 crash despite all the apparent reasons not to created fortunes for those with foresight and courage. So here we go again with worries about defaults in Europe, solvency, recessions, the fiscal cliff, the election and a market collapse. Not so fast. Nothing is inevitable so let's not assume the worst case will prevail. Actually the slowing economy, not Europe, is my top concern now.

American economy strong and recovering The Economist 7/14 (Comeback kid, The Economist, 7/14/12, http://www.economist.com/node/21558576) Swoap
Americas economy is certainly in a tender state. But the pessimism of the presidential slanging-match misses something vital. Led

by its inventive private sector, the economy is remaking itself (see article). Old weaknesses are being remedied and new
strengths discovered, with an agility that has much to teach stagnant Europe and dirigiste Asia. Balance your imbalances Americas sluggishness stems above all from pre-crisis excesses and the misshapen economy they created. Until 2008 growth relied too heavily on consumer spending and house-buying, both of them financed by foreign savings channelled through an undercapitalised financial system. Household debt, already nearly 100% of income in 2000, reached 133% in 2007. Recoveries from debt-driven busts always take years, as households and banks repair

Americas houses are now among the worlds most undervalued: 19% below fair value, according to our house-price index. And because the Treasury and other regulators,
their balance-sheets. Nonetheless, in the past three years that repair has proceeded fast. unlike their euro-zone counterparts, chose to confront the rot in their financial system quickly, American banks have had to write off debts and raise equity faster than their peers. (Citigroup alone has flushed through some $143 billion of loan losses; no euro-zone bank has set aside more than $30 billion.) American now 114% of income. New

capital ratios are among the worlds highest. And consumers have cut back, too: debts are strengths have also been found. One is a more dynamic export sector. The weaker dollar helps explain why the trade deficit has shrunk from 6% of GDP in 2006 to about 4% today. But other, more permanent, shiftsespecially the growth of a consuming class in emerging marketsaugur well. On the campaign trail, both parties attack China as a
currency-fiddling, rule-breaking supplier of cheap imports (see Lexington). But a richer China has become the third-largest market for Americas exports, up 53% since 2007.

The US economy is strong and improving AP 12 [Associated Press, News Reporters, May 1st, 2012, http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/01/us-manufacturing-grows-at-fastestpace-since-june/#ixzz21TXAcJGa] Callas

WASHINGTON U.S. manufacturing grew last month at the fastest pace in 10 months, suggesting that the economy is healthier than recent data had indicated. New orders, production and a measure of hiring all rose. The April survey from the Institute for Supply Management was a hopeful sign ahead of Friday's monthly jobs report and
helped the Dow Jones industrial average end the day at its highest level in more than four years. The trade group of purchasing managers said Tuesday that its index of manufacturing activity reached 54.8 in April, the highest level since June. Readings above 50 indicate expansion. The

sharp increase surprised analysts, who had predicted a decline after several regional reports showed manufacturing growth weakened last month. The gain led investors to shift money out of bonds and into stocks. The Dow Jones industrial
added 66 points to 13,279, its best close since Dec. 28, 2007. Broader indexes also surged. The ISM manufacturing index is closely watched in part because it's the first major economic report for each month. April's big gain followed a series of weaker reports in recent weeks that showed hiring slowed, applications for unemployment benefits rose and factory output dropped. "This survey will ease concerns that the softer tone of the incoming news in recent months marked the start of a renewed slowdown in growth," Paul Dales, an economist at Capital Economics, said in a note to clients. "We think the latest recovery is made of sterner stuff, although we doubt it will set the world alight." The latest reading is well above the recession low of 33.1 and above the long-run average of 52.8. But it's still below the pre-recession high of 61.4. Dan Meckstroth, chief economist at the Manufacturers' Alliance, notes that in the past 20 years, the index has been at or above 54.8 only onethird of the time. A

measure of employment in the ISM's survey rose to a 10-month high. That indicates that factories are hiring at a solid pace. A gauge of new orders jumped to its highest level in a year. That could signal faster production in the coming months. Export orders also rose, offsetting worries that weaker economies in Europe and China could drag on U.S. exports. A separate report showed China's factory sector is
still growing. A survey of purchasing managers in China found that the manufacturing sector expanded for the fifth straight month in April. Rich Bergmann, managing director of Accenture's global manufacturing practice, said large manufacturers are driving U.S. growth. They are pushing their suppliers to boost output, which has led many to hire more workers. Large

companies are also helping smaller companies in their supply chain, Bergmann said, by guaranteeing a certain level of orders or helping smaller companies obtain financing to expand. "There's just a tremendous trickle-down effect in these industries," Bergmann said. "That's a very
positive trend that we think will continue." Boeing reported a 58 percent jump in profit in the January-March quarter. Orders for its more-fuelefficient 737 jetliner soared. The company added 11,000 employees last year. The global airplane manufacturer's growth has benefited companies like Charlotte, N.C.-based Goodrich Corp., which makes aircraft components. Its sales to large aircraft makers jumped 27 percent in the first quarter. Caterpillar,

the world's largest manufacturer of construction and mining equipment, last week reported that its profit grew 29 percent in the January-March quarter. The company said it is boosting its manufacturing capacity to handle a record backlog of orders. Small companies are also reporting big gains. Boston-based
Spreadshirt.com, which prints custom T-shirts, other clothing and accessories, plans to start production at a new plant in Las Vegas in July. The company's revenue doubled in the first three months of this year. The company is about to sign a five-year lease for the Las Vegas factory and has purchased about $1 million in new printing equipment. The company plans to hire nearly 100 people by the end of this year, on top of its current work force of 150. "I'm pretty confident that we can sustain this growth," said Mark Venezia, vice president for global sales and marketing. "We're opening up a new facility banking on that." Factories account for only

about 9 percent of total payrolls but added 13 percent of the new jobs last year. Manufacturers have added 120,000 jobs in the past three months, about one-fifth of all net gains. Economists predict manufacturers added 20,000 jobs in April, according to a survey by FactSet. Still, manufacturing represents only about 12 percent of economic activity. Other areas continue to
struggle. A separate report showed U.S. builders barely increased their spending on construction projects in March after two straight months of declines. A pickup in single-family home construction and commercial projects offset a steep drop in state and local government building. The 0.1 percent gain left construction spending at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of $808.1 billion, the Commerce Department said. That's roughly half the level of what economists consider to be healthy.

Federalism is High now

A. Obama delegated most fed transportation control Bruce 12 (Bruce, Vice President and Director, Metropolitan Policy Program, February 16, , Remaking Federalism to Remake the American Economy, http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2012/02/16-federalism-katz) On the programmatic front, President Obama has worked to enable states and localities to tackle structural challenges in integrated ways. The administrations Sustainable Communities Initiativea partnership among the Department of Transportation, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has, for example, given cities and metropolitan areas resources, information and tools to make sharper connections between housing, transportation and environmental resources. On regulatory matters,President Obama has used federal actions to set a floor rather than a ceiling on a range of consumer protection, clean energy and environmental matters. This has left room for the states to innovate on auto emission standards in California, for example, and to seek redress for mortgage abuses through the States Attorney Generals. To date, President Obamas approach to economic restructuring has tended toward the more permissive, enabling end of the federalist spectrum. B. Highway bill proves Kilcarr 12 senior editor, Fleet Owner (Sean, Marking the devolution of highway funding, http://fleetowner.com/regulations/marking-devolution-highway-funding) As Congress continues to debate a variety of surface transportation funding bills most notably the two-year Senate sponsored Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) several groups believe such federal-directed efforts are almost becoming moot as highway funding issues are increasingly devolving to the states. At a briefing on Capitol Hill this week, a panel of experts led by Marc Scriber, land-use and transportation policy analyst with the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), argued that near-default status of the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) due to inadequate fuel tax revenues and policy gridlock at the federal level is increasingly pushing states and localities to figure out ways to generate the funds required to build and maintain U.S. bridges and roads. Weve argued in the past that responsibility for generating highway funds should devolve to the states, but now thats [is] a largely defacto reality as declining HTF revenues are forcing the states to look for new ways to generate the monies they need, Scriber told Fleet Owner. C. Empirical examples prove Katz 12 - Vice President at the Brookings Institution and founding Director of the Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program, Graduate of Brown University and Yale Law School, - (Bruce, March 18th, 2012, Will the Next President Remake Federalism? http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2012/03/18-federalism-katz) While the federal government sets a platform for national growth, it does not construct one road, operate one port, educate one child, train one adult or cure one individual. It largely delivers these and a host of other economy-shaping goods and services through an intricate network of public, private and civic intermediaries and institutions. If the next president really wants to create more and better jobs, he would be wise to enlist states and metropolitan areas as active co-partners in the restructuring of the national economy. The genius of American federalism is that it diffuses power among different layers of government and across disparate sectors of society. States are the key constitutional partners, because they have broad powers

over such market-shaping policy areas as infrastructure, innovation, energy, education and skills training. But other sub-national units - particularly major cities and metropolitan areas - also are critical, because they concentrate and agglomerate the assets that drive prosperity and share leadership with actors in the corporate, civic, university and other spheres. When the federal government becomes polarized and fails to act on critical issues of national importance, states and metros can step in to take on larger roles. With Washington mired in partisan gridlock, the states and metropolitan areas are doing just that. With federal innovation funding at risk, metros like New York City and states like Ohio and Tennessee are making sizable commitments to attract innovative research institutions, commercialize leading-edge research and grow innovation-intensive firms. With the future of federal trade policy unclear, metro areas like Los Angeles, San Francisco and Minneapolis/St. Paul and states like Colorado and New York are reorienting their economic development strategies toward exports and the attraction of innovative foreign companies and skilled immigrants. With federal energy policy in shambles, metro areas like Seattle and Philadelphia are cementing their niches in energy-efficient technologies, and states like Connecticut are experimenting with green banks to help deploy clean technologies at scale. State green banks can play a crucial role in financing clean energy projects by combining scarce public resources with private investment, and then leveraging the funds to make each public $1 support $5 or $10 or even more dollars of investment. With federal transportation policy in limbo, metro areas like Jacksonville and Savannah and states like Michigan are modernizing their air, rail and sea freight hubs to position themselves for an expansion of global trade. D. Congressional push for devolution Russell 11 Nicholas, "Six Ideas for Fixing the Nation's Infrastructure Problems." Governing -the States and Localities. N.p., June 2011. Web. 30 June 2012. <http://www.governing.com/topics/transportation-infrastructure/six-ideas-for-fixing-thenations-infrastructure-problems.html>. States pay for about two-thirds of surface transportation spending. With less money available from the feds, their portion may need to grow -- an increasingly familiar storyline in all areas of funding right now. Given that dynamic, states and localities are asking for more flexibility on how they can spend federal dollars and are endorsing plans that would allow the federal government to leverage the limited funds that are available. One idea that has received bipartisan support is a plan known as America Fast Forward. Its a proposal to expand a federal program of the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) that provides low-interest loans for transportation projects. The proposals biggest cheerleader is Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. In 2008, Angelinos approved a sales-tax hike for a set of highway and transit projects; but rather than funneling that revenue into new projects outright, Villaraigosas goal is to use the money to pay debt on a federal transportation loan. An upfront loan would allow the city to complete its projects rapidly while using the proceeds of its 30-year sales-tax hike to pay it back over time. Currently TIFIA isnt big enough to accommodate such large-scale plans, which is why Los Angeles has backed a national push to expand the program from $122 million annually to $375 million, and to raise its cap from 33 percent of project costs to 49 percent. Its an idea thats different from a grant program, says L.A. Deputy Mayor for Transportation Jaime de la Vega. Were coming to the table with money and saying we need a partnership. Its not a handout. State leaders are also backing a plan to reduce the number of federal highway programs from 55 to five, in an effort to gain greater flexibility in how the dollars are spent. That would help clear up what some people see as troublesome inconsistencies in how funds are meted out. For example, federal aid can be used for preventive

maintenance of highways, but routine maintenance is considered a state responsibility. Rhode Island Transportation Director Michael Lewis recently testified before Congress that his state has to take on debt just to get the required match to receive transportation funds, when that money could have been used to perform maintenance. Now is not the time to tie o ur hands and limit the use of transportation dollars and assets, Lewis told Congress. Other options that would grant more power to states have been gaining traction in D.C., including creating an infrastructure bank, expanding public-private partnerships and allowing tolling on interstate highways (an idea LaHood has said hes open to). However, flexibility can be a double-edged sword, cautions Leslie Wollack, program director for infrastructure and sustainability at the National League of Cities. If flexibility means a state doesnt want to spend any *of its own+ money on transportation enhancement or transit or to collaborate on whats going on at the local level, then we see that as a problem.

Federalism good
Iraqi modeling of U.S. federalism solves violence Chandrasekaran 7 Rajiv, former Baghdad bureau chief at the Washington Post, Could American-Style Federalism Stabilize Iraq?, 10/26/07 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15673575 What is it? Call it states' rights in the model of our American Founding Fathers. And proponents say it may well be the best option to keep Iraq together. Back in 2003, the American occupation administrators who set up shop in the Green Zone wanted to fashion a new nation that would have a strong central government. They thought that handing authority to local leaders would result in the breakup of Iraq. But now, four-and-a-half years later, violence has hardened ethnic and sectarian identities. Genuine nationalism hasn't emerged. That's why local sectarian militias are more powerful than the army. The militiamen are committed to fight for their religious brethren. Soldiers in Iraq's army aren't sure what they're fighting for. Proponents of states' rights say accepting the reality of Iraq's sectarian differences presents the best hope of saving Iraq. The goal, they say, isn't to chop Iraq into three separate countries. Instead, it is to provide genuine authority and resources to Iraq's provinces. Think of how the Republican Party in the United States has traditionally viewed the issue of states' rights, and apply it to Iraq. Allow each province to have its own National Guard. To spend its share of the national budget. To effectively govern itself. Certain functions, like the printing of money, would still remain in the hands of the national government. But most day-to-day responsibilities would be given to local leaders. Consider the success we've had in combating al Qaida in Anbar province. Instead of asking Iraq's ragtag army to take on the terrorists, we're working with local Sunni tribesmen. They're fighting with loyalty and dedication. That's because they're fighting for their fellow Sunni leaders, not the Shiitedominated government back in Baghdad. Sure, this strategy has no shortage of challenges. There would have to be a fair way to distribute Iraq's oil revenue, for instance. Local officials would have to learn how to run their own budgets. Iraq's constitution already enshrines federalism. But proponents say the United States needs to do more to encourage the Iraqis to embrace it. People have criticized the effort to impose American-style democracy on Iraq. But supporters of states' rights say it is one element of our democracy that we really do need to share with the Iraqis. U.S. has sway Eland 12, Ivan, senior fellow at the Independent Institute, How to Avoid a Return to Iraq, January 3, http://original.antiwar.com/eland/2012/01/02/how-to-avoid-a-return-to-iraq/ After its forces have withdrawn, why should the United States be concerned with the devolution of power in Iraq? Because if power is not decentralized, Iraq is liable to degenerate into a civil war that will make the conflict in 2006 and 2007 look mild. Sectarian violence is already increasing. And of course, the United States, which is responsible for the current mess, may be pressured by the Iraqi central government, other Iraqis, or the international community to return its forces to the internecine bloodletting to stanch the carnage. Although President Obama maintains that U.S. troops will not return to Iraq even if the civil war resumes, pledges of nonintervention have been later broken by previous presidents, especially after elections. That doesnt mean that the United States should tell the Iraqis how to organize themselves, but it could mediate any Iraqi-initiated peacefully negotiated devolution. Such mediation at least would be a constructive role for some of the 16,000 U.S. embassy personnel left in the country and might forestall future demands for a return of U.S. forces to Iraq under dire and dangerous circumstances. Federalism key to democratic political participation.

Friedman 97, Barry, Minnesota Law Review, v. 82, December 1997, p. 317+. States, and their substate local governments, are closer to the people and provide an opportunity for greater citizen involvement in the functional process of self-government. We have a system of democracy, one that welcomes and privileges the voice of the people. The founders may not have intended it, but as the system evolved, the franchise consistently was expanded. When we despair of the operations of our national government, we tend to criticize special-interest influence and bemoan the apathy and lack of participation of average citizens. Although the distinction between ordinary citizens and special interests may well be overstated, state and local government does provide many more avenues for citizen participation than does the national government. Rubin and Feeley, among others, doubt that states will serve the function of promoting democracy, but in doing so they repeat the two baseline errors discussed above. They argue that states are unnecessary to preserve democracy (just as they argue that the Guarantee Clause is unnecessary today), because democracy is so ingrained that it will not be disturbed. But states also are embedded deeply in the system we enjoy today, and it is possible that the two - states and democracy - have become ingrained together such that eliminating the autonomy of states would weaken our democracy. Indeed, intuition suggests that disenchantment with government and anemic levels of citizen participation in democracy positively correlate with nationalizing trends. Second, Rubin and Feeley argue (somewhat in tension with their first point) that local participation by definition occurs locally, not at the state level. This may or may not be the case, and likely varies from state to state. But even if so, again, under the system that we have local governments are creatures of and fostered by the state governments. Intuition suggests that more people would and could participate in smaller levels of government, and common experience seems to bear this out. Some commentators look primarily to electoral turnout and argue to the contrary, pointing out that important national elections rouse far more interest than elections for state and local offices. But a single-minded focus on voter turnout misses the point that participation can and should stretch well beyond electoral participation. The fact is that many Americans can call their state and local officials on the phone - and do - and have those phone calls returned by the actual officeholder, not a staffer tallying opinions in a polite voice. The fact is that countless citizens attend city council and state legislative sessions, watching to see some matter of interest resolved. The fact is that interest groups at the state and local level all tend to be more grass roots, less mechanized, and more responsive to the efforts of concerned individuals. There is work to be done to test these assertions, but they are easily observable in many states and communities. Moreover, state and local governments appear to serve as breeding grounds for democracy. They provide a way for many people interested in public service to step on to the ladder in a manageable way. National office has become frightfully and frighteningly expensive. <=316> n315 It does not matter how many of these officials actually make it to (or even vie to get to) the "top" of the ladder, the part of the ladder that academics [*392] seem to be watching. For democracy to function it may matter only that someone starts as a city council member and ends up in the state legislature. Numerous other citizens serve on local and state boards and commissions, school boards, or even the PTA.

Sequestration wont pass

Wont pass Timm 2/13 (Jane, staff writer for MSNBC, Sen. Coburn: Sequestration will happen)
The government may have averted sequestration in December, but it wont avoid it for long, according to Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla. Were gonna have a sequestration. were gonna have some pain because the politicians on the Hill arent going to make cogent, smart decisions about alternatives to this until they start feeling some pain, Coburn said on Wednesdays Morning Joe. Its a stupid way to govern, but thats the way were doing it right now. I think the blame lies on everyones shoulders including the presidents. Then were going to start coming around and picking and choosing whats important and eliminating whats not of great value and what we cant afford.

Wont pass both sides are blaming each other Johnson 2/13 (Eliana, writer for the National Review Online, In Sequestration Battle Democrats
Wring Hands over Cuts in Discretionary Spending, Not Defense Budget) For their part, many Republicans are beginning to acknowledge that sequestration will go into effect . Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell said yesterday that its pretty clear the across-the-board cuts will begin on March 1 and rejected out of hand the prospect of last-minute negotiations to avert them. Missouri senator Roy Blunt told Politico earlier today, I think the sequester is gonna happen. The blame game over the automatic cuts raged publicly last week, as GOP lawmakers brandishing Bob Woodwards new book launched an effort to remind the public that President Obama himself introduced the sequester into the debt-ceiling negotiations during the summer of 2011. Though Jay Carney conceded yesterday that the sequester was in fact proposed by the White House, Senate majority whip Dick Durbin has alleged that sequestration was designed as a budget threat, not as a budget strategy. Chafin is not persuaded. What we havent seen, he says, is any strategy or leadership from the White House to resolve it. Its interesting that Senator Durbin is now saying what the sequester was meant to be in a way that implies ownership over the mechanism, which is precisely what [the White House has] denied.

No impact to sequestration

At Sequester -- No Impact Defense

No impact on defense
Laura Matthews, IBT, 2/8/2013, "Sequester Defense Spending Cuts 2013: Will The US Be Less Safe After The Ax Falls On The Pentagon?," www.ibtimes.com/sequester-defense-spending-cuts-2013-will-us-be-less-safe-after-ax-falls-pentagon-1060780 But are they right? Looking at the possible cuts closely, some experts say that these politicians are overreacting, and that, in reality, they are defending the Pentagon's bureaucratic turf -- its value as measured by its annual funding -- not the country in opposing the budget cuts. The

Defense Department will have enough latitude to protect whats crucial and I dont think we will be less safe in 2013 or thereafter, said Mattea Kramer, the research director at the National Priorities Project in Northampton, Mass. For one thing, the 2011 U.S. defense budget, about $700 billion, dwarfed those of all other nations by a large amount. China, the second-biggest spender, had a defense budget of $143 billion that year, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. No other country even breaks into the triple digits of billions of dollars. For another, because the spending cuts will roll in over a decade, the average yearly cut would be about $45 billion, little more than 5 percent of Americas annual defense spending. And, according to Lawrence
J. Korb, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress in Washington and an assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration, "even

if the defense budget were reduced by the entire $1trillion, or about $100billion a year over the next decade, it would amount to a reduction of [the defense budget] of about 15percent." Which means that annual defense spending would be about equal to what it was in 2007 -- when the U.S. was involved in two active wars.

No military impact
Michael Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, 2/6/2013, "Don't Fear the Sequester," www.nationalreview.com/articles/339913/don-t-fear-sequester-michael-tanner What about defense spending? Defense basis, will

spending will indeed decline initially in real terms, but on an inflation-adjusted never fall below 2007 levels. By 2015 it will begin rising again, surpassing 2012 levels ($554 billion) by 2019 and reaching $589 billion by 2021. Overall, annual defense spending will average $540 billion over the next ten years. By comparison, the United States spent, in 2013 dollars, an average of just $435 billion per year on defense during the Cold War (19481990), when we faced a much greater conventional threat. It is also important to note that this is only base defense spending, and does not include war spending ($90 billion in 2014), which is largely exempt from the sequester.

No impact on defense
Benjamin Zycher is a senior fellow at the Pacific Research Institute, 2/8/2013, "Would the Sequester Devastate Defense?," www.nationalreview.com/corner/340126/would-sequester-devastate-defense-benjamin-zycher

A common assertion on the right is that the looming budget sequester would devastate the U.S. defense establishment. Using the defense deflator published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, and the defense baseline data
published by the Comptroller of DoD, here are the defense baseline (excluding overseas operations and various other small ancillary functions) data for fiscal years 2001-2013, in constant fiscal year 2011 dollars. This baseline assumes that sequestration occurs. A chart accompanies the figures. In a nutshell: With

the sequester, defense spending in 2013 would be about 1 percent lower, in real terms, than in fiscal year 2008. Perhaps other federal spending yields less value and so should be cut first. But the sequester is the
tool that we actually have. In a world in which approximately 1.4 million active-duty personnel are supported by upwards of 700,000 civilians,

the devastation argument is less than wholly convincing. Perhaps the sequester will misallocate cuts across DoD, but that
is a problem of the composition of the baseline budget rather than its size. Let the sequester begin.

AT Sequester -- No Impact Economy

No impact on economy spending will rise over time
Michael Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, 2/6/2013, "Don't Fear the Sequester," www.nationalreview.com/articles/339913/don-t-fear-sequester-michael-tanner

There is no doubt that the sequester is a blunt instrument. Across-the-board budget cuts preclude prioritization, cutting
the occasional worthwhile program as much as wasteful ones. It is in many ways a lazy alternative to actually doing the hard work of budgeting.

But devastating? Crippling? Hardly. Start with the fact that the sequester is a cut to federal spending only in the Washington sense of any reduction from baseline increases is a cut. In reality, even if the sequester goes through, the federal government will spend $2.14 trillion more in 2022 than it does today . The sequester would reduce the growth in domestic discretionary spending by $309 billion over ten years. But annual spending on these programs will still increase by $90 billion over that period. If we are actually spending more in 2022 on domestic programs than we are today, it is hard to see too many children starving in the street. Moreover, entitlement spending, the fastest-growing portion of the domestic budget, will hardly be touched by sequestration.
It will continue to increase at the same astronomical rate as before.

Sequester = NBD
Michael Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, 2/6/2013, "Don't Fear the Sequester," www.nationalreview.com/articles/339913/don-t-fear-sequester-michael-tanner As recently as yesterday, the president referred once again to the sequesters deep cuts, so lets be clear about just how small those cuts are in the larger scheme of federal spending.

The current baseline calls for the federal government to spend $44.8 trillion between now and 2022. The sequester would reduce this by roughly $1.16 trillion (including reduced interest payments). That amounts to less than 2.6 percent of projected spending over the next ten years. In fact, over those ten years, the national debt would still increase by $8.5 trillion, reaching $24.9 trillion in 2022. And this is all assuming that future Congresses dont undo the cuts in the out years. For 2013, the only year that we know definitely counts, the sequester would slow the growth in federal spending by just $85 billion, from an expected budget of $3.55 trillion less than a 2.4 percent reduction. When you consider that the federal government borrows $85 billion every 28 days, its hard to honestly call the sequester draconian. Defense spending would
be cut by just $42.7 billion this year, and $55 billion per year subsequently. Next years pre-sequester defense budget was projected to be $552 billion, meaning the sequester cut would amount to a 10 percent cut. (again, not including $90 billion in war funding for Afghanistan and other operations). That might be a larger cut than some might like, but we shouldnt expect al-Qaeda to wade ashore in Long Beach any time soon. Similarly, domestic

discretionary spending would be reduced by just $28.7 billion, out of a projected $587 billion. In following years, the difference from the baseline would run from as little as $32 billion to a maximum of $37 billion. Entitlement spending, meanwhile, would barely be trimmed it would be cut by just $14 billion in 2013, roughly 0.7 percent
of our projected spending this year. That rises to a $23 billion reduction in 2022, which is still trivial. In fact, after ten years of the sequester,

by 2022, federal spending will still consume 22.9 percent of GDP. Thats far higher than the postWorld War II average of 19.8 percent. In fact, government spending under President Bill Clinton was as low as 18.2 percent of GDP, and yet somehow we managed to have safe food and educated children during the Clinton administration.