Politics Core Starter Pack HSS 2017

Shell
 1NC
Tax reform will pass despite hurdles Trump PC key solves sustainable economic growth
Kudlow 5-20 [Larry Kudlow, CNBC's Senior Contributor, nationally syndicated columnist, formerly chief
economist and senior managing director of Bear Stearns & Company, University of Rochester and Princeton
University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, 5-20-2017 Don't Bet Against Tax and
Health Care Reform in 2017
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_lawrence_kudlow/don_t_
bet_against_tax_and_health_care_reform_in_2017]
If the smart money folks on Wall Street think a special counsel to oversee the Russian probes spells defeat for business tax cuts, they're
leaning well over their skis.
The Dow Jones industrial average sold off over 300 points on Wednesday, but it may have come back to its senses with a 140-point gain on Friday. And while there's
the likelihood of health care reform by the summer and tax reform by year's end (or
never 100 percent probability in forecasting political risk, it seems
early 2018) is quite high .
Paradoxically, special counsel Robert Mueller will provide cover for President Trump, as it will take him many months to
complete his investigation. The leaks are going to dry up. By law, information on the probe must be protected. So, whatever the outcome,
Trump will have months without the attack headlines in which to sell his tax-cut plan .
Meanwhile, amid all the controversies, the GOP Congress knows it could get whacked in next year's midterms if it doesn't
govern -- a big incentive .
And Trump still has the backing of his core base , which is at least 40 percent of the electorate. These disenchanted voters may not agree
with everything he says. But they still strongly believe Trump is their best chance to drain the swamp -- to overturn the Beltway elites, to
deliver border security, to improve trade deals and to cut taxes and regulations to deliver the full-fledged deeply rooted sustainable prosperity we haven't seen in
20 years.
Warts and all, Trump and his polices is still their vote. ( He needs to go out there and rally these folks .)
And all this talk of impeachment based on obstruction of justice is just Democratic political pap. George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, who
is no partisan, calls it "an awfully thin soup." Former federal prosecutor and National Review contributor Andrew McCarthy says, "the basis for claiming at
this point that President Trump obstructed justice is not there." Acting FBI director Andrew McCabe told Congress there's been no interference in the
FBI's investigations and no request for additional funding.
And if Comey did write a memo about obstruction of justice, he is legally obligated to report it to the highest levels of the Justice Department. Failure to do so could
invoke criminal charges.
Why did he wait until he was fired to have his leakers put this out?
Yet behind all this mess, House Speaker Paul Ryan keeps telling people that Congress can walk and chew gum at the same time. He's
right.
Look, the House has already passed a replacement of Obamacare. And a Senate health care working group led by top Republican leaders, including Sens. Lamar Alexander and Ted Cruz, is
making progress resolving key issues between moderates and conservatives. There's no reason why the American Health Care Act can't become law by the August recess.
And that opens the door for taxes.
House Ways and Means Committee chair Kevin Brady just began expert tax hearings. After the recess, Brady will likely
convene a markup session.
Rep. Peter Roskam, who chairs the congressional tax policy subcommittee, said last week, "I'm of the view that 2017 is the year." He thinks tax reform
is easier than replacing Obamacare .
So, following a markup, Ways and Means can report out a bill. And because prosperity is America's No. 1 issue, it will pass the floor
relatively easily . And that will put pressure on the Senate to get moving.
It's likely that a tax cut working group will again convene to hash out important details. The border-adjusted tax, or BAT, will have to go. But
the very core of the tax bill is a simple three steps: a deep corporate tax-rate cut, immediate expensing for new
equipment of all kinds and the repatriation of offshore cash. This is the tonic that will restore capital formation ,
productivity , real wages and growth .
Both Senate and House leaders have to understand how flexible reconciliation is. It can be nearly anything you want
it to be. The key player is Senate President Mike Pence, who can overrule the parliamentarian.
Congressional leaders should heed the words of Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, who has become the administration's leading spokesperson for economic growth
and lower tax rates. He told the Senate Banking Committee last week, "What I have said repeatedly is that any plan we put forward we believe should be paid for with
economic growth."
He is estimating a 3 percent growth rate by 2021. I suspect it will arrive faster. And the difference between growth of less than 2 percent from the Congressional
Budget Office and 3
percent growth is well over $3 trillion in additional revenue. It's the mother of all pay-fors.
And lowering marginal tax rates across the board, especially on large and small businesses, will foster the mother of all
prosperities -- the one for which middle-class Americans in all those red counties that voted for Trump have been yearning.
(INSERT LINK)

Weak growth causes nuclear war---turns every impact

Kemp 10 Geoffrey Kemp, Director of Regional Strategic Programs at The Nixon Center, served in the White
House under Ronald Reagan, special assistant to the president for national security affairs and senior director for
Near East and South Asian affairs on the National Security Council Staff, Former Director, Middle East Arms
Control Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2010, The East Moves West: India, China, and
Asias Growing Presence in the Middle East, p. 233-234
The second scenario, called Mayhem and Chaos, is the opposite of the first scenario; everything that can go wrong
does go wrong. The world economic situation weakens rather than strengthens, and India, China, and Japan suffer a
major reduction in their growth rates, further weakening the global economy. As a result, energy demand falls and
the price of fossil fuels plummets, leading to a financial crisis for the energy-producing states, which are forced to
cut back dramatically on expansion programs and social welfare. That in turn leads to political unrest: and nurtures
different radical groups, including, but not limited to, Islamic extremists. The internal stability of some countries is
challenged, and there are more failed states. Most serious is the collapse of the democratic government in Pakistan
and its takeover by Muslim extremists, who then take possession of a large number of nuclear weapons. The danger
of war between India and Pakistan increases significantly. Iran, always worried about an extremist Pakistan,
expands and weaponizes its nuclear program. That further enhances nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, with
Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt joining Israel and Iran as nuclear states. Under these circumstances, the potential
for nuclear terrorism increases, and the possibility of a nuclear terrorist attack in either the Western world or in the
oil-producing states may lead to a further devastating collapse of the world economic market, with a tsunami-like
impact on stability. In this scenario, major disruptions can be expected, with dire consequences for two-thirds of the
planets population.
Uniqueness
 Will Pass 2NC
Tax reform will pass GOP needs legislative action, Trump base support, House drives Senate passage,
growth is an effective pay-for Kudlow

Reconciliation is flexible allows passage

Kudlow 6-9 [Larry Kudlow, CNBC's Senior Contributor, nationally syndicated columnist, formerly chief economist
and senior managing director of Bear Stearns & Company, University of Rochester and Princeton University's
Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, 6-9-2017
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/06/09/three_easy_pieces_a_simple_get-it-done-
now_economic_plan_134150.html]
Now that former FBI Director James Comey's hearing is complete, it's time for everybody to roll up their sleeves and go back
to work on returning the country to prosperity. The most populist policy would be to restore a long-lasting deeply rooted prosperity for every
single American.
President Donald Trump cannot let a deluge of distractions disrupt his and the Republican Party's plans for meaningful health care and tax reform . The accusations of Russian collusion,
the fallout from the Comey hearing, the left-wing media's daily barrage of anti-Trump propaganda -- these are all distractions. And the administration and GOP Congress are in great jeopardy if
they get caught up in it and take their eyes of the policy ball.
They must get some degree of health care and tax reform done -- this year, and with tangible results in the next several months. If they don't get it done, they're going to get creamed in the 2018
midterms.
I see two grounds for this prediction.
First, without results on health care and taxes, Trump and the GOP will not have taken steps to palpably improve the economy in terms of growth, jobs and wages.
Second, without results on health care and taxes, Trump and the GOP will have revealed that they can't govern. They were elected to govern, and they should be able to govern. Trump ran on
growth, jobs and wages. He needs to deliver on growth, jobs and wages.
Earlier this week, economist Stephen Moore and I met with senior people in the West Wing -- senior, senior, senior people. And we presented a simple get-it-done-now economic plan. We call it
"three easy pieces" (like the old Jack Nicholson film "Five Easy Pieces"), which are the following: Lower the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 15 percent. Grant immediate expensing for
new business investment. And establish a one-time 10 percent rate for the repatriation of offshore cash.
It's a simple tonic that will restore capital formation, productivity, real wages and economic growth. And, in terms of
political expediency, it's practical. It's about getting done what you can get done.
To be sure, the business tax cut is the key piece of these three easy pieces. With a 35 percent corporate tax rate, America is uncompetitive among developed nations in this regard. But that's not
what's most important here. When business taxes are reduced, 70 percent of the benefits go to the wage-earning middle class. That's what's most important.
a business tax cut is practical. It's right-now practical. There is widespread agreement in Washington , D.C., about the need
And

legislators can legally and technically attach corporate-tax-rate reduction to the health care reform bill in reconciliation in 2017.
for a business tax cut. And

Reconciliation can be nearly anything you want it to be. This can get done .

Close to consensus, can pass without BTA

Pramuk 5-24 [Jacob Pramuk Staff Reporter at CNBC, 5-24-2017 Paul Ryan wants to put tax reform on Trump's
desk by Christmas http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/24/paul-ryan-wants-to-put-tax-reform-on-trumps-desk-by-
christmas.html]
Ryan echoed Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, who said Tuesday that "our objective" is to get tax reform "done this
year."
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell recently said he hopes to get tax reform passed in the current Congress, which may indicate that he's
not be hopeful about passage this year.
Ryan also pushed back against statements that Republicans have struggled to achieve their agenda. He said that if
Republicans slash regulations, pass a health-care overhaul and cut taxes by January, it will have been a good year.
A potential hurdle to tax reform is whether Republicans can agree on so-called border adjustment, a provision of the House GOP plan.
Ryan and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Rep. Kevin Brady of Texas have supported the plan, despite doubts in the White House
and Senate.
Ryan said Wednesday he can envision a scenario in which the House passes a tax reform plan without border
adjustment.
He reiterated that he feels Republicans agree on 80 percent of tax reform , but they need to reach a consensus on the remaining 20
percent.

Momentum for tax reform is building

Davidson 6-6 [Laura Davison is a Capitol Hill tax reporter at Bloomberg BNA 6-6-2017 History Suggests Tax
Reform Process Is Just Getting Started https://www.bna.com/history-suggests-tax-n73014451956/]
Committee Perspective
Several Republican Ways and Means members told Bloomberg BNA that they think the committee has made substantial progress since
on tax reform-related issues
unveiling the blueprint a year ago. The committee has so far held two two-day policy retreats, two hearings , and countless meetings with business
leaders and industry groups. Members aides meet with Ways and Means staff several times a week and lawmakers meet almost daily when they are in session. Members have also shared dozens
of lunches together in a Capitol meeting room.
When pushed, members also acknowledge that more details need to be hashed outbut theres dissonance among them about where those details should come from, with some pointing to the
Senate and others to the White House.
We really need the Senate to get engaged, weigh in, rather than let everyone else do it and once its done figure out what well do, said Rep. Patrick Meehan (R-Pa.), a member of the
committee. We need them up front to be part of the discussion.Meehan said while the group hasnt dug into it with the kinds of detail that would ultimately be necessary, it has been around
the edges of just about every fundamental issue.
Cooperation Needed
Building out the blueprint is tasked to a few Ways and Means staffers, namely chief tax counsel Barbara Angus. Aides to committee members have
privately expressed frustration that there isnt more information readily available. Key details on provisions with wide-ranging economic impacts such as interest deductibility and expensing
havent yet been sketched out.
The House plan proposes a radical shift that favors full expensing over interest deductibility. Senators have expressed support for a more conventional plan that would eliminate some tax breaks
in order to lower the corporate rate, but not as much as the House has proposed.
Asked if tax reform can pass this year, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) said, It could, if we can get everybody to
cooperate.
members have been talking to one another through the press, through other forms so far, said Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.). He pointed to
Ways and Means

committee hearings as a key step in giving members a chance to really dig into ideas.
Impending midterm elections have added pressure to the tax overhaul process, with many members saying it must come this year. Still, tax reform has historically had a way of starting and
stoppingit died many deaths before being passed in 1986, many say. More recently, House Republicans declared their health bill to be dead after it was pulled from the floor in late March. The
measure passed the chamber May 4.
observers have been impatient with the progress of tax reform, but I think they ought to relax a little bit, Birnbaum said. There is
I think that a lot of
no way that a politically difficult and complicated piece of legislation such as tax reform can move quickly.

Reconciliation plus budget window allows passage

Lawler 5-24 [Joseph Lawler is an economics reporter for the Washington Examiner 5-24-2017 Administration
eyes tax reform workaround: A longer budget http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/administration-eyes-tax-
reform-workaround-a-longer-budget/article/2624089]
The Trump administration says it is open to an unusually long congressional budget window as a workaround to the legislative
obstacles to tax reform.
Writing a budget longer than the standard 10 years would allow Congress to pass a revenue-losing tax reform of that length
without needing any Democratic votes , making the change close to permanent.
Two top administration officials showed interest in the idea Wednesday in separate appearances on Capitol Hill: Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Office of
Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney.
"I think that's a very good idea to consider strongly," Mnuchin said at a House Ways and Means Committee hearing.
Writing a budget that applied for a long period of time, such as 20 years, would be out of step with recent practice but allowed under law.
It is an
idea that might tempt Republicans, who are planning to use a special legislative procedure that is part of the budget process, known as
reconciliation, to pass tax legislation. Reconciliation allows bills to pass with only 51 votes in the Senate, meaning that
it could allow Republicans to pass tax reform without any support from Democrats.
Reconciliation is limited by specific rules, however. One rule relevant to tax legislation is that it cannot add to the deficit in any year beyond the
budget window or else it must expire at the end of the budget window.
That rule is the reason that the Bush tax cuts were temporary and expired after 10 years. House Republicans have said that they want tax reform to be permanent to
provide certainty to businesses and are aiming to write a tax bill that doesn't add to the deficit so that it can pass through reconciliation.
If the window were extended to 15, 20 or 30 years, however, revenue-losing tax reform could be made close to permanent.
"I think it's a more reasonable way to look at the budget window," Mulvaney said at a House Budget Committee hearing. "And I think it's important for us to look at
whatever options give us the best and most common-sense view of the economy and our proposals to change it."
The president's own budget, released this week, used the standard budget window of 10 years.
The relevant budget, however, would be the one that the Senate and House agree to, a necessary step for unlocking reconciliation.
One member of Congress, Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, has been pushing hard for Republicans to write a budget with a long window for the purpose of tax
reform.

Theres GOP consensus midterm pressure and widespread support

Mcquire 6-7 [F Mcguire, Newsmax correspondent, internally citing Kudlow CNBC's Senior Contributor, nationally
syndicated columnist, formerly chief economist and senior managing director of Bear Stearns & Company,
University of Rochester and Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs 6-
7-2017 http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/StreetTalk/Kudlow-Trump-Comey-Health/2017/06/07/id/794756/]
They got to get this done, Kudlow explained on CNBC. If they don't get this done, they're going to get creamed in the
midterms next year, on two grounds," the Newsmax Finance Insider said.
"Number one, they will not have taken steps to palpably improve the economy on wages and so forth. Number two,
they can't govern. You elected them, they should be able to govern, said Kudlow, who advised the Trump
campaign on economic issues.
Kudlow said he and fellow Newsmax Insider Stephen Moore met with senior, senior, senior people in the west wing yesterday, and they
presented a three-point plan.
And it's simple. Three pieces is all we want. Get done what you can get done, said Kudlow, the author of "JFK and the Reagan
Revolution: A Secret History of American Prosperity," written with Brian Domitrovic and published by Portfolio.
"Number one, lower the corporate tax rate 15%
"Number two, immediate expensing for new investments.
"Number three, repatriation at a small 10% one-time rate."
There is widespread agreement in Washington to get a business tax cut through, which, by the way, the 70% of the benefits go
very important, said the radio talk-show host and CNBC senior contributor.
to the wage-earning middle class. That's
 A2: Thumper General
Prefer issue specific uniqueness tax reform is still on track
Bolton 6-6 [Alex Bolton, The Hill staff writer, Trump, GOP plot path for agenda 6-6-2017
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/336664-trump-gop-plot-path-for-agenda]
Scalise disputed the narrative that Trumps agenda has hit a brick wall.
I think youre seeing some very good movement on this Republican agenda to get the economy back on track, and
what we talked about today were ways that we can continue to get a health care bill ultimately put on President Trumps desk and focus on
cutting taxes to create jobs and get the economy moving, Scalise told reporters.
Youre seeing very good progress on all of those fronts .

Thumpers dont take out the link the only thing that derail tax reform is if Trump abandons GOP
legislative priorities
Clawson 17 --- Laura, Labor editor at Daily Kos Labor, and a contributing editor at Daily Kos, DailyKOs,
http://m.dailykos.com/story/2017/2/13/1633161/-Congressional-Republicans-pretend-Trump-s-just-a-distraction-
but-he-s-owning-them
Congressional Republicans pretend Trump's just a distraction, but he's owning them Shorter congressional
Republicans: Yes, Donald Trump says irresponsible and dangerous things on a daily basis, looks eager to provoke a
constitutional crisis, is producing unprecedented levels of protest, and his team is probably leaking directly to
Russia. But thats all fine, because we expect him to give us our wish list by signing tax cuts for the rich and shredding the
safety net. Theres a widely held view among our members that, yes, hes going to say things on a daily basis that
were not going to like, said Senator John Thune of South Dakota, the third-ranking Senate Republican, but that the
broad legislative agenda and goals that we have if we can stay focused on those and try and get that stuff enacted
those would be big wins. [...] I think we can get a lot done with the people around him, Mr. McCain said,
dismissing policy pronouncements from Mr. Trump that often differ from the day before. Practically patting Mr. Trump on the head,
Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee, said, If he pays attention to people like General Kelly when hes doing a
travel restriction and if he appoints people like Neil Gorsuch when hes making appointments, hell be rewarded for that by all the
praise, and maybe hell do more of it. (Former Gen. John F. Kelly is the Homeland Security secretary.) These idiots want to treat the
president of the United States as a distraction and pretend they can control him, or at least work around him. But based
on the last three weeks, whos setting the agenda? These Republicans may eventually get the tax cuts they want, but at
what cost to them? Thats not a question about what happens when they sell their souls to Trump, as we are not talking about people who have
souls to sell to begin with. Its a practical question about all of the stuff theyre trying to wave off as irrelevant to the
larger agenda. Its a question about the fact that they keep talking about the people around him like Mattis and Kelly, when its clear hes
listening to Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller and Mike Flynn. Those of us who always thought Republicans cared more about
tax cuts for the rich and punishing poor people than about the Constitution or any possible concept of American values are
turning out to be much more right than we even thought.

Their thumpers are overblown media reporting tax reform can stay on track
Rogers 17 --- Ed, Ed Rogers is a contributor to the PostPartisan blog, a political consultant and a veteran of the
Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush White Houses and several national campaigns. He is the chairman of the
lobbying and communications firm BGR Group, which he founded with former Mississippi governor Haley Barbour
in 1991, Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2017/02/15/the-trump-
presidency-is-not-crippled/?utm_term=.954c119c8b6b
The Trump presidency is not crippled It seems I struck a nerve by calling the Democrats out for their phony grandstanding and for being the
original purveyors of fake news and alternative facts, so while were at it, lets talk about the overblown reporting on how the
Trump administration is already crippled. In todays Post, Canadian political commentator J.J. McCullough offered some perspective
on Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeaus meeting with President Trump on Monday. McCulloughs piece, U.S. media saw the Trump-
Trudeau summit as a bust. The Canadian press loved it, perfectly illustrates
the consequences of the media frenzy taking place
right now in Washington. Leave it to a Canadian to be the adult in the room. McCullough writes that the American media deemed the news
conference a disaster because it was so calm and on-topic. Big-shot Washington journalists wanted to get their president to talk
about [Michael] Flynn. And, as he points out, the journalists who asked questions about Canada at that news conference were condemned
for wasting everyones time. The media only wants to generate bombastic, histrionic stories about the demise of the
Trump administration and the general destruction of the United States. The media is getting a little ahead of itself.
These stories are a tad early. For instance, no less than Thomas Friedman from the New York Times wrote, We were attacked on Dec. 7,
1941, we were attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, and we were attacked on Nov. 8, 2016. Really?? Friedman thinks Trumps election as president is a
situation tantamount to Pearl Harbor and 9/11? Talk about not giving the man a chance. Friedman doesnt even say the Trump presidency as it
unfolds over the next four to eight years could be akin to an attack on the United States; he thinks the sheer fact that Trump won the election is,
essentially, an act of war. Even The Post has fed into the narrative that the Trump administration is off the rails, from
headlines including Flynn departure erupts into a full-blown crisis for the Trump White House and Flynn episode
darkens the cloud of Russia that hangs over the Trump administration to The president lays the groundwork for a
nationwide voter intimidation program and Donald Trump is suddenly looking like a very weak autocrat. Can we pause for a
moment? Trump has been president for less than a month, and Democrats and their allies in the media are already
howling that he is an abject failure. Im no Trump toady, but so far, Trump has had one poorly drafted executive
order and one or two personnel misfires and has fed the flames with some clumsy media performances, but this isnt
that unusual . Does anybody remember Zoe Baird? And lets not get too spun up about the allegations that Republicans in
Congress are already throwing in the towel on everything from tax reform to repealing and replacing Obamacare. Again, this is
just the start. Obamacare wasnt signed into law until more than a year after President Obama took office. Not having repealed Obamacare yet
does not constitute a failure. Trump also just held a news conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It was civil and serious,
made some news and even had a measure of graciousness about it when Trump introduced Netanyahus wife, Sara, and Netanyahu referenced his
long-standing relationship with Jared Kushner. There were no eruptions, nobody got hurt and everything seemed downright presidential. Of
course, that means members of the media are already throwing a fit about the fact that the news conference mostly stuck
to the topics at hand, and they didnt have an opportunity to harp at Trump about what they want to talk about
namely Russia, Flynn, etc. So Trump didnt take endless questions about the Flynn resignation. Well, maybe thats because hes not ready,
because he knows its going to be unflattering and at this point would only inflame the story, and so he wants to talk about that issue at a
time and place of his choosing. Maybe a little media strategy is beginning to emerge from the Trump White House.
Maybe thats another reason for the media to panic. Anyway, all that being said, I do wish Trump and his team would learn from
touching the hot stove. Pain is a helpful mechanism, in that it lets you know you are engaged in behavior thats harmful to
you. They shouldnt let things like Saturday Night Live hurt their feelings, and they shouldnt completely ignore the media. They should take
some criticism to heart. But I do know a lot of good people going into this administration, and I have a lot of faith that they are self-aware
and will, in fact, make some obviously needed adjustments going forward . When you look at the blaring headlines Ive already
mentioned and then add in the protests, the Meryl Streep speeches, the SNL skits and all the other exclamation marks from liberals, its easy
to get the sense that things are going off the rails. But if you take a minute to think about how long the president has been in office,
the fact that Trump and his team have had to deal with some obstacles is not necessarily a bad thing. Its better that they
deal with problems now rather than later. Everybody should take the long weekend, breathe into a brown paper bag and
regain some perspective on where we are under President Trump.

Thumpers dont take out the disad but additional new controversies trigger link and drain necessary PC
Baker 8 (Peter, White House Correspondent for over 20 years, columnist @ NYT, author of the New York Times bestselling
book, The Breach: Inside the Impeachment and Trial of William Jefferson Clinton (Scribner, co-author, of Kremlin Rising:
Vladimir Putins Russia and the End of Revolution, named one of the Best Books of 2005 by The Washington Post Book World,
written another book on the presidency to be published in October 2013 by Doubleday titled Days of Fire: Bush and Cheney in
the White House, won the Gerald R. Ford Prize for Distinguished Coverage of the Presidency for his reporting on Bush and the
Aldo Beckman Memorial Award for his coverage of Obama., Steve, American political writer and blogger, an MSNBC
contributor, and a producer for The Rachel Maddow Show.. From August 2008 to January 2012, Benen was the lead blogger for
the Washington Monthly's "Political Animal" blog.[1] He was the publisher of the political blog The Carpetbagger Report for
five years[2] and was the lead editor of Salon.com's Blog Report. Benen's articles and op-eds have appeared in a variety of
publications, including the Washington Monthly, The American Prospect, The Huffington Post, and the New York Daily News.
He has been a contributor to Talking Points Memo, Crooks and Liars, The Guardian, AlterNet, Political Wire, and Seven Days.
He has been a guest on several radio and television programs, including NPRs Talk of the Nation,[3] MSNBCs The Rachel
Maddow Show, MSNBCs The Ed Show, Current TV's Countdown with Keith Olbermann, Air America Radios The Sam Seder
Show, and XM Radios POTUS 08.
In July 2009, The Atlantic named Benen one of the top 50 most influential political commentators in the United States.[4]11/9,
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_11/015594.php)

During the campaign, Mr. Obama identified many other priorities, like withdrawing from Iraq; talking with Iran; tackling immigration;
closing the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; and renegotiating trade rules with the country's neighbors. Mr. Obama's transition
advisers studied how past presidents used their first months and concluded that even if various agencies moved forward in
many directions, a new chief executive must husband his time, energy and political capital for three dominant
priorities at most. Several Obama advisers cited Reagan, who concentrated his early efforts on tax cuts and military
spending. But advisers also worry that putting off sweeping initiatives makes them harder to pass later, when a president's
mandate and momentum have faded. They pointed to Mr. Clinton, who delayed his ultimately doomed health care plan while he
passed a deficit reduction package and the North American Free Trade Agreement. And the pent-up demand from Democrats who
waited out the Bush administration will be enormous.... Mr. Obama recognizes that. In an interview on CNN days before the election, he
explicitly ranked his priorities, starting with an economic recovery package that would include middle-class tax relief. His second priority, he
said, would be energy; third, health care; fourth, tax restructuring; and fifth, education. Using history as a guide, Obama's team concluded
new presidents can invest energy in, at most, "three dominant priorities." That sounds about right to me, as do Obama's
list of priorities. Trying to do all at once makes it that much more likely that divided attention will produce
disappointing results . Part of the challenge, though, is how and whether the Democratic Congress will follow Obama's lead. As Kevin
noted, Dems have hopefully "learned their lesson from 1993 and can put their egos in check enough to actually take some guidance from the guy
in the White House." There's no practical difference between Obama's vision and that of congressional leaders. The trick of it is allowing
the president to take the lead in setting the agenda . My sense is Pelosi and Reid will be anxious and cooperate partners. We'll see
soon enough.
 A2: Thumper Budget

Budget doesnt thump - Trump can do both

Silvia, 17 --- John, Chief Economist @ Wells Fargo Securities, 1/3,
http://image.mail1.wf.com/lib/fe8d13727664027a7c/m/1/115th-Congress-
20160103.pdf?utm_source=SFMC&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=&utm_content=&utm_term=7230679&si
d=44116
This week marks the beginning of the 115th Congress which, according to President-elect Donald Trump and senior Congressional leaders, is set to be an extremely busy two years. The list of
policy proposals from the new administration includes a repeal of the Affordable Care Act, corporate and individual tax reform/cuts, additional infrastructure spending, immigration reform, trade
policy reconfiguration and regulatory changes.This laundry list of potential policy changes raises two overarching questions: how
politically feasible are each of these ideas, and what potential impacts could they have on different sectors of the economy? In this report, we will explore each of
these key issues and provide a general overview of what we think is most likely to become law over the next couple of years. In general, our

view is that there is a path by which Congress can quickly enact some of these policies, while others will take time to work

through budgetary and procedural processes. The most likely policy changes to occur relatively quickly are a federal budget for the rest of

federal fiscal year 2017 and the upcoming 2018 fiscal year, a repeal of the Affordable Care Act, some form of corporate and individual tax reform and
changes to trade policy. Other policy areas, such as infrastructure spending, immigration reform and regulatory changes, are likely to play out over time and
may take longer than markets and some commentators currently anticipate. Our baseline economic forecast includes a slight boost to defense spending for fiscal years 2017 and 2018
but does not include any other policy changes at this time. It is clear that there are a wide range of possible fiscal policy outcomes, which has made forecasting such economic outcomes
challenging. We will make changes to our baseline forecast when the policy debates unfold to a point where we can evaluate the aggregate economic impact of specific, concrete pieces of
legislation.
 A2: Thumper Health Care
No health care thumper theyll do tax reform first and it will pass
Manchester 6-4 [Julia Manchester reporter at The Hill, 6-4-2017 GOP senator: Tax reform more likely to come
before ObamaCare repeal http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/336237-johnson-tax-cut-bill-more-
likely-to-come-before-healthcare-in]
Republican Sen. Ron Johnson (Wis.) is predicting that a tax-cut bill is more likely to come before legislation to repeal and
replace ObamaCare this year.
"The tax reform is an easier lift, Johnson told radio host John Catsimatidis in an interview that aired Sunday on AM 970 in New York.
Healthcare is a problem because ObamaCare is such a mess. I mean, it is collapsing insurance markets, the Wisconsin senator added.
We may have to break this into two pieces. Do kind of a real triage, a short-term measure to stabilize the markets, then take our time and
actually have a healthcare bill that will restrain the cost in healthcare."
Several GOP senators have voiced skepticism about plans to repeal and replace ObamaCare after House Republicans passed a
bill early last month.
Deep divisions exist among senators over different aspects of the Affordable Care Act, including its Medicaid expansion.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said recently that he wasn't sure how Republicans could get enough support to pass
a healthcare bill, suggesting that passing major tax legislation would be easier .

Issue specific uniqueness calibrated to assume ACA trump can do both

Silvia, 17 --- John, Chief Economist @ Wells Fargo Securities, 1/3,
http://image.mail1.wf.com/lib/fe8d13727664027a7c/m/1/115th-Congress-
20160103.pdf?utm_source=SFMC&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=&utm_content=&utm_term=7230679&si
d=44116
This week marks the beginning of the 115th Congress which, according to President-elect Donald Trump and senior Congressional leaders, is set to be an extremely busy two years. The list of
policy proposals from the new administration includes a repeal of the Affordable Care Act, corporate and individual tax reform/cuts, additional infrastructure spending, immigration reform, trade
policy reconfiguration and regulatory changes.This laundry list of potential policy changes raises two overarching questions: how
politically feasible are each of these ideas, and what potential impacts could they have on different sectors of the economy? In this report, we will explore each of
these key issues and provide a general overview of what we think is most likely to become law over the next couple of years. In general, our

view is that there is a path by which Congress can quickly enact some of these policies, while others will take time to work

through budgetary and procedural processes. The most likely policy changes to occur relatively quickly are a federal budget for the rest of

federal fiscal year 2017 and the upcoming 2018 fiscal year, a repeal of the Affordable Care Act, some form of corporate and individual tax reform and
changes to trade policy. Other policy areas, such as infrastructure spending, immigration reform and regulatory changes, are likely to play out over time and
may take longer than markets and some commentators currently anticipate. Our baseline economic forecast includes a slight boost to defense spending for fiscal years 2017 and 2018
but does not include any other policy changes at this time. It is clear that there are a wide range of possible fiscal policy outcomes, which has made forecasting such economic outcomes
challenging. We will make changes to our baseline forecast when the policy debates unfold to a point where we can evaluate the aggregate economic impact of specific, concrete pieces of
legislation.
 A2: Thumper Russia
Russia doesnt thump investigation takes long enough to sell before results, didnt obstruct justice, House
repeal and replace proves its not stopping legislation Kudlow

Committee provides cover, still has GOP support for tax reform
Bennett 6-12 [John T. Bennett White House Correspondent for CQ Roll 6-12-2017 Legislative Agenda Gets
Tougher for Trump http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/comey-speaks-domestic-agenda-gets-tougher-trump]
Comey did not land a knockout blow on the president during hours of dramatic testimony Thursday. But some experts say he presented
a strong case that the president obstructed justice when Trump leaned on him to drop a probe of his first national security adviser, Michael Flynn,
and then allegedly fired Comey for refusing to do so.
Senate Intelligence Committee Republicans largely provided the president cover during the widely watched hearing, and
Republican members are continuing work on the health care and tax overhaul package s Trump wants to sign into law as soon
as possible.
GOP leaders such as Speaker Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin are defending Trump s actions as the behavior of a political
neophyte who was simply unaware of the protocol for a chief executive when dealing with a FBI director.

Trump has a strategy to avoid Russia fallout

Westwood 6-10 [Sarah Westwood is a White House reporter for the Washington Examiner 6-10-2017
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/james-comey-cloud-hindering-trumps-agenda/article/2625553]
In the nearly five weeks since Trump removed his FBI director, the Russian election-meddling probe that was once under Comey's purview has
threatened to overtake the White House and grind its agenda to a standstill. West Wing aides faced a daily barrage of questions
about the investigation and Comey's involvement with it until, in late May, they began referring all Russia-related inquiries to
Trump's outside counsel.
Mark Serrano, a Republican strategist, said the move to direct those questions toward Marc Kasowitz, Trump's attorney, could help
the administration tremendously in its efforts to advance beyond the controversies.
"That was a very necessary and prudent measure for the sake of the country, for the sake of the operations for the White House," Serrano said.
After a week of hearings and revelations that saw multiple current and former administration officials deny encountering interference in the
Russia probe, the White House should take advantage of the momentum it now has, Serrano argued.

Investigation wont release outcome for a long time

Bennett 6-12 [John T. Bennett White House Correspondent for CQ Roll 6-12-2017 Legislative Agenda Gets
Tougher for Trump http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/comey-speaks-domestic-agenda-gets-tougher-trump]
But senior Republican and Democratic leaders appear in lockstep on one thing: Nothing will happen until Mueller
completes his work.
Legal sources say the career lawmans investigation will last months likely well into next spring or summer as he
methodically conducts interviews, analyzes reams of documents, emails, phone and travel records, and text messages. That means
Mueller could wrap up his probe and go public with his findings just as the 2018 midterm races are heating up.

Russia doesnt thump UNLESS trump picks fight with GOP on external policy issues - our link is
categorically different
Yglesias, 17 --- Mathew, Columnist @ VOX, 1/11, http://www.vox.com/policy-and-
politics/2017/1/11/14240262/trump-i-won
But what comes next, in ways Trump may not realize, is different. Lots of presidents have won elections. What theyve generally found is that the
United States is not a plebiscitary dictatorship. The presidency is a powerful office, but its powers are shared with Congress,
and to a considerable extent, you can only do what Congress lets you get away with. The GOP is giving Trump a pass
on conflicts of interest The reason Trump doesnt need to release his tax returns, or resolve the financial conflicts of
interest inherent in his ownership of the Trump Organization, or explain his thinking about Russia clearly is that
Republicans havent made him. Congressional Republicans know how to play hardball if they want to. It would have
been trivially easy for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to refuse to schedule confirmation hearings with Rex Tillerson until its members
got to have a chat with the president-elect about Russia. House Government Affairs Committee Chair Jason Chaffetz has been
not to hold hearings on Trumps conflicts of interest .
fanatical about Hillary Clinton email investigations but simply chooses
Congress could amend the statute governing executive branch conflicts of interest to extend coverage to the
president. Nothing along these lines has happened for two reasons. First, congressional Republicans seem to have uniformly
reached the conclusion that the political costs of fighting with Trump exceed the political risk that they will end up being
dragged down by his corruption when scandal erupts. Second, congressional Republicans seem to have universally reached the moral judgment
that preventing the wholesale corruption of the federal government isnt particularly important in the grand scheme of things. Winning is
easy; governing is harder Whats less clear is whats going to happen when Trump finds himself getting into
territory that congressional Republicans do care about . At another point during the press conference, Trump said the federal
government should use its purchasing power to negotiate lower prescription drug prices. He said this as if he were the first person in history to
think of it, but there is in fact a controversy over this thats been running in Washington for decades. It reached a head back in 2003, when
George W. Bush and congressional Republicans rather controversially stole a Democratic proposal to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare
but then included a legal bar on bulk price negotiations. The resulting legislation passed over Democratic objections, and liberal Democrats have
been promising for years to overturn it. Barack Obama campaigned on this idea in 2008, only to abandon it as part of a bargain to get the
pharmaceutical industry to support the Affordable Care Act, only to reembrace it in his second term (and then seem to back away from it in a
lame-duck Vox interview, but thats another story). All of which is to say that if Trump is serious about doing this, he will probably find plenty of
Democratic votes for it. But this is a popular idea that Republicans have been blocking for years. They are blocking it because they think it would
be a bad idea (reduced incentives for pharmaceutical research), and they are blocking it because the pharmaceutical industry has a lot of money
and clout. If Trump is satisfied by just musing aloud about this while not actually changing anything, Paul Ryan will be happy to ignore him. But
if he actually wants to do it, hes going to have a big fight on his hands. And while to an extent his favored tactic of roasting
congressional Republicans with his tweets could work as pushback, they have some powerful weapons in their hands. After all,
the choice to turn a blind eye to Trumps ethical lapses is a choice that, in practice, the GOP has to reaffirm anew
every single week. If Trump asks for things Republicans dont want to do, they wont happen. If Trump punches
his party hard to try to make them do those things, they can punch back. Governing is hard. For now, though,
congressional Republicans seem convinced that Trump will stick to tax cuts and deregulation as the core of his
agenda with protectionist tweets serving more as a theatrical sideshow than as the dawn of a new heterodox approach to policymaking . As
long as thats the case, theyre willing to hold up their end of the bargain. But thats the real reason Trump doesnt need to
disclose anything its not that he won; its that his allies in Congress think letting him get away with it is the best way for
them to get their way on policy.
Links
Links---Education Policy
 Education---1NC

education policies Drain PC - Dems backlash because its trump and conservatives backlash because its
federal outweighs support for policy specifics
Camera, 17 --- Lauren Camera is an education reporter at U.S. News & World Report. Shes covered education
policy and politics for nearly a decade and has written for Education Week, The Hechinger Report, Congressional
Quarterly, Roll Call, and the Chronicle of Higher Education. She was a 2013 Spencer Education Fellow at Columbia
Universitys School of Journalism, where she conducted a reporting project about the impact of the Obama
administrations competitive education grant, Race to the Top, US News and World Report, 3/13,
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2017-03-23/trump-school-choice-proposals-drive-wedge-
between-charter-school-advocates

I think theTrump presidency is going to be a challenging time for education reform, Petrilli, says. Just as weve seen a
growing polarization in politics, we see a growing polarization in the education reform community. Most education
reformers who would identify as liberal Democrats are aghast at Donald Trump even if he supports some of the
school reform agenda . He continued: I think for groups like Democrats for Education Reform, you tend to see them putting
the Democrat before the education reform. They really seem to feel like because of the threats to the budget, but also
because of the threats around immigration and treatment of Muslims and everything else that this is a time when
they have to focus on their solidarity with other groups on the left rather than focus on maybe some benefits for school
choice or school reform. Not to be overlooked, Petrilli noted, are the handful of conservative and libertarian policy
organizations, like the Heritage Foundation and CATO, that have long supported voucher programs but dont want the
federal government to be the lever for pushing them. The White House has yet to unveil any details of its $250 million private
school choice proposal, or how the proposed $1 billion in increase Title I funding would be doled out to states willing to expand their school
choice offerings. DeVos said Monday that those details are still being debated. When those policies
are solidified, the battle lines
between the school choice organizations will likely become even more obvious. The question will be: Where is the division
between public and private here? says Robin Lake, the director of the Center on Reinventing Public Education. A lot of charters serve kids who
are immigrants or who live in inner cities and the politics of this are going to get interesting for sure. When push comes to shove
I think charters will always side with the public school community, she says. They are public schools.
 Education---General

Federal education policy polarized any reforms cause poisonous congressional fighting no turns reforms
perceived as inherently ineffective
Lamiell, 12 --- Patricia, Director Media Relations @ Teachers College, University Columbia, 2/10,
http://www.tc.columbia.edu/articles/2012/february/how-should-politics-influence-
education-policy/
How Should Politics Influence Education Policy? How much does national education policy make a difference in classrooms, and how much
do national politics drive education policy in America, where schools, curricula and teaching have been controlled at
the local and state levels since the dawn of public schools? A lot, according to three distinguished education policy
analysts who took part in a panel discussion on February 8 to inaugurate the Colleges new Education Policy and Social analysis (EPSA)
Department and potentially never more so than now, as Congress weighs reauthorization of the federal No Child
Left Behind law against the backdrop of a highly polarized presidential campaign. The panel discussion, held in TCs Cowin
Conference Center, was moderated by Jeffrey Henig, Professor of Political Science and Education and EPSA department chair. It featured
Christopher T. Cross, a former U.S. Under Secretary of Education and current Chairman of Cross & Joftus, an education-policy consulting firm;
Jack Jennings, founder and recently retired Director of the Center on Education Policy, an education research firm; and Wendy D. Puriefoy,
President of the Public Education Network (PEN), the nations largest network of community-based school reform organizations. Prompted by
Henig, thepanelistswho were welcomed by TC President Susan Fuhrmandiscussed the often bitter and sometimes even
violent disagreements on federal versus local control of education policy that have erupted since the school
desegregation battles of the 1960s. Puriefoy told how, as a young woman, she monitored court-ordered desegregation in Boston, visiting
schools and reporting back to a federal judge whose appointment owed to the victory of Lyndon Johnson, a passionate advocate of school
desegregation, in the 1964 presidential election. Reaching much further back, Puriefoy argued that desegregation surely would never have
occurred had not Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves. Federal politics and education policy are inextricably linked , she said. The
bottom line for all three panelists: Most major changes to American schools have resulted from federal law, jurisprudence or
policy. Cross noted that Title I funding, enacted in 1965, provided extra funding for schools with economically disadvantaged children.
Congress passed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (later the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA) in 1975, when
the notion that children with disabilities should be educatedlet alone integrated into classrooms with non-disabled children, as is happening
nowwas a revolutionary idea. NCLB, enacted in 2002, has had an enormous effect on how and what gets taught, in Crosss view, forcing
teachers to focus on testing at the expense of deep learning. And the Race to the Top program of the Obama administration has significantly
affected spending priorities, teaching and learning in public schools. The question of whether national policy has influenced education
unquestionably has to be answered yes, Cross said. The reality is that almost everything that goes on is, in fact, guided by
what happened in federal policy at some point, even though people in the classroom may not recognize it. The idea that education
policy is or somehow should be apolitical simply is not borne out by history or current facts , Jennings said. A recent case
in point: If John McCain had been elected president in 2008, he, unlike President Obama, would very likely have allowed thousands of teachers
jobs to be eliminated by drastic budget cuts made necessary by the recession. And should Obama fail to win reelection this coming fall, a
Republican president may well seek to do away with the U.S. Department of Education. Policy should really be
integrated into politics, Jennings said. If people of good will dont deal with policy, he said, decisions will be left to those who are not
equipped to make themor worse, who are simply uninterested in fairness and equity in education. The panelists were unanimous in their
criticism of NCLB, which Puriefoy said has gone horribly awry, but they differed on what to do about it. The law has not been amended since
its bipartisan passage in early 2002, and while both Democrats and Republicans now agree it should be changed, Republicans dont want to give
environment in Congress has become much
credit to Obama for amending it, Jennings said. Puriefoy concurred, adding that the
more poisonous, and it has become more difficult to create the environment we need in order to transform
education. And while education has always been a polarizing issue , and minorities have always had to fight for access to good
education, for the first time in the countrys history, people dont believe their childrens lives will be better than theirs, Puriefoy
said. They dont believe in the ability of institutions to bring about change . So can anything be doneand is this years
presidential election an opportunity to put national education issues before voters in a way they will notice? Cross was skeptical, but said he
would like both parties to discuss education issues after the election to find common ground. Jennings suggested creating federal-state
partnerships modeled on those in Germany, but Puriefoy noted that Germany also supports children and families with programs other than
education. Schools cant be responsible on their own, she said. They need help. To Henigs final questionWhat would you like to see in
the next administration?Cross replied that the U.S. Department of Education should get rid of the silosEnglish Language Learners, Special
Education and others, which are too large, bureaucratic and costly. Jennings warned that the incoming president should not listen to
the radical right, but instead totally rethink school financing, which is currently based on property taxes, and fight the
long tradition of anti-intellectualism in this country by pursuing a new agenda that focuses on quality curriculum and
teaching. Puriefoy called for a rededication to educating all sectors of children, strong federal standards, and getting rid of states rights. This
fragmentation in education is just unacceptable. We need a new intellectual contract in this country, she said. Good policy follows good
intention. If we resolve to educate every child in this country, regardless of ZIP code, were going to have to dismantle what were
doing. Were not going to get there without significant disruption.

The plan is political poison that obliterates negotiating credibility with every relevant group
Jennings, 15 Jack Jennings, former president and CEO of the Center on Education Policy and general counsel for
the House Committee on Education and Labor, Presidents, Congress, and the Public Schools: The Politics of
Education Reform, p. 219-220

Conclusion
FROM THE HAPPY DAYS OF 1965, when ESEA held the promise of greatly improving American education, to
the present contentious times, when both the political right and left are challenging the Common Core State
Standards, this book has taken us on a long journey. At times, the reader must have felt that because of all the
fighting and controversy we would never arrive at the destination of knowing how the federal government can
work to produce better schools.
We have now reached the point where we can recommend some ways to accomplish that goal, although I am fully
aware that these ideas will not be accepted by all. In fact, these recommendations for a different and broadened
federal role in education go against the political temper of the times. Because of attacks from the Tea Party,
Republican state governors are running away from the national academic standards that they helped write. Liberals
are attacking the federal government's emphasis on tests and raising doubts about the left's traditional support for
federal aid to education.
Despite the political tenor of the times, one must state the truth as one sees it. Fifty years of federal involvement in
education demonstrate, to my mind, that a strong federal role is essential to attaining the best schools for most
students. There will be missteps, such as there were with NCLB, and there may be overregulation as in the late
1970s. But overall, only the federal government can bring the national spotlight, the financial resources, and the
leadership needed to help states and local districts to improve public schools.
The United States has a strong tradition of local control and state authority over the public schools. History has
shown, however, that 14,000 school districts on their own cannot raise the quality of all schools because they vary in
much in fiscal capacity and focus so intently on the daily operations of the schools. The states have potential to play
a big role, but governors and legislatures weaken state governments through keeping wages for employees
unappealing and setting strict limits on the number of state jobs.
The federal government must be involved. A revised federal role should have two aspects: a constitutional or legal
right to a good education, and a state-federal program to improve classroom teaching and learning. Both are needed
to move the nation.
Many might say that these ideas are too idealistic, that the plan I have outlined cannot be carried out. That could be
true todaybut not necessarily tomorrow.
My purpose has been to propose a fresh start in thinking about the federal government's role in education. First,
though, it was necessary to trace the origins and evolution of the federal role in education. Then, it was important to
document the results of federal programs. The next stage was to put aside for a moment issues about the current
federal role and understand the major problems in American education. Once those problems were identified,
thought could finally be given to how the federal role should be revised to deal directly with them.
It has been a long journey, but I hope that an understanding now exists that real change should occur in the federal
role in education. What I hope does not happen is that Congress makes a few minor changes in the current federal
laws and thinks that it has done its job. That won't do.
If this book has identified the right issues for a common federal-state campaign of school improvement, then
organizations and groups should push to implement these solutions. It may take several years or longer. Remember
Senator Taft was involved in debating federal aid to education in the mid-1940s, and it did not come about until the
mid-1960s.

Education reform forces huge political tradeoffs and detonates political capital, even if its popular
Williams, 17 Dr. Conor Williams, Ph.D. in government from Georgetown, senior researcher in New Americas
Education Policy Program, 1-18-2017, The Temptation to Compromise with Trump on Schools and Why It
Might Kill Education Reform, https://www.the74million.org/article/williams-the-temptation-to-compromise-with-
trump-on-schools-and-why-it-might-kill-education-reform

As the prospect of unified GOP control of the federal government roars into view, some of those Republicans are
discovering that, hey, the orange guy might just have the juice they need to push through a reform priority or two.
As my New America colleague Kevin Carey has put it,
conservatives and Republicans in Washington, D.C., who, after eight years out of power and for reasons
that range from wishful thinking to much worse, are busily convincing themselves that Donald Trump is
redeemable. He is not. His bigotry is bone-deep.
Indeed, aprs le deluge de Trump, some conservative education reformers have started feeling out the center and left
of what remains of the education reform movement to ask us to swallow our concerns and work with the incoming
administration for the kids.
I asked Shavar Jeffries, president of the Democrats for Education Reform (a key progressive reform organization)
about the dynamics of this situation. He explained them this way: We think that just because we strongly disagree
with the president-elect on a variety of different policies and the rhetoric undergirding those policies, that doesnt
mean that there arent a number of policies that we agree with and would benefit the families that we advocate
for...even if its one issue, even if its one out of a hundred, were gonna work to ensure that its positive going
forward.
Other progressive reformers agree. Ned Stanley, deputy director of the New York Campaign for Achievement Now,
emailed me, For the reformers I know, their focus in education has little to do with conservatism or progressivism
and the policies they advocate for cant be cleanly placed into Democratic or Republican thought silos ... Which is to
say, the question were asking is how a dramatically larger number of students can have access to significantly
greater options and opportunity in their lives. Thats a moral question, but not necessarily a political one.
And the political question behind that moral one is relatively manageable: Why shouldnt progressives who believe
in school choice sign up to back a hypothetical Trump administration proposal to dramatically expand it?
Well, do it for the kids is a much more complicated ask than it seems. First of all, most of the old education
reform priorities that commanded bipartisan support are big, hairy ideas that spark disagreements in the details. For
instance, school choice is not a panacea. Well-crafted choice programs can open doors of opportunity for
underserved children. But these are hardly inevitable. Badly designed choice programs with limited oversight
generally do nothing for the students they serve. Though its a fools errand to predict Trumps plans, its fair to say
that his team has given no signals that its interested in building oversight and accountability into its school choice
proposals.
Sure, thats a garden-variety challenge of working across party lines. In Washington, policy wins come at the price
of ideological priorities. For instance, in order to secure conservative support for Obamas signature health care
reform law, progressives needed to adopt long-standing conservative policy ideas like the individual mandate.
OK, bad example.
But you get the drift even if the Trump administrations approach to school choice (or school accountability, or
teacher evaluations, or etc.) isnt ideal, progressive reformers will have to weigh any possible benefits against those
costs. At present, theres little evidence to suggest that Trump-branded reform proposals will be even vaguely
tempting to progressive reformers animated by equity and accountability.
Of course, standard-issue bipartisan trade-offs arent the only challenge. Trump poses a second challenge for
progressive reformers who believe in the promise of charter schools but also work on issues proximate to
immigration or civil rights. Consider this relatively likely scenario: the Trump administration moves forward with its
regularly reiterated plans to deport millions of undocumented immigrants and begins proceedings to close the border
to Muslims. Meanwhile, his Department of Education announces plans to establish a large federal grants
competition with billions of dollars available to states who expand their charter school sectors. For the purposes of
argument, however unlikely it might be, lets assume that the grants competition includes significant accountability
measures that would increase the chance that the program helps underserved children.
Progressive education reformers eager to have more high-quality school options available for these kids would
clearly be tempted to support such a proposal. And yet, any engagement on this would also be a tacit normalization
of the extraordinary damage that Trumps immigration proposals are likely to do to U.S. politics, governance and
civil society. Civil rights organizations sympathetic to education reform would be understandably confused to find
progressive allies denouncing Trumps radical immigration policies while assisting his administrations work on
education. Is it worth it to move a few education reform priorities if those efforts permanently cost progressive
reformers their existing networks of allies and supporters? Are short-term reform goals worth that sort of long-term
detonation of political capital ?
 Education---Post Election

Election was a game changer any federal education proposal drains PC

Education Week, 17 --- 5/17, lexis
How Trump's Altered the Landscape for Education Advocates Education advocates in Washington might not always
be on the same page when it comes to policy, but there's at least one thing the vast majority agree on: The Trump
administration- buttressed by a Republican Congress-is unlike anything they've ever had to contend with before . In
particular, groups that lobby Congress and the U.S. Department of Education on behalf of public school educators, as well
as those representing civil rights issues and advocating for education funding, say that they are fighting what feels like a
multifront war against vouchers, dramatic budget cuts, and what some describe as a general antipathy toward public
schools and disadvantaged children. "Being an advocate for public education gives me job security," joked Noelle Ellerson Ng, the
associate executive director of AASA, the School Superintendents Association. "There's plenty to engage on." Another was more blunt: " It
really sucks, " the advocate said. To be sure, the situation is different-even reversed-for groups that champion school choice and other policy
approaches favored by the Trump administration and Republicans on Capitol Hill. Such groups often found themselves sidelined during President
Barack Obama's tenure. But there's a long list of issues that keep teachers' unions, civil rights organizations, and similar
advocates up at night. On the fiscal front, there's the Trump administration's pitch to cut $9 billion, or 13 percent, from the
Education Department's roughly $70 billion budget, including slashing key programs that help pay for teacher-quality initiatives
and after-school programs. The health-care bill could squeeze up to $4 billion in funding that schools use to cover special education services. And
there are concerns that the Trump administration won't continue to invest in rural broadband, which many educators worry could slow the
progress the Obama administration made in boosting connectivity in remote rural districts. Then there's the administration's big school choice
push, about which there are few hard-and-fast details. The Trump administration has asked for $1 billion in new Title I funding to be directed to
school choice in its budget request. And the spending plan also seeks increased funding for charter schools and resources for a private school
initiative. But the specifics of those programs remain cloudy, frustrating advocates on both sides of this contentious issue. Some organizations
say they are struggling to preserve what they see as victories from the Obama years, including a larger role for the department
in looking out for children's civil rights and a focus on resource equity. "The idea that we might be going backward is just
deeply frustrating," said Liz King, the director of education for the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. Level of
Unpredictability The mechanics of the job now are different, too. The political ranks at the Education Department are thin, since the White House
has been slow to fill subcabinet positions. Some Washington organizations have started providing the kind of technical assistance to their
members that the department used to provide, doing their best to answer questions about matters like implementation of the Every Student
Succeeds Act. Others say their communication with civil servants at the department has been markedly different-policy experts they've long
worked with aren't nearly as accessible or forthcoming. What's more, because President Trump doesn't have a full team in place and doesn't have
a long record on K-12 issues, it's tough for advocates to see around the corner when it comes to education policy and spending. That situation isn't
unique to education, said Mary Kusler, the senior director of the National Education Association's Center for Advocacy. "I would agree it's hard
[to be an advocate] because there is a level of unpredictability. That is not an education-only problem. It is a Washington, D.C., new-world-order
problem," she said. "It makes it impossible to plan for the long term." The choice of Betsy DeVos, a longtime school choice champion, as
education secretary only makes life harder from the perspective of groups like the NEA that vehemently opposed her confirmation. "For the first
time, we have a secretary of education who has no background in public education" and who has a singular focus on school choice, Kusler said.
"Every time she opens her mouth, she shows her lack of qualifications for this job." But Jeanne Allen, the CEO for the Center for Education
Reform, a school choice advocacy organization, sees DeVos' appointment as something to celebrate. "They're singing a song that we've been
singing for a long time," she said of the secretary and her team. That's a far cry from the way Allen expected things would play out early in the
fall, when nearly everyone in Washington was anticipating that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, then-candidate Trump's Democratic
rival, would be in the White House. Allen said her organization was "prepared first and foremost to put most of our time and energy into state
battles and efforts." Electoral Jolt But Trump's surprise win was a jolt of a different kind for many public school educators
and organizations that represent them in the nation's capital. "We went from hearing from our members [that they were] positive
and hopeful to this drastic shift of almost panic," said Kelly Vaillancourt Strobach, the director of government relations for the National
Association of School Psychologists. "Every proposal that seems to come out is almost like a bomb. You're in constant
damage control, which is frustrating." And advocates for public school educators say they're worried that proposals that once
looked unlikely to come to fruition-like a massive cut to teacher-quality funding-might actually make it across the
legislative finish line. It doesn't help that the Education Department still hasn't filled key positions. So far, Trump has nominated just one
political appointee: Carlos Muniz, as general counsel. Other players in K-12 positions that require Senate sign-off-like Jason Botel, who is acting
as the assistant secretary for elementary and secondary education-are temporary fill-ins. It's unclear how long any of them will stick around in
those roles. Some education representatives are scratching their heads about whom to approach with policy proposals and questions. "I think in
many ways the administration is still getting its people in place," said Jacki Ball, the director of government affairs for the National PTA. "We're
just not always sure who to go to. We're trying to develop relationships with the people that are there," including Botel, who spoke at a recent
PTA conference. "That was a good opportunity to open the door." And one advocate said there have been changes in dealings with the
department's career employees, who stick around from one presidential administration to the next. "Any communication you have with federal
employees now is difficult," the advocate said. "They are really hesitant to communicate via email. They say things like, 'It is so hostile over
here.' ... Everyone is walking on eggshells." Aides for GOP members in Congress are quick to tout lawmakers' ties to Trump, but aren't
shy about criticizing DeVos, said Sasha Pudelski, the assistant director for policy and advocacy at AASA. "They're attacking the administration
via DeVos," she said. (A similar dynamic prevailed among Democrats in Congress during Secretary Arne Duncan's tenure in the Obama
administration.) There's an upside: Those representing educator groups say their members are fired up and watching Washington closely. That
means more are willing to write letters, sign petitions, call their members of Congress, or lobby in person. "This is a really unique time, where
people who would normally sit back and say it's going to be fine feel a threat" to public education, the NEA's Kusler said. The boost in
education community engagement isn't without its challenges. Several advocates said they got a flood of calls from
their organizations' members about a bill introduced by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, that would create federally supported
vouchers nationwide. That legislation is almost certain to go nowhere. But it can be tougher to get members riled up
about proposals that may actually be able to get traction, including potential budget cuts. Fielding questions about extreme,
dead-on-arrival proposals cuts into advocates' time and energy. "We have to make sure there's not burnout. We have to make sure that the level of
attention is appropriate," Pudelski said. "Every lobbyist I talk to feels like they're running on empty a little bit." Common Cause One thing that
has helped lighten the load: Education advocacy organizations that work on behalf of public school educators and those representing
disadvantaged students are working together much more closely, and on a much broader range of issues, than they have in the past. "Under
Clinton, under Bush, and under Obama, the education community was afforded the luxury of disagreeing with one another," said Ellerson Ng, the
AASA official. "We can no longer afford to disagree, because we have such a basic task of supporting public education." Ultimately, though,
nearly any major education initiative -from the president's proposed budget cuts to any school choice proposal-will
have to go through Congress . Even in a polarized climate on Capitol Hill, advocates say they're still able to keep working with
the same lawmakers and staffers they've relied on in the past. "It's ultimately up to Congress to pass the law," Kusler said. "We're still
working predominantly with members on both sides of the aisle who support public education."
 Education---Horsetrade/Partisanship

Ed reform is a colossal horse-trade---sustained outreach to break through partisan and ideological backlash
derails the agenda
Bradford, 17 Derrell Bradford, Senior Visiting Fellow at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, 5-30-2017, The
politics & partisanship of Americas education reform debate: A growing blue-red divide,
https://edexcellence.net/articles/the-politics-partisanship-of-americas-education-reform-debate-a-growing-blue-red-
divide

In previous columns, I wrote about the political and policy problems we face as people fighting for change in the
education space. But thats only part of what ails our reform effort.
We also have a partisan problem.
This may be the one thats easiest to seethough it is perhaps toughest to fix and it spilled out into the street in
the wake of Hillary Clintons presidential defeat. It now charges the national debate, around all policy, with a third-
rail-like electricity on both sides of the aisle.
Party allegiance is the new litmus test not just for political philosophy, but for personal belief and social inclusion.
Answering the wrong way on the wrong question not just on reformbut on anythingcarries the weight of
possible ostracism from both the left and the right. My own lens on this is through the tribe of Democrats, because
those are the primaries in which I vote and the affiliation of most of the folks who are close to me. Folks I admire
and from whom I seek counsel and direction during difficult times.
I understand it. I found the last presidential campaign distasteful. I rejected the division and the acrimony that
typified the exchange, particularly where race was concerned. I tell folks sometimes that black lives matterand
that since I have one, it matters a whole lot to mebut the electoral process left me confused about whether our
leaders actually agree with me. I ultimately supported Clinton despite my firm belief that she would appoint a
secretary of education determined to make our lives harder, not easier. In the professional sense, I voted against my
own interests because I thought it might be best for America.
But I also spend a lot of time traveling the country, which means, unlike many of my peers, I am not confined to
either of the progressive coasts. At 50CAN, four of the five states I manageTennessee, South Carolina, North
Carolina, and Georgiaare politically a deep crimson.
Despite their red hue, one thing doesnt change as I move between them: how desperately children need great
schools to ensure they reach their full potential. And though these states also bring the problems of rural education
to the forefront, there are plenty of black and brown kids in cities who need our help as badly as any kid in Bed-
Stuy, Brooklyn, does. Blue state or red state, our kids need all the help they can get, and they need it from everyone.
This is why I find the advanceor the retreat, depending on your viewby so many of my reform brothers and
sisters to their respective hard rights and lefts not only troubling, but counterintuitive. And , in the long term,
destructive.
Its a pivot of safety, tribalism, and sameness, one of ease and elitism when our children need us to behave in
precisely the opposite fashion, running toward one another instead of away.
We dont have an education reform movement because liberal Democrats believe in civil rights. And we dont have
one because conservative Republicans believe in market solutions, low regulation, and freedom. We have one
because they could believe in them both, at the same time, together, and at the same table. The golden age of
reform that folks associate with President Barack Obama exists only because of a history of this sort of
collaboration.
It flowered when President Bill Clinton and a Republican Congress came together on charters. It grew further with
President George W. Bush and the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, who together built and passed the N o C hild Left
B ehind Act. It expanded charters in places like Newark, where Republican Gov. Chris Christie and Democratic
Mayor Cory Booker somehow managed to work together to make change.
Republican Gov. George Pataki, with the help of Democratic Rep. Floyd Flake, passed New Yorks charter school
law in 1998. Democratic Assemblywoman Polly Williams and Republican Gov. Tommy Thompson joined to create
the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program, the countrys first.
Without a willingness to look past party with an eye toward the goal of improving education for our children, none
of this would have been possible.
Much of what I read and see now seems ignorant of this history. And not just ignorant of itdismissive, detached,
and arrogant to it. There isnt a progressive state where a teacher evaluation framework, tenure reform law,
equitable funding formula, charter, or choice program passed without the support of both Democrats and
Republicans. A retreat from the political realities of what it takes to make changereal change, not just the kind
that makes partisans happy, but the kind that actually alters culture in a way that unmakes what is broken so
something better can be createdisnt just selfish, its self-interested. And it ignores the most important of factors:
that change of this kind, and of this scale, cant be done alone.
We dont need new edges; we need a new center. So consider this: If your partisan values are more important to you
than your education reform values, perhaps you should ask yourself if you are in the right place, at the right time,
doing the thing that is best for you and your beliefs.
I happen to be an ed reformer firstmy moral and professional compasses point in the same direction, and I act in a
fashion that is aligned around changing policy for kids. This is also to say I am a Democrat second, and being one
informs my view on reformparticularly on issues of equitybut is in service to that view. Not everyone sees the
world this way. In fact, many people I know well dont see it this way at all. So if youre a Democrat first, or a
Republican first, or a partisan first, and that is what matters most to you, I support that fully. The country is a mess
right now, and we need political reform as much as we need education reform.
But its also possible that, if you feel that way, the Democratic National Committee or the Republican National
Committee would benefit more from your decision-making right now than a boy on a corner in Bridgeport who just
needs you to be on one sideand that side is his. Hes actually the last person who needs you to be a partisan
steeped in what you wont do and closing off policy opportunities that make you uncomfortable because of your
political beliefsbecause in the end, its his life, not yours, that depends on it.
We should all see the world through his eyes when thinking about this.
I encourage everyone to reflect on the life of Martin Luther King Jr. and his efforts to pass the Civil Rights Act
when thinking about our partisan problem. King worked with many people to pass the act. Some of those people
were racists. And the most notable of them might have been President Lyndon B aines J ohnson himself. Johnsons
biographer Robert Caro described him as a connoisseur of the word nigger who tailored its use and inflection to
the home regions of members of Congress. As Obama noted in 2014, During his first twenty years in Congress, he
opposed every civil rights bill that came up for a vote, once calling the push for federal legislation a farce and a
shame.
The lesson here isnt necessarily about Johnsons motivations, or even the sincerity or veracity of the change he
underwent that made him a supporter of civil rights. It is instead about Kings single-minded focus on the goal of
equality for black people, and the relentless pursuit of that goal through political disconcert and social pressure. And
in this case, it included his willingness to work with a manone fluent, skilled, and practiced in the casual use of
the greatest insult to black peoplewho offered him not comfort, but the chance to improve the lives of those very
same people. The history of minorities seizing power in America has always been colored by these crushing
concessions. Kings discomfort, I think, is of the sort we have to live with now if we want to make progress in these
difficult political times.
Education reform isnt about how you may or may not feel at cocktail parties or your own political or personal
proclivities. It is about kids dying civic and physical deaths in schools that dont work for them. Progress, real
progress, never feels good . And its always uncomfortable , because change is uncomfortable, even when its for the
better.

Drains finite PC spills over and derails other agenda items

Matveev, 00 --- Alexei Matveev, Department of Educational Policy, Planning, and Leadership, College of William
and Mary, https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/109c/4368a0ec2294107a2b60ab9eb6011999ffb7.pdf
The bottom line is that the problems of development and administration of higher education policy will never be solved
because the conflict between equality and economic efficiency is inescapable. In that sense, capitalism and democracy are really a most
improbable mixture. Maybe that is why they need one another - to put some rationality into equality and some humanity into efficiency" (Okun
1975.) The only way for successful policy construction appears to be political bargaining and " muddling through" in
search of the shaky institutional equilibrium and satisfying temporary solutions for the perceived conflicts. Sub-optimisation and
incrementalism in contrast to maximisation and radicalism are simultaneously a curse and a blessing of democracy. We should
understand that only a limited number of goals can be achieved in a contemporary diverse public higher arena no
matter how compelling the argument or virtuous its claimants are. While choosing a primary institution of higher education
coordination (whether it is the market, government regulations, or academic democracy), we choose not between good
and bad, but, rather, between complementary, although at times conflicting and competing rules and values . There is no
theoretical model for the correct balance [of market forces, government regulation and academic democracy] at a given time,
so we are left with making subjective judgments based upon common sense and upon both conscious and unconscious
biases (Berdahl et al, 1999, p. 10.) These individual choices are made in the institutional context that simultaneously
constrains the individual actors and plays the role of a tool-kit for policy development and administration. One-sided focus
on either institutional context or actors level would miss the boat in understanding educational policy.

Causes Congressional Gridlock and Paralysis

AASCU, 15 ---- American Association of State Colleges and Universities, Policy Brief, January,
www.aascu.org/policy/publications/policy-
matters/Top10StatePolicyIssues2015.pdf+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
States have constitutional authority over higher education, and state lawmakers, working in concert with campus governing bodies, have
jurisdiction over foundational higher education policies: state funding, capital construction, enrollment policy and tuition pricing. States
role
in determining the policy framework for public colleges and universities is only expected to intensify this year, as political
polarization and paralysis in Congress have left a backlog of federal education bills for congressional committees to
consider in the next session. Much attention will be on Congress ability to govern effectively now that the U.S. House and Senate are both in the
hands of Republicans. If Congress success in the 114th session is assessed in comparison to the outgoing sessionwhether related to education
or notthe threshold for success is unusually low, given that the just-concluded 113th session of Congress witnessed the lowest number of bills
passed in modern Congressional history.
One of the most concrete examples of federal education policy stasis is the unlikely Congressional passage this
year of the overdue reauthorization of the Higher Education Act (HEA). Among all the higher education policies and programs ripe for
reform, there exists a tremendous need and opportunity for Congress to use the HEA reauthorization to align state and federal higher
education financing and incentivize states to re-invest in public higher education. Recent traction in the U.S. Senate on a proposed
State-Federal College Affordability Partnershipan annual federal block grant designed to spur new state investments in public higher
educationwill likely be slowed due to changes in Senate leadership. Public higher education leaders will be called on to work
with their Congressional delegation to build awareness and support of the State-Federal College Affordability Partnership in order
to ensure that it is included in the final HEA reauthorization bill. An in-depth discussion of potential implications for higher education policy
stemming from the 2014 elections is provided in the policy brief, Higher Education and the 2014 Elections, published by the American
Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU). The paper discusses the Obama administrations higher education agenda, the
Congressional outlook for its 114th session, policy challenges Congress will face, as well as state-level outcomes of the elections. This paper
provides a summary of the top 10 higher education policy issues that are likely to witness considerable activity in state legislatures across the
country this year. It is the view of the AASCU state relations and policy staff that these issues will be at the forefront of both discussion and
action in state capitols. This eighth annual synopsis is informed by a variety of sources, including an environmental scan of outcomes from last
years legislative sessions, recent gubernatorial priorities, as well as trends and events that are shaping the higher education policy
landscape. Some issues are perennial in nature, while others reflect more recent economic, fiscal and political dynamics . Results, no
doubt, will vary by state.
 Education---Policy Details

Federal Education policy drains PC post election even education advocates fight over policy details
Camera, 17 --- Lauren Camera is an education reporter at U.S. News & World Report. Shes covered education
policy and politics for nearly a decade and has written for Education Week, The Hechinger Report, Congressional
Quarterly, Roll Call, and the Chronicle of Higher Education. She was a 2013 Spencer Education Fellow at Columbia
Universitys School of Journalism, where she conducted a reporting project about the impact of the Obama
administrations competitive education grant, Race to the Top, US News and World Report, 3/13,
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2017-03-23/trump-school-choice-proposals-drive-wedge-
between-charter-school-advocates
The Trump administration's plan to ax $9 billion in federal education spending but direct millions to a new program
that would help students afford private school exposed a fissure among charter school advocates, one not publicly
acknowledged but privately widening at an increasingly fast pace since the election. In reacting to the fiscal 2018
blueprint, organizations that support charter schools split: Some admonished the administration for its proposed education cuts, as
well as billions in cuts to health care and wraparound social service programs on which the country's most disadvantaged students rely. Others
touted the increases for school choice policies, which, in addition to a $250 million private school choice program, included $168 million more
for charter schools and a $1 billion boost in Title I for poor students whose states allow them to use the money to enroll at any public school of
their choice. Today, President Trump demonstrated that he is a strong supporter of charter public schools, Nina Rees, president and CEO of the
National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, said in a statement. The charter school movement is grateful for the presidents support, and we
applaud his commitment to providing critically needed funding. But Greg Richmond, president and CEO of the National Association of Charter
School Authorizers, took a different tack. We are deeply concerned about proposed cuts to other important education programs, as charter
schools are part of not a substitute for a strong public education system, Richmond said in his public statement. Charter schools cannot
succeed without strong teachers and a seamless, affordable path to college for their graduates. Unfortunately, this proposed budget harms
programs that are important for students, teachers, and public education. The different responses highlight whats become a more
visible divide , though one thats long existed, among school choice proponents and specifically among charter
school supporters who can get behind private school choice policies and those who cannot . Those who cannot, like
Richmond, are adamant that any schools that use taxpayer dollars, including charter schools, must be held accountable
for being good stewards of those dollars and show positive results for students. "From a policy perspective, accountability to the public for
outcomes is what makes charter schools public schools," he says. "If there is no accountability to the public about the results youre producing
and how youre spending your money, then youre not public." What he and others fear is that accountability will be greatly
diminished under Trump, whose stated mission is to direct $20 billion in federal funding to school choice policies ,
who has touted programs that allow students to use state dollars to attend private schools, and who tapped private
school voucher advocate Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education. On the other side are those who take a more liberal view of
accountability, subscribing instead to a free-market philosophy that relies on competition to weed out schools that aren't holding up their
end of the bargain. To be sure, the charter school movement has always been comprised of people with different education philosophies.
While the coalition has largely held together thanks to the reform-friendly agenda of the Obama administration that allowed the sector to flourish,
it's since begun splintering . That played out in a very public way for the first time last summer, when the charter sector
found itself in the crosshairs of a burgeoning and wide-scale debate over who truly holds communities of color in their best
interest. This wedge has existed for a long time, says Michael Petrilli, president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Its a big tent,
for charter schools supporters especially, and just as weve seen a growing polarization in politics, we see a growing
polarization in the education reform community. Trumps focus on private school choice is pushing that wedge
into the public spotlight again and is forcing charter school advocates to plant their flags on the proverbial spectrum of
accountability. Over the years, its kind of been a gentlemens agreement in the charter tent that we dont fight with each other about that,
Richmond says But whats been happening lately and it really picked up steam after the election is the free-market
supporters within the charter tent are trying to redefine charter schools to be more like vouchers. He continued:
Theyre really pushing back hard against accountability. Perhaps that should not come as a surprise. In DeVos home state of
Michigan, she and her family have spent millions of dollars backing proposals to expand school choice policies like
charters and private school vouchers. And the landscape there, particularly the charter school landscape in Detroit, represents
more of a free-market, hands-off approach that trusts in parents to choose the best schools for their children and in
competition to put poor-performing schools out of business. Those ideals stand in contrast to charter school policies in other
cities and states, like New Orleans, New York and Massachusetts, where charter schools are under close scrutiny of the government
and under more pressure and a tighter timeline to show positive results for their students. Charter school advocates see the new
administration as an opportunity to push their agendas, but those agendas are increasingly at odds with each other.
Trumps budget proposal elucidated those disparities, differentiating groups like the Center for Education Reform and American Federation for
Children, which have long supported private school vouchers, from groups like Democrats for Education Reform and the Fordham Institute,
which have only supported private school vouchers that have rigorous accountability systems attached, from groups like Stand for Children,
which have pushed back against private school vouchers. Those in the free-market camp are feeling very good these days, Richmond says.
They like charters and vouchers, and theyre very enthusiastic and happy to see all this additional money coming in the way of vouchers.
Indeed, Center for Education Reform CEO Jeanne Allen characterized Trumps budget proposal as a significant step forward and one that
makes a "more concerted effort to channel dollars more directly to the needs of children and families instead of to programs and to districts.
Supporting education choices for students is a natural and long overdue move by the federal government, she said. It really shows that the
administration is listening and committed to reform. Meanwhile, Stand for Children CEO Jonah Edelman called the spending plan an all-out
assault on the American dream. To be sure, the presidents budget proposal is just that, a proposal, and the funding for private school
vouchers or some type of scholarship tax credit is not a slam dunk, even among Republicans and especially among
those who represent rural states where children have few, if not zero, education options outside the public school
system. Those variables were at play last week in conservative Kentucky, when the governor signed a bill after months of heated debate in the
state legislature that will allow charter schools for the first time. The Blue Grass State was one of just seven now six that did not allow charter
schools. The carefully worded legislation only allows local school boards to authorize charter schools, with the exception of Louisville and
Lexington, where the mayors may also do so. Groups like the Center for Education Reform lobbied for the bill to also allow universities to act as
charter authorizers and to include virtual charters as an educational option. The fracture within the charter school sector is reflective
of the larger splintering of the education reform community.
 Education---Political Incentives/Interest Groups

Plan sparks powerful anti-reform coalitions and derails the agenda

Bradford, 17 Derrell Bradford, Senior Visiting Fellow at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, 5-23-2017, The
politics & partisanship of the education reform debate: Why being right isnt enough,
https://edexcellence.net/articles/the-politics-partisanship-of-the-education-reform-debate-why-being-right-isnt-
enough

When I say we have a policy problem, that isnt to say we dont have smart people working hard to come up with
brilliant solutions for whats wrong with education in this country. Anyone whos advocated for, or fought over, any
of the more esoteric reforms weve championed recently knows we dont have a dearth of well-educated, well-
meaning people looking to change the world for the better.
It isnt even to say that we have bad policy per se. When implemented well in a place like D.C., you can see teacher
evaluation reform doing great things for everyone involved despite its lackluster impact elsewhere. Or take the
National Association of Charter School Authorizers and the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools
guidelines for great authorizing of quality charter school laws. These frameworks have helped steer the first twenty-
five years of the countrys charter school movement. Theyve given us schools that have been, in particular, of
extraordinary benefit to low-income kids of color in cities where they have little choice and lots of underperforming
schools.
The policy isnt badbut it has become unpopular . And we ignore the tarnished and shrinking halo above it at our
own peril.
Look at accountability. Lots of us have supported the standards-and-assessments movement, which helped create
the No Child Left Behind federal framework. It was imperfect, but its supporting pillarstest annually, report the
results by subgroup, classify schools based on performance, and intervene when kids are being failedwere
revolutionary. NCLB drew a line in the sand on school performancemaybe not a deep line, but a line nonetheless.
A line that had not existed before.
The data alone sparked conversations in states like Connecticut, where school leaders blamed the achievement gap
not on underperforming systems but on the overperforming white kids in them. Vital, hard-fought progress was
made. And it became easier to make the case for more choice for underserved families, a compelling pretext that
accelerated charter school growth in many urban centers.
These policieswhich placed underserved families with few choices at the centermight have been the right ones.
But we, as a community of reform, may have been the only people who found them popular , or who believed that
the injustice of chronically underperforming urban school systems overflowing with black and brown kids was a
compelling enough reason to implement them.
While we felt the system needed to be upended in a variety of ways, lots of folksto be pointed, lots of college-
educated white folksdidnt . And our policy agenda has finally run into them, headfirst and at full speed .
Sure, standards and testing are crucial for the least-served kids, but affluent, liberal suburban whites dont seem to
think thats the right fit for them. This policy mismatch gave us the opt-out movement, which threatens
accountability as a whole. Sure, the science on value-added models for teacher evaluation tells us that teachers who
drive growth on tests also improve a wide range of life outcomes for their students, but three million teachers (again,
overwhelmingly white) didnt seem to agree with that premise or the accountability built into it for those kids.
This mismatch for progressive educatorswhich conveniently aligned itself with anti-Obama sentiment
fomented by the Tea Party on the rightgave us the blowback on Common Core . The close association of charter
schools with both of these agendas has stoked anti-charter angst in places where, ironically, we have some of the
nations highest-performing charter schools and networks. And all of this combined gave us the hands-off approach
of the Every Student Succeeds Act, which is a great step back if you care about old-school accountability and the
federal backstop on performance.
Plan requires broad concessions to overcome entrenched political incentives and diverse interest groups
Bradford, 17 Derrell Bradford, Senior Visiting Fellow at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, 5-25-2017, The
politics & partisanship of Americas education reform debate: Time for a suburban strategy?,
https://edexcellence.net/articles/the-politics-partisanship-of-americas-education-reform-debate-time-for-a-suburban-
strategy

In my last column, I wrote about the policy problem we face as people fighting for change in the education space.
But thats only part of what ails our reform effort.
We also have a political problem.
By that, I mean our policies have not reached a scale where they cannot easily be undone, or a breadth where their
diversity of support makes them easier to get behind . And make no mistake, the threat posed by these conditions is
as real as it is existential.
Politics is a numbers game, and you need politicians to actually change how the public square interacts with the
policies we hold close. So lets be honestwhen a politician reviews your proposal, he or she is asking a
fundamental and self-interested question: Does this get me more friends or make me more enemies?
If the answer is that something consistently makes more enemies, its going to be harder or, frankly, impossible, to
get the support you need to get it done. We can talk about doing the right things for the right reasonsand we can
wonder why politicos dont behave that waybut, politically, the right things are rarely done for the right reasons.
And until were willing to revisit our policy assumptions through the real-world lens of politics , we wont be able to
see the necessary path forward to grow and protect the work of previous decades.
Lets take chartering and charter school authorizing as an example. Admittedly, the broadly accepted authorizing
frameworks we know have given us some tremendous things. Most notably, theyve created networks of schools,
like those in New York or Newark where I have worked a great deal, that are particularly good at closing
achievement gaps for low-income and minority kids. Those schools have become safe havens of order and creativity
because of their strong emphasis on structure, great teaching, and high expectationswhat folks commonly, if
inelegantly, refer to as the no excuses model. Theyve changed and saved lives. This is laudable, and I support all
of it.
But what havent those same authorizing frameworks given us? In their emphasis on bringing quality schools
or, rather, what we thought were quality schoolsinto existence, we may have perverted the pluralism inherent in
the chartering power and instead substituted control.
This approach has some benefits. But over time, what we thought of as quality authorizing has morphed into a sort
of technocratic risk management for the sector a process whose own bias, one could argue, accelerated not the
growth of charter schools but the replication of one kind of charter school with one specific sort of leader.
 Education---Issue Redefinition

Education policy gets twisted by issue redefinition, which guarantees opposition and fractures support---
prefer peer-reviewed social science
Wolbrecht, 14 Dr. Christina Wolbrecht, Professor of American Politics at Notre Dame, and Dr. Michael T.
Hartney, Assistant Professor of Politics at Lake Forest, "Ideas about Interests": Explaining the Changing Partisan
Politics of Education, Cambridge Perspectives on Politics 12.3 (Sep 2014): 603-630
{modified} for potentially objectionable language

We have shown how education issue redefinition shaped the decision-making context for parties when adopting
education policy positions in the postwar era. These developments have been important for both the task of coalition
management138as well as for the way party elites themselves conceived of education policy options. Consider 2012
Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney explaining his switch from favoring abolition of the DOE to
supporting its continued existence, albeit in a smaller or combined form: At a private donor meeting, Romney
explained that "part of his reasoning behind preserving the agency [DOE] was to maintain a role in pushing back
against teachers' unions." 139When the education agenda was defined as a choice between federal funding to
address perceived inequalities, and leaving schooling to states and localities, a federal role consistent with
Republican interests and ideology was hard to imagine . As teacher quality, standards, and accountability came to
dominate the education agenda, and were viewed as (among other things) challenging public sector unions with
whom Republicans have traditionally clashed, Republicans advocated for changes to education policy which serve
their coalition and were consistent with an ideology that opposes unions, and favors the application of business
principles to public functions. Indeed, while we cannot establish the counterfactual, we posit the possibility that
Ronald Reagan, the famous opponent of the DOE, might have been more sympathetic to a cabinet-level education
department if he, like Romney, could envision a role for the agency in undermining public sector unions. The
important point is that not only has the shift in issue definition led the parties to favor (or oppose) new education
policy proposals, but issue redefinition has contributed to a change in the parties' positions on long-standing
policies, such as the existence of the DOE.
We have sought to apply a general framework for understanding party position change to the specific case of
education policy. We believe our framework may illuminate other cases of party change. For example, Democrats
have recently liberalized on gay rights. 140David Karol rightly points to the emergence of gay activism within the
Democratic coalition as a causal factor. Yet, we suspect these groups are relatively small in numbers and financial
pull; their advocacy alone seems insufficient to explain the shift.141Over the last 30 years, public discourse about
homosexuality shifted from a focus on sexuality and a distinctive gay counterculture to an emphasis on equality and
inclusion into such well-regarded social institutions as marriage and the military.142While controversial, this issue
redefinition links gay rights to a civil rights tradition of expanded equality and inclusion that we might expect to
resonate strongly with other Democratic coalition members and with Democratic ideology. As Karol argues,
Democrats have shifted toward greater support because "at least to some degree . . . support for gay rights has
become a standard part of the liberal belief system and the Democratic program in a way it was not a generation
ago." 143Thus, issue redefinition may have helped make gay rights supporters of many (but not all) of the
progressive groups that comprise the Democratic coalition, and of Democratic elites themselves.
Party change on women's rights was characterized by similar dynamics. In the 1950s and early 1960s, when most
women's rights proposals, especially the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), were framed as pitting intrusive
protective labor laws (the status quo) against legal equality, Republican support for policy change--the ERA--was
consistent with the party's general inclination toward antistatism and free market capitalism, as well as the
preferences of the business interests and professional women in the GOP coalition. Democratic opposition was in
keeping with the party's social welfare ideology, and with the preferences of members of the Democratic coalition,
particularly organized labor and progressive women. With the emergence of the second wave of the women's
movement, among other changes, in the early 1970s, the issue of women's rights became defined as equality (policy
change) versus traditional gender roles (status quo). Democrats came to favor women's rights proposals as part of
their general orientation toward civil rights and inclusion, and to help incorporate the women's movement into their
coalition. Other Democratic coalition members, most notably labor, changed their position in response to the
changed definition. Republicans, on the other hand, reversed themselves by 1980, coming to view the ERA and
other women's rights proposals as unnecessary government intrusions and a challenge to traditionalism, both
contrary to the party's persistent ideological commitment to social order and neoliberal antistatism. Opposition to
women's rights also helped accommodate the social conservative movement (which emerged in large part in
response to the redefining of women's rights) as part of an expanded Republican coalition. 144
In recent work on civil rights realignment, Feinstein and Schickler emphasize how the Democratic party's shift to an
ideology based on "programmatic liberalism, governmental activism, and universalistic, rights-based arguments"
during the New Deal made opposition to civil rights an increasingly untenable and inconsistent position for the party
in the 1940s and 1950s, despite strong opposition from important Democratic coalition groups. 145This is a case not
of a party seeking to reconcile a new issue definition with its ideology, but of a party's new ideology being
inconsistent with how its established position (opposition to civil rights) is defined. Feinstein and Schickler further
argue that as civil rights policy alternatives shifted from political rights in the South toward fair employment and
housing laws in the North, business interests emerged as important opponents of civil rights proposals, with
consequences for Republican party positioning. 146Finally, Feinstein and Schickler point to the importance of issue
salience in compelling party elites to reassess and shift positions: The authors argue that state-level Democratic
activists had shifted to a more progressive civil rights position by the mid-1940s, but only "once civil rights issues
reached the top of the nation's agenda in the 1960s, and national party elites were forced to choose sides" did
national Democratic elites reassess the strategic political context and "adopt a liberal position on civil rights issues."
147
Our emphasis on the role of ideas does not contradict the basic premise that what is at stake in policy debates are
real conflicts over real interests with real consequences. We have highlighted, for example, how education issue
redefinition related to a broader pushback against a robust welfare state, and how new education policy alternatives
shared common themes with the hidden welfare state policies identified in previous research. 148And just as critics
point out that the hidden welfare state, and indeed public policy making in general, tends to benefit the economically
advantaged,149 the question of whether the newer education policy alternatives, such as school choice and high-
stakes testing, alleviate or aggravate inequality remains contested .150
Yet the view that education issue redefinition is part and parcel of conservative retrenchment is too simplistic; as
Jesse Rhodes shows, civil rights organizations have played a leading role in promoting the school reform agenda in
the sincere belief that such policies would benefit disadvantaged students of color. 151Indeed, one irony is that
while the new issue definition and associated reform policy proposals emerged during an era characterized by
backlash against activist government and relative conservative influence over policy-making, federal control over
and spending on education expanded dramatically during the same period. 152In a very real sense, this is an
example of policies making politics ; as elites came to accept established federal funding of education (through the
ESEA of 1965) as a reality, the question was not whether, but what sorts of school structures and policies those
funds should support. 153
Why should we emphasize the role of issue redefinition in the development of party issue positions? At the end of
the day, don't groups just demand policies that serve their own interests, and don't parties build electoral coalitions
by providing a package of policy promises and actions the groups in their coalition want? At one level, we do not
disagree with this basic premise. Yet interests are not objective ; they must be discovered , understood , and
negotiated . The defining of issues--problems and alternatives --is key to that process of interest discovery and
understanding. Or, as perhaps the ultimate authority on party politics, E.E. Schattschneider, wrote, "It is futile to
determine whether men [sic] {people} are stimulated politically by interests or by ideas, for people have ideas about
interests." 154
 Education---Fed Role=Backlash

Federal education policy inherently drains PC doctrines of local control deeply entrenched
McGovern, 11 --- Shannon, J.D., 2011, New York University School of Law; B.A., 2008, Boston University,
November, NYU LR, November, Lexis
Four salient, if nonexhaustive, objections to federal oversight of education can be drawn both from the education federalism
literature [*1529] generally and from these two education programs specifically: (1) conflicts with the doctrine of local control and its
attendant values of democratic participation and quality education; (2) limited federal funding and unfunded mandates; (3) threats to the
institutional autonomy of state legislatures; and (4) ossification of unproven education reform trends. While each of these considerations may
counsel in favor of a continued state role in education reform, they do not require exclusion of the federal government. 1. Local Control,
Democratic Participation, and Quality Education One of the most entrenched grounds of opposition to federal education
programs like NCLB and Race to the Top is the doctrine of local control. Justice Brennan gave the principle its strongest endorsement in
the 1974 school busing case Milliken v. Bradley: n48 "No single tradition in public education is more deeply rooted than local
control over the operation of schools; local autonomy has long been thought essential both to the maintenance of community concern and
support for public schools and to quality of the educational process." n49 Litigants and courts invoke this principle not only in the desegregation
context, n50 but also in other cases in which state defendants have an interest in shifting responsibility to local school districts. n51
Notwithstanding judicial recognition of the two advantages of local control - democratic participation and educational quality - the principle is
not legally or constitutionally compelled. Judicial respect for local control reflects deference to states' allocation of authority within their borders
rather than preservation of school district autonomy. n52 Education is not a purely local function. Instead, it is an area of "core state
responsibility" n53 guaranteed by education clauses in [*1530] all fifty state constitutions. School districts lack federal constitutional status and
exist solely as "creatures of the state." n54 Unlike similarly situated local governments, however, school districts' sole function - the provision of,
and financial responsibility for, public education - ultimately lies with the states. n55 Nonetheless, "de facto local autonomy" n56 persists as a
form of state policy in diminished form. To some, the rise of school finance and adequacy litigation n57 and the implementation of statewide
standards and assessments, first under state initiatives and later through NCLB, have rendered local control illusory. n58 On the other hand, local
coffers continue to provide over forty percent of public school budgets n59 and a number of municipal- ities have adopted mayoral control and
other decentralizing measures in recent years. n60 The persistence of local control is likely a product of tradition, powerful interest group
networks, n61 and the belief that it promotes "accountability and community choice." n62 Even if we accept a diminishing (though still
significant) sphere of influence for school districts, the value of citizen participation in education does not disappear at the state level. Admittedly,
political accountability and citizen engagement, which are quite immediate at [*1531] the local level, n63 are diluted at the state level. This
dilution is not as drastic as that experienced in the shift from state to national politics, but it is not insignificant. Elected officials in state
government oversee - and are politically accountable for - a broad range of equally salient initiatives, from criminal justice to social welfare.
Similarly, citizen participation, including by ballot, may be more effective if the citizens are concentrated in one of the United States' fifteen
thousand local school districts rather than one of fifty states, particularly with respect to hard decisions about how - and how much - to spend on
education. n64 Nevertheless, citizens can and do influence the state education budget. For example, New Jersey made headlines in 2010 when its
voters defeated more than half of the state's local education budgets, many of which were to be financed by additional property taxes. n65 The
election results supported Governor Chris Christie's proposal for significant state education spending cuts to address New Jersey's budget
shortfall. n66 As a general matter, citizens in many jurisdictions have played an important role in shifting financial responsibility for edu- cation
funding, and attendant policy making power, from the local to the state level. Demands for relief from high property taxes and court-mandated
equalization efforts, for example, have led to both limitations on property taxes and increases in state aid to public schools. n67 In short,
meaningful citizen participation in education policy remains possible at the state level. This conclusion counsels in favor of respecting the historic
role of states, their school district agents, and their citizens in shaping policy. It does not counsel against the intervention of federal policy
makers, however. Because education policy is increasingly salient at the national level, n68 there is greater potential [*1532]
than ever for meaningful democratic participation with respect to forming federal policy and holding federal politicians accountable
for their choices . Concern for the "quality of the educational process," n69 like increased democratic participation, is a
popular justification for local control that remains salient at the state level. In Milliken, the Court asserted that local control
"permits the structuring of school programs to fit local needs, and encourages 'experimentation, innovation, and a healthy competition for
educational excellence.'" n70 This formulation resembles subsidiarity, the principle that government functions should be assigned to the lowest
practical level. n71 While subsidiarity protects individual and state dignitary interests, it also addresses efficiency concerns - namely,
responsiveness to local needs. n72
 Education---A2: Link Turns
Inconsistency and ideology muddle support and guarantee fights
The American public is not intelligent enough to actually understand the policy issues involved with education, so
misguided opposition to the aff is inevitable
Henderson, 15 Michael B. Henderson, Research Director at LSU Public Policy Research Lab, 8-3-2015, How far
apart are Democrats and Republicans on school reform?, Brookings, https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-
center-chalkboard/2015/08/03/how-far-apart-are-democrats-and-republicans-on-school-reform/

Without partisan division surely the door is open for bipartisan school reform? Not exactly. The lack of
polarization on school issues probably has more to do with confusion than consensus.
The opinions that most Americans express on school issues are not well-informed , not organized in any coherent
way, and not consistent over time . The 2014 survey contained factual questions about Common Core. Nearly two-
thirds of respondents had either never heard of the standards or answered dont know to the factual questions. In
2013 another survey asked Americans factual questions about charter schools. Half of the respondents said they did
not know the answers while another 20 to 30 percent gave the wrong answers. Other past surveys have shown that
Americans consistently underestimate per-pupil spending and teacher salaries.
If a coherent belief system underlay the opinions expressed on the 2014 survey, we could expect that a person would
take similar positions on similar issues. They do not. Knowing where someone stands on charter schools does not
reveal much about where they stand on vouchers or merit pay, much less tenure, testing, or spending. Responses
across these issues are weakly correlated (the average pairwise correlation is 0.16 and all but a handful fall below
0.25).
Finally, many individuals change their opinion quickly. Each year, the Education Next surveys include a sample of
respondents from the previous survey. With one important exception (Common Core), aggregate opinion is
relatively stable. Yet, this aggregate stability masks flux at the individual level. For example, on merit pay and
charter schools just 60 percent and 57 percent, respectively, come down on the same side in 2014 as they did in
2013. Only 51 percent take the same side on vouchers for students in low-income families in both years. These
changes appear to be random. People are not changing their minds so much as just changing their responses
without giving the issue much mind in the first place .
These are the trademarks of what public opinion scholars call non-attitudes, uninformed and haphazard
responses without any real underlying opinion. This occurs when the public has not given an issue much attention.
Americans may value education, but as an issue it is not at the forefront of their minds. When asked what they
think is the most important issue facing the nation, only about five percent say education.
This murky ground of confusion is unlikely to make a solid foundation for consensus. Typically when the public
starts paying attention to an issue, they look to their party leaders and fall in line accordingly. As they learn about
the debate, confusion turns into polarization. It is unsurprising that the biggest partisan gap here concerns spending,
an issue that easily taps into a familiar broader debate between parties. We are now seeing parties polarize over the
Common Core as well. If issues such as testing, charters, or preschool seize the public mind, they may soon follow
the same path.
 Education---A2: Plan is Small
The plan gets lambasted for not going far enough---their minor reform gets held accountable for all the
testing it doesnt change
Welner, 15 Kevin Welner, director of the National Education Policy Center, attorney, and professor of education
policy at UC Boulder; and William Mathis, former Vermont superintendent, 2-13-2015, No Child Left Behinds
test-based policies failed. Will Congress keep them anyway?, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-
sheet/wp/2015/02/13/no-child-left-behinds-test-based-policies-failed-will-congress-keep-them-anyway/

Whats Included in, and Whats Missing from, the Current Testing Debate
There is now a parent-led backlash against over-testing, and politicians in both major parties are paying attention.
These parents point to the time spent administering the tests themselves as well as to the diversionary effects of
high-stakes testing on curriculum and instructionwhich include narrowed curriculum, teaching to the test, and
time spent preparing for the high-stakes assessments.
Nevertheless, the debate in Washington, D.C., largely ignores the fundamental criticism leveled by parents and
others: testing should not be driving reform. Often missing this point, many politicians have begun to call merely
for reducing or shortening the tests. Some also want to eliminate the federal push to use the tests for teacher
evaluation while at the same time leaving untouched the test-driven accountability policies at the center of
education reform. Other politicians are less interested in whether testing mandates continue than whether those
mandates come from the states or from the federal government.
This kind of tinkering at the margins is just more of the same ; the past decades have seen a great deal of attention
paid to technical refinement of assessmentstheir content, details, administration, and consequences. In the words
of long-time accountability hawk Chester Finn, NCLB Accountability is Dead; Long Live ESEA Testing. But the
problem is not how to do testing correctly. In fact, todays standardized assessments are probably the best theyve
ever been. The problem is a system that favors a largely automated accounting of a narrow slice of students
capacity and then attaches huge consequences to that limited information.
Links---Funding
 Funding---1NC

Massive polarization and hostility to all fed funding proposals drains PC plan is a massive loss for Trump
Education Week, 17 --- 5/17, lexis
Electoral Jolt But Trump's surprise win was a jolt of a different kind for many public school educators and organizations
that represent them in the nation's capital. "We went from hearing from our members [that they were] positive and hopeful to this
drastic shift of almost panic," said Kelly Vaillancourt Strobach, the director of government relations for the National Association of
School Psychologists. "Every proposal that seems to come out is almost like a bomb . You're in constant damage control,
which is frustrating." And advocates for public school educators say they're worried that proposals that once looked unlikely to
come to fruition-like a massive cut to teacher-quality funding-might actually make it across the legislative finish line. It
doesn't help that the Education Department still hasn't filled key positions. So far, Trump has nominated just one political appointee: Carlos
Muniz, as general counsel. Other players in K-12 positions that require Senate sign-off-like Jason Botel, who is acting as the assistant secretary
for elementary and secondary education-are temporary fill-ins. It's unclear how long any of them will stick around in those roles. Some education
representatives are scratching their heads about whom to approach with policy proposals and questions. "I think in many ways the administration
is still getting its people in place," said Jacki Ball, the director of government affairs for the National PTA. "We're just not always sure who to go
to. We're trying to develop relationships with the people that are there," including Botel, who spoke at a recent PTA conference. "That was a good
opportunity to open the door." And one advocate said there have been changes in dealings with the department's career employees, who stick
around from one presidential administration to the next. "Any communication you have with federal employees now is difficult," the advocate
said. "They are really hesitant to communicate via email. They say things like, 'It is so hostile over here.' ... Everyone is walking on
eggshells." Aides for GOP members in Congress are quick to tout lawmakers' ties to Trump, but aren't shy about criticizing DeVos, said Sasha
Pudelski, the assistant director for policy and advocacy at AASA. "They're attacking the administration via DeVos," she said. (A similar dynamic
prevailed among Democrats in Congress during Secretary Arne Duncan's tenure in the Obama administration.) There's an upside: Those
representing educator groups say their members are fired up and watching Washington closely. That means more are willing to write letters, sign
petitions, call their members of Congress, or lobby in person. "This is a really unique time, where people who would normally sit back and say it's
going to be fine feel a threat" to public education, the NEA's Kusler said. The boost in education community engagement isn't
without its challenges. Several advocates said they got a flood of calls from their organizations' members about a bill
introduced by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, that would create federally supported vouchers nationwide. That legislation is
almost certain to go nowhere. But it can be tougher to get members riled up about proposals that may actually be
able to get traction, including potential budget cuts. Fielding questions about extreme, dead-on-arrival proposals cuts into advocates'
time and energy. "We have to make sure there's not burnout. We have to make sure that the level of attention is appropriate," Pudelski said.
"Every lobbyist I talk to feels like they're running on empty a little bit." Common Cause One thing that has helped lighten the load: Education
advocacy organizations that work on behalf of public school educators and those representing disadvantaged students are working together much
more closely, and on a much broader range of issues, than they have in the past. "Under Clinton, under Bush, and under Obama, the education
community was afforded the luxury of disagreeing with one another," said Ellerson Ng, the AASA official. "We can no longer afford to disagree,
because we have such a basic task of supporting public education." Ultimately, though, nearlyany major education initiative -from
the president's proposed budget cuts to any school choice proposal-will have to go through Congress . Even in a
polarized climate on Capitol Hill, advocates say they're still able to keep working with the same lawmakers and staffers they've relied on
in the past. "It's ultimately up to Congress to pass the law," Kusler said. "We're still working predominantly with members on both
sides of the aisle who support public education."
 Funding---Post Election

Federal education funding drains PC election was a game changer

Education Week, 17 --- 5/17, lexis
How Trump's Altered the Landscape for Education Advocates Education advocates in Washington might not always be
on the same page when it comes to policy, but there's at least one thing the vast majority agree on: The Trump administration-
buttressed by a Republican Congress-is unlike anything they've ever had to contend with before . In particular,
groups that lobby Congress and the U.S. Department of Education on behalf of public school educators, as well as those
representing civil rights issues and advocating for education funding, say that they are fighting what feels like a multifront
war against vouchers, dramatic budget cuts, and what some describe as a general antipathy toward public schools and
disadvantaged children. "Being an advocate for public education gives me job security," joked Noelle Ellerson Ng, the associate executive
director of AASA, the School Superintendents Association. "There's plenty to engage on." Another was more blunt: " It really sucks, " the
advocate said. To be sure, the situation is different-even reversed-for groups that champion school choice and other policy approaches favored by
the Trump administration and Republicans on Capitol Hill. Such groups often found themselves sidelined during President Barack Obama's
tenure. But there's a long list of issues that keep teachers' unions, civil rights organizations, and similar advocates up at
night. On the fiscal front, there's the Trump administration's pitch to cut $9 billion, or 13 percent, from the Education
Department's roughly $70 billion budget, including slashing key programs that help pay for teacher-quality initiatives and after-
school programs. The health-care bill could squeeze up to $4 billion in funding that schools use to cover special education services. And there are
concerns that the Trump administration won't continue to invest in rural broadband, which many educators worry could slow the progress the
Obama administration made in boosting connectivity in remote rural districts. Then there's the administration's big school choice push, about
which there are few hard-and-fast details. The Trump administration has asked for $1 billion in new Title I funding to be directed to school
choice in its budget request. And the spending plan also seeks increased funding for charter schools and resources for a private school initiative.
But the specifics of those programs remain cloudy, frustrating advocates on both sides of this contentious issue. Some organizations say they
are struggling to preserve what they see as victories from the Obama years, including a larger role for the department in
looking out for children's civil rights and a focus on resource equity. "The idea that we might be going backward is just
deeply frustrating," said Liz King, the director of education for the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. Level of
Unpredictability The mechanics of the job now are different, too. The political ranks at the Education Department are thin, since the White House
has been slow to fill subcabinet positions. Some Washington organizations have started providing the kind of technical assistance to their
members that the department used to provide, doing their best to answer questions about matters like implementation of the Every Student
Succeeds Act. Others say their communication with civil servants at the department has been markedly different-policy experts they've long
worked with aren't nearly as accessible or forthcoming. What's more, because President Trump doesn't have a full team in place and doesn't have
a long record on K-12 issues, it's tough for advocates to see around the corner when it comes to education policy and spending. That situation isn't
unique to education, said Mary Kusler, the senior director of the National Education Association's Center for Advocacy. "I would agree it's hard
[to be an advocate] because there is a level of unpredictability. That is not an education-only problem. It is a Washington, D.C., new-world-order
problem," she said. "It makes it impossible to plan for the long term." The choice of Betsy DeVos, a longtime school choice champion, as
education secretary only makes life harder from the perspective of groups like the NEA that vehemently opposed her confirmation. "For the first
time, we have a secretary of education who has no background in public education" and who has a singular focus on school choice, Kusler said.
"Every time she opens her mouth, she shows her lack of qualifications for this job." But Jeanne Allen, the CEO for the Center for Education
Reform, a school choice advocacy organization, sees DeVos' appointment as something to celebrate. "They're singing a song that we've been
singing for a long time," she said of the secretary and her team. That's a far cry from the way Allen expected things would play out early in the
fall, when nearly everyone in Washington was anticipating that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, then-candidate Trump's Democratic
rival, would be in the White House. Allen said her organization was "prepared first and foremost to put most of our time and energy into state
battles and efforts."
 Funding---Policy Details

Education spending guarantees bitter partisan fights---the devils in the details

Kirst, 09 Dr. Michael W. Kirst, Education Prof Emeritus at Stanford, and Frederick M. Wirt, Poli Sci Prof
Emeritus at Illinois, Politics of Federal Aid, Ch. 11 in The Political Dynamics of American Education, Fourth
Edition

Politics of Federal Aid

While the 2000 presidential election catapulted education from a secondary issue to one of the most visible and
contested, the 2008 race had scant focus on education. Consequently, it was a surprise that education played such a
significant role in President Obama's 2009 stimulus package. Historically, public concern focused on the quality of
K-12 education, while postsecondary education was not viewed as a major problem in public opinion polls. After the
recession in 1981-83, K-12 education was rated near the top of public issues. Currently, the public is frustrated that
so little K-12 progress is being made, but is uncertain about supporting bold and expensive presidential K-12
initiatives. Despite President Bush's leadership in passing NCLB, federal expenditures never exceeded 8.5 percent
of total K-12 spending. President Bush's new education program, No Child Left Behind, did not push the federal
share much higher, because of the need to finance his tax cut and the Iraq War. In 2008 other issues pushed
education to a secondary concern in the presidential campaigns, but the economic recession enabled education to be
part of a recovery program of over $100 billion. The Secretary of Education has a discretionary grant program of $5
billion called Race to the Top that may increase dramatically the current federal role in domains like teacher merit
pay, charter schools, and school restructuring.
Despite the heated partisan rhetoric, there is a surprising bipartisan consensus about some needed education policy
directions. Both parties want more qualified teachers, more money for science and math improvement,
accountability, and aid for college students. However, the political devil is in the details, where Democrats resist
consolidations of popular categorical programs. Bush made education his first public policy proposal after the 2001
inauguration. He created a bipartisan coalition to pass a significant education bill. The Democratic swing votes for
his coalition in his first term, however, did not endure because Democrats constructed their own education agenda.
While national high-stakes testing seems dead for now, both parties want to review low standards in state and local
testing frequently used for NCLB compliance.
The current political debate is built on layers of bedrock laid down from prior federal political activity. This
bedrock will not be blasted away but will most likely increase . The biggest political change in the last decade has
been increased partisanship , and a lack of bipartisan education policy except for NCLB in 2001, and improvements
in science and mathematics. Before we revisit the current federal debate, it is necessary to look back at how we have
gotten to where we are. Briefly, the federal role grew dramatically in the second half of the twentieth century, but it
has not begun to eclipse the education policy roles of state and local governments.
 Funding---Polarization

Federal education funding polarized causes poisonous congressional fighting and GOP backlash no turns
perceived as inherently ineffective
Lamiell, 12 --- Patricia, Director Media Relations @ Teachers College, University Columbia, 2/10,
http://www.tc.columbia.edu/articles/2012/february/how-should-politics-influence-
education-policy/
How Should Politics Influence Education Policy? How much does national education policy make a difference in classrooms, and how much
do national politics drive education policy in America, where schools, curricula and teaching have been controlled at
the local and state levels since the dawn of public schools? A lot, according to three distinguished education policy
analysts who took part in a panel discussion on February 8 to inaugurate the Colleges new Education Policy and Social analysis (EPSA)
Department and potentially never more so than now, as Congress weighs reauthorization of the federal No Child
Left Behind law against the backdrop of a highly polarized presidential campaign. The panel discussion, held in TCs Cowin
Conference Center, was moderated by Jeffrey Henig, Professor of Political Science and Education and EPSA department chair. It featured
Christopher T. Cross, a former U.S. Under Secretary of Education and current Chairman of Cross & Joftus, an education-policy consulting firm;
Jack Jennings, founder and recently retired Director of the Center on Education Policy, an education research firm; and Wendy D. Puriefoy,
President of the Public Education Network (PEN), the nations largest network of community-based school reform organizations. Prompted by
Henig, thepanelistswho were welcomed by TC President Susan Fuhrmandiscussed the often bitter and sometimes even
violent disagreements on federal versus local control of education policy that have erupted since the school
desegregation battles of the 1960s. Puriefoy told how, as a young woman, she monitored court-ordered desegregation in Boston, visiting
schools and reporting back to a federal judge whose appointment owed to the victory of Lyndon Johnson, a passionate advocate of school
desegregation, in the 1964 presidential election. Reaching much further back, Puriefoy argued that desegregation surely would never have
occurred had not Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves. Federal politics and education policy are inextricably linked , she said. The
bottom line for all three panelists: Most major changes to American schools have resulted from federal law, jurisprudence or
policy. Cross noted that Title I funding, enacted in 1965, provided extra funding for schools with economically disadvantaged children.
Congress passed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (later the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA) in 1975, when
the notion that children with disabilities should be educatedlet alone integrated into classrooms with non-disabled children, as is happening
nowwas a revolutionary idea. NCLB, enacted in 2002, has had an enormous effect on how and what gets taught, in Crosss view, forcing
teachers to focus on testing at the expense of deep learning. And the Race to the Top program of the Obama administration has significantly
affected spending priorities, teaching and learning in public schools. The question of whether national policy has influenced education
unquestionably has to be answered yes, Cross said. The reality is that almost everything that goes on is, in fact, guided by
what happened in federal policy at some point, even though people in the classroom may not recognize it. The idea that education
policy is or somehow should be apolitical simply is not borne out by history or current facts , Jennings said. A recent case
in point: If John McCain had been elected president in 2008, he, unlike President Obama, would very likely have allowed thousands of teachers
jobs to be eliminated by drastic budget cuts made necessary by the recession. And should Obama fail to win reelection this coming fall, a
Republican president may well seek to do away with the U.S. Department of Education. Policy should really be
integrated into politics, Jennings said. If people of good will dont deal with policy, he said, decisions will be left to those who are not
equipped to make themor worse, who are simply uninterested in fairness and equity in education. The panelists were unanimous in their
criticism of NCLB, which Puriefoy said has gone horribly awry, but they differed on what to do about it. The law has not been amended since
its bipartisan passage in early 2002, and while both Democrats and Republicans now agree it should be changed, Republicans dont want to give
credit to Obama for amending it, Jennings said. Puriefoy concurred, adding that the environment in Congress has become much
more poisonous, and it has become more difficult to create the environment we need in order to transform
education. And while education has always been a polarizing issue , and minorities have always had to fight for access to good
education, for the first time in the countrys history, people dont believe their childrens lives will be better than theirs, Puriefoy
said. They dont believe in the ability of institutions to bring about change . So can anything be doneand is this years
presidential election an opportunity to put national education issues before voters in a way they will notice? Cross was skeptical, but said he
would like both parties to discuss education issues after the election to find common ground. Jennings suggested creating federal-state
partnerships modeled on those in Germany, but Puriefoy noted that Germany also supports children and families with programs other than
education. Schools cant be responsible on their own, she said. They need help. To Henigs final questionWhat would you like to see in
the next administration?Cross replied that the U.S. Department of Education should get rid of the silosEnglish Language Learners, Special
Education and others, which are too large, bureaucratic and costly. Jennings warned that the incoming president should not listen to
the radical right, but instead totally rethink school financing , which is currently based on property taxes, and fight the
long tradition of anti-intellectualism in this country by pursuing a new agenda that focuses on quality curriculum and
teaching. Puriefoy called for a rededication to educating all sectors of children, strong federal standards, and getting rid of states rights. This
fragmentation in education is just unacceptable. We need a new intellectual contract in this country, she said. Good policy follows good
intention. If we resolve to educate every child in this country, regardless of ZIP code, were going to have to dismantle what were
doing. Were not going to get there without significant disruption.

Federal education funding causes congressional gridlock and paralysis

AASCU, 15 ---- American Association of State Colleges and Universities, Policy Brief, January,
www.aascu.org/policy/publications/policy-
matters/Top10StatePolicyIssues2015.pdf+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
States have constitutional authority over higher education, and state lawmakers, working in concert with campus governing bodies, have
jurisdiction over foundational higher education policies: state funding, capital construction, enrollment policy and tuition pricing. States
role
in determining the policy framework for public colleges and universities is only expected to intensify this year, as political
polarization and paralysis in Congress have left a backlog of federal education bills for congressional committees to
consider in the next session. Much attention will be on Congress ability to govern effectively now that the U.S. House and Senate are both in the
hands of Republicans. If Congress success in the 114th session is assessed in comparison to the outgoing sessionwhether related to education
or notthe threshold for success is unusually low, given that the just-concluded 113th session of Congress witnessed the lowest number of bills
passed in modern Congressional history.
One of the most concrete examples of federal education policy stasis is the unlikely Congressional passage this
year of the overdue reauthorization of the Higher Education Act (HEA). Among all the higher education policies and programs ripe for
reform, there exists a tremendous need and opportunity for Congress to use the HEA reauthorization to align state and federal higher
education financing and incentivize states to re-invest in public higher education. Recent traction in the U.S. Senate on a proposed
State-Federal College Affordability Partnershipan annual federal block grant designed to spur new state investments in public higher
educationwill likely be slowed due to changes in Senate leadership. Public higher education leaders will be called on to work
with their Congressional delegation to build awareness and support of the State-Federal College Affordability Partnership in order
to ensure that it is included in the final HEA reauthorization bill. An in-depth discussion of potential implications for higher education policy
stemming from the 2014 elections is provided in the policy brief, Higher Education and the 2014 Elections, published by the American
Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU). The paper discusses the Obama administrations higher education agenda, the
Congressional outlook for its 114th session, policy challenges Congress will face, as well as state-level outcomes of the elections. This paper
provides a summary of the top 10 higher education policy issues that are likely to witness considerable activity in state legislatures across the
country this year. It is the view of the AASCU state relations and policy staff that these issues will be at the forefront of both discussion and
action in state capitols. This eighth annual synopsis is informed by a variety of sources, including an environmental scan of outcomes from last
years legislative sessions, recent gubernatorial priorities, as well as trends and events that are shaping the higher education policy
landscape. Some issues are perennial in nature, while others reflect more recent economic, fiscal and political dynamics . Results, no
doubt, will vary by state.
 Funding---Tea Party
New spending gets slammed by fiscal hawks and the Tea Party
Viser, 17 Matt Viser and Victoria McGrane, 2-08-2017, President Trumps massive spending plans and tax cuts
will challenge Congress deficit hawks, The Boston Globe

His big-ticket spending plans put the new president, who boasted as a businessman that he was the king of debt,
on a collision course with fiscal conservatives in Congress who for years have railed against the ballooning debt,
which is approaching $20 trillion.
It is one of the most glaring ways in which Trump is attempting to remake the Republican Party, shaking ideological
bedrock for some conservatives who have spent careers arguing for less government spending. The new Republican
in the White House is talking down fiscal austerity and behaving more like a populist big spender, looking to prime
the pump of the economy to benefit workers across the country.
A balanced budget is fine, Trump told Fox News Sean Hannity recently. But sometimes you have to fuel the
well in order to really get the economy going.
During his first weeks in the White House, he not only touted new spending plans but also floated the idea of a 20
percent import tax on Mexican goods that could hit American consumers at car dealerships, retail counters, and
supermarkets.
Even with an improving economy, his rhetoric seems to reflect the philosophy Democrats used to justify the federal
stimulus in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis spending that, though widely credited with spurring the
economic recovery, helped spark Tea Party backlash and sweep Republicans back to power.
Trumps fellow Republicans so far appear muted in their concerns about his fiscal approach. Their reticence could
open them up to charges of abandoning core principles or even of hypocrisy that they only really mobilize
against spending when a Democrat is proposing it.
This is a huge test for the Republican Congress, said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a
Responsible Federal Budget. Now they own the policy choices. If they suddenly walk away from their goals of
fiscal responsibility they will be hugely hypocritical .
Links---Federal Mandates/Regs
 Regs---1NC

Top-down mandates are political suicide that ignite bipartisan and union backlash
Usdan, 16 Dr. Michael D. Usdan, PhD from Columbia, Senior Fellow and Former President of the Institute for
Educational Leadership, 2-04-2016, The Ever Debatable Federal Role: Implications for Education Policy, Institute
for Educational Leadership

I trust that this somewhat lengthy historical contextual presentation has provided the necessary backdrop to fully
understand the nature of the contemporary polarized debate about the appropriate role that should be played by the
federal government in determining educational policy. The history is important because it helps to explain why the
unprecedented proactive role played by the federal government in very recent years has elicited such negative
responses from those who believe so strongly that it runs counter to the American tradition of local and state
control of education which has prevailed throughout most of our history.
Passage of the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation in 2001, which was a further reauthorization of the
original ESEA, represented a singularly important landmark in the history and evolution of the federal role in
education. For the first time, federal legislation was enacted that had direct ramifications for the teachers and
students in every school and classroom in the land. George W. Bush, a compassionate conservative Republican
president, spearheaded passage of the bill which generated broad bipartisan support among influential liberal
Democrats, particularly the late Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts and Representative George Miller of
California. The irony is that NCLB, unquestionably the most intrusive federal legislation ever enacted by the U.S.
Congress, was initiated by a Republican president leading the party which traditionally had opposed for decades
more extensive federal involvement in school matters. Passage of the NCLB legislation, in essence, was the
capstone of years of efforts to make schools more accountableefforts that were supported by the countrys most
influential business and political leaders.
NCLB imposed a host of requirements on school districts if they wished to maintain their eligibility for federal
funding. The bill required (among other things): annual testing in reading and math in grades 3-8, interventions in
low-performing schools, teacher evaluations, mandatory public school and supplemented services if school failures
persisted, and reports on Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), disaggregated data.
This cascading of requirements , as NCLB was implemented, not surprisingly generated tremendous discontent
among teachers, administrators, and school board members throughout the country. In addition to trampling on the
hallowed traditions of local control of education, complaints were rampant that more and more decisions were being
made by those who were furthest from the classrooms where teaching and learning occur.
These complaints were transmitted to elected officials at every governmental level as NCLB ultimately became
toxic. Efforts to reauthorize the legislation (an event that is to occur every five years) failed and the original
legislation still stands at this writing 14 years after its original enactment. New political coalitions have formed over
the years with very different perspectives as to what a newly authorized ESEA should look like. Civil rights and
equity advocates remain distrustful as to whether states and localities will meet the educational needs of growing
members of poor and minority children. They continue to have greater confidence that federal officials will be more
mindful of equity concerns than their state and local counterparts.
The Democrats themselves are divided over the shape of NCLBs next iteration. For example, a relatively new
organization, Democrats for Education Reform, has been supportive of charters and many of the accountability
measures undertaken by the Obama Administration. The organizations representing educators such as the
multimillion member teacher unions, school administrators, and school board members, who usually are firmly in
the Democratic camp on federal legislative issues, have been alienated by policies of the present Department of
Education. The Department, they feel, has ignored the perspectives of practitioners and professional educators and
has pushed for unfair and unproven accountability measures that undermine teacher and administrator morale.
The Republicans, having gained control of both the House and the Senate in the November 2014 elections, have as
their major agenda restoring the prerogatives of the states and localities in determining education policy. They
sharply criticize federal overreach and desire to consolidate federal programs and give the states far greater
influence. Indeed, Republicans advocate stripping most of the federal authority and punitive elements currently
embedded in NCLB. Although some components of a renamed NCLB, such as Title I, school ratings, charter school
grants and disaggregated data, will probably survive the reauthorization process whenever it might occur, and the
Republican Congress will no doubt persist in seeking to dramatically curb the federal role. Republicans simply will
not support a continuation of the current level of federal influence, and the viability of compromise with Democrats
and those supporting continued federal leadership on equity and related issues is a very open question, as is the
issue of whether a presidential veto can be averted.
 Regs---Top Shelf 2NC****
The plan is a politically-unthinkable expansion of federal authority post-ESSA that destroys Trumps
mandate and divides both parties
*Calls out: bipart, focus, GOP unity, dem unity, public, + federalism
Reville, 16 Paul Reville, Professor of Practice of Educational Policy and Administration at the Harvard Grad
School of Education, 11-09-2016, What the Trump presidency will mean for schools,
https://www.tes.com/us/news/breaking-news/what-trump-presidency-will-mean-schools

Its unclear where hell take us on education, how much of a priority education is on his agenda and what kind of
leaders hell appoint. After all, Trump has no track record on education and during the campaign evinced little
interest in the subject of schooling. He sometimes even seemed confused about the federal role in education.
While he is clearly committed to leading with a powerful choice initiative coupled with heavy doses of policy and
rhetoric about returning education to local control, he will find it more complicated than he might have
anticipated to lead on education at the federal level.
For example, President Trump will find he does not have the power to tell states to get rid of the Common Core
because the federal government is explicitly prohibited from telling states which standards they can or cant adopt.
While choice advocates are thrilled with his adoption of their silver bullet, the President will undoubtedly have
problems maneuvering his agenda through a Congress which has recently adopted the Every Student Succeeds Act
( ESSA). ESSA was animated by a clear message to the Federal government that it should retreat from the activist
role played by the Obama Administration in implementing an aggressive interpretation of the No Child Left
B ehind Act and assuming even more prerogatives with the Race to the T op initiative. Congress clearly prefers a
less muscular federal role in state and local education decisions.
At the same time, Congress is deeply divided not only between the political parties but within each party over
education matters. The ideological differences are huge and views are passionately held . For example, shifting
Elementary and Secondary Education Act money from Title I to school choice will be a battle royale as would
a policy shift to allow public monies to go to private schools.
President Trump will have much work to do in unifying his own party around his education agenda to say nothing
of attracting Democrats who, themselves, are deeply divided on many of these issues. The President will not have
a blank check.
Policy advocates and practitioners will likely be confused for some time as to the Trump Administrations intentions
for K-12 schooling. Obviously, there are other topics on the domestic and international scenes which will consume
his immediate attention. In education, his leadership choices will begin to tell the story. Then, theres a question of
how much of his campaign rhetoric he really intends to pursue, especially as he is someone who has never governed
and, at the same time, was a candidate who frequently seemed willing to say anything, whether he believed it or not,
to get elected.
His intentions are unknown. Eventually, we hope to find out what he really believes. But in the meantime, we can
expect him to select unconventional leaders like Ben Carson, whose education views Trump has publicly lauded,
and choice champions who see his presidency as their opportunity to break the education monopoly and
transform education in America.
Its a new day in America. For some, the Trump presidency looks like the end of business as usual and a
transition to a brave, new world whose features are unclear. For others, this is a time of great promise.
President-elect Trump certainly has everyones attention, however its important to remember that change has
always, throughout our history, come slowly in the field of education. This is why our 21st century schools and
classrooms still look disturbingly similar to schools of 150 years ago. We need change and transformation in
education but we have violent disagreements over the strategies we should employ to serve our children better,
more equitably.
The new president has some ideas and has earned the right to see where he can go with them, but I wouldnt expect
any miracles. The status quo is amazingly resilient and change comes hard, especially when children are involved
and lots of adult interests are at stake. One day at a time. We shall see and hope for the best.
 Regs---PC

Fed education requirements cause massive fights, GOP backlash and PC loss no turns perceived as
inherently ineffective
Lamiell, 12 --- Patricia, Director Media Relations @ Teachers College, University Columbia, 2/10,
http://www.tc.columbia.edu/articles/2012/february/how-should-politics-influence-
education-policy/
How Should Politics Influence Education Policy? How much does national education policy make a difference in classrooms, and how much
do national politics drive education policy in America, where schools, curricula and teaching have been controlled at
the local and state levels since the dawn of public schools? A lot, according to three distinguished education policy
analysts who took part in a panel discussion on February 8 to inaugurate the Colleges new Education Policy and Social analysis (EPSA)
Department and potentially never more so than now, as Congress weighs reauthorization of the federal No Child
Left Behind law against the backdrop of a highly polarized presidential campaign. The panel discussion, held in TCs Cowin
Conference Center, was moderated by Jeffrey Henig, Professor of Political Science and Education and EPSA department chair. It featured
Christopher T. Cross, a former U.S. Under Secretary of Education and current Chairman of Cross & Joftus, an education-policy consulting firm;
Jack Jennings, founder and recently retired Director of the Center on Education Policy, an education research firm; and Wendy D. Puriefoy,
President of the Public Education Network (PEN), the nations largest network of community-based school reform organizations. Prompted by
Henig, thepanelistswho were welcomed by TC President Susan Fuhrmandiscussed the often bitter and sometimes even
violent disagreements on federal versus local control of education policy that have erupted since the school
desegregation battles of the 1960s. Puriefoy told how, as a young woman, she monitored court-ordered desegregation in Boston, visiting
schools and reporting back to a federal judge whose appointment owed to the victory of Lyndon Johnson, a passionate advocate of school
desegregation, in the 1964 presidential election. Reaching much further back, Puriefoy argued that desegregation surely would never have
occurred had not Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves. Federal politics and education policy are inextricably linked , she said. The
bottom line for all three panelists: Most major changes to American schools have resulted from federal law, jurisprudence or
policy. Cross noted that Title I funding, enacted in 1965, provided extra funding for schools with economically disadvantaged children.
Congress passed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (later the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA) in 1975, when
the notion that children with disabilities should be educatedlet alone integrated into classrooms with non-disabled children, as is happening
nowwas a revolutionary idea. NCLB, enacted in 2002, has had an enormous effect on how and what gets taught, in Crosss view, forcing
teachers to focus on testing at the expense of deep learning. And the Race to the Top program of the Obama administration has significantly
affected spending priorities, teaching and learning in public schools. The question of whether national policy has influenced education
unquestionably has to be answered yes, Cross said. The reality is that almost everything that goes on is, in fact, guided by
what happened in federal policy at some point, even though people in the classroom may not recognize it. The idea that education
policy is or somehow should be apolitical simply is not borne out by history or current facts , Jennings said. A recent case
in point: If John McCain had been elected president in 2008, he, unlike President Obama, would very likely have allowed thousands of teachers
jobs to be eliminated by drastic budget cuts made necessary by the recession. And should Obama fail to win reelection this coming fall, a
Republican president may well seek to do away with the U.S. Department of Education. Policy should really be
integrated into politics, Jennings said. If people of good will dont deal with policy, he said, decisions will be left to those who are not
equipped to make themor worse, who are simply uninterested in fairness and equity in education. The panelists were unanimous in their
criticism of NCLB, which Puriefoy said has gone horribly awry, but they differed on what to do about it. The law has not been amended since
its bipartisan passage in early 2002, and while both Democrats and Republicans now agree it should be changed, Republicans dont want to give
credit to Obama for amending it, Jennings said. Puriefoy concurred, adding that the environment in Congress has become much
more poisonous, and it has become more difficult to create the environment we need in order to transform
education. And while education has always been a polarizing issue , and minorities have always had to fight for access to good
education, for the first time in the countrys history, people dont believe their childrens lives will be better than theirs, Puriefoy
said. They dont believe in the ability of institutions to bring about change . So can anything be doneand is this years
presidential election an opportunity to put national education issues before voters in a way they will notice? Cross was skeptical, but said he
would like both parties to discuss education issues after the election to find common ground. Jennings suggested creating federal-state
partnerships modeled on those in Germany, but Puriefoy noted that Germany also supports children and families with programs other than
education. Schools cant be responsible on their own, she said. They need help. To Henigs final questionWhat would you like to see in
the next administration?Cross replied that the U.S. Department of Education should get rid of the silosEnglish Language Learners, Special
Education and others, which are too large, bureaucratic and costly. Jennings warned that the incoming president should not listen to
the radical right, but instead totally rethink school financing, which is currently based on property taxes, and fight the
long tradition of anti-intellectualism in this country by pursuing a new agenda that focuses on quality curriculum and
teaching. Puriefoy called for a rededication to educating all sectors of children, strong federal standards, and getting rid of states
rights. This fragmentation in education is just unacceptable. We need a new intellectual contract in this country, she said. Good policy
follows good intention. If we resolve to educate every child in this country, regardless of ZIP code, were going to have to dismantle
what were doing. Were not going to get there without significant disruption.

Theres massive backlash to federal reform that sinks capital---impossible expectations magnify the link
Mirel, 9 Jeffrey E. Mirel, Professor of Education and History at Michigan, and Maris A. Vinovskis, Professor of
History and Public Policy at Michigan, March 2009, Perennial Problems with Federal Reform Education in the
United States, Politique amricaine, No. 15, https://www.cairn.info/revue-politique-americaine-2009-3-page-
11.htm

Federal reform
In the U nited States, politicians, political scientists, and media pundits often use the statement politics is the art of
the possible to explain the processes that shape new policies and programs. When it comes to education, however,
U.S. presidents frequently engage in something that might well be called politics as the art of the impossible .
Since at least the administration of Lyndon B. Johnson, a nearly continuous string of American presidents have put
their political prestige and their political capital behind a series of educational reform efforts that routinely have
failed to achieve the lofty goals set out for them. This essay provides an historical overview of these efforts and
speculates on the degree to which the administration of Barack Obama will follow this long-standing trend.
Historical Overview of Education in the U.S.
In their recent book on the history of Title I, the key section of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA), a massive federal program designed to improve schooling for poor and minority children, David K. Cohen
and Sarah L. Moffitt identify two aspects of American public education that have bedeviled virtually all such reform
efforts. First, Cohen and Moffitt point out that since the passage of the ESEA, despite billions of federal dollars
spent on educational reform, precious little research has convincingly identified policies and practices that can make
a significant difference in boosting the educational achievement of disadvantaged students[1]. Even in those rare
instances where new ideas and programs actually produced promising results, efforts to scale up such programs
for national use have often fallen far short of expectations. Put simply, in the United States today, there is no well-
respected, widely accepted, field-proven body of research that educators can look to for guidance about improving
the educational attainment of poor and minority children[2].
Second, Cohen and Moffitt argue that even if such a body of research was available, the unusual political structure
of American public education makes the dissemination and, more important, the implementation of new and
potentially fruitful reforms challenging at best. Unlike the political structure governing public education in virtually
every other developed country in the world, the U nited States is home to a situation in which the central
government plays a relatively minor role in shaping educational policy and practice. Rather the 50 states and the
approximately 14,000 local school districts within the states are the major funders and providers of public schools in
the country. This arrangement has deep philosophical and historical roots and it has profoundly shaped the nature of
federal educational policy throughout American history. To understand where this unusual arrangement came from
and why it makes educational reform so challenging in the U.S., we need to take a quick historical look at the
development of American public education.
In the late eighteenth century, the drafters of the U.S. constitution delegated authority over education to the states,
convinced that the power to influence young minds should not lie in the federal government but rather belonged to
the people at the state and local levels. For almost four decades following the ratification of the constitution, the
states implied power over education mostly lay dormant. But beginning in the second quarter of the nineteenth
century when the common school movement introduced public schools into every northern state, state authority
was firmly established by educational reformers. Nevertheless, states quickly delegated most of their educational
authority to school boards or school committees that were elected in local elections[3].
As a consequence of this decentralization of educational power, the elected leaders of local school districts made
virtually all the important decisions over educational policy and practice (e.g., determining the local school tax rate,
shaping the curriculum, choosing textbooks, and hiring and firing teachers). Following the Civil War, this
arrangement of weak state oversight and strong local control was implemented throughout the South, essentially
making this scheme the national template for decades to come[4]. As late as the 1939-1940 school year, there were
over 117,000 public school districts in the United States, each an independent political jurisdiction that operated
with little, if any, state oversight[5].
However, in the late 1930s and 1940s, states began exercising greater influence over local school systems due to the
increasing amounts of state funding flowing to local districts. As the financial role of the states grew, so too did the
power of state departments of education. Gradually these departments expanded their influence over educational
policies covering a wide range of activities including mandating criteria for teacher certification, setting state
requirements for high school graduation, and determining state curriculum standards[6]. Perhaps the best example
of this process can be seen in the campaigns to reduce the number of local school districts in order to create more
financially viable and educationally efficient state systems. By 1949-1950, the number of school districts in the U.S.
had fallen to about 84,000. A decade later, the number dropped by more than half to just over 40,000, and by the
1980s the number of districts stood at about 16,000. Over the next twenty years the number of districts has
continued to decline albeit slowly. Today there are still about 14,000 local school districts in the country.
The main point of this brief historical overview is to point out that there is no single American system of public
education. Rather, the U.S. has 50 different state school systems that have delegated much of their power and
authority to the 14,000 locally controlled school districts. To be fair, there is a considerable amount of commonality
in the educational policies and programs of the 50 different state systems and in the local districts within these
systems. For example, the vast majority of the schools districts across the United States are funded through a
combination of taxes on property within the districts and additional funds from the state government (raised through
a wide array of efforts ranging from state lotteries to taxes on the sale of items such as liquor and cigarettes)[7].
But despite their commonalities, these 50 state systems and their 14,000 sub-systems are distinct political entities
whose interests and concerns are often quite different not just from those in other states and regions but even from
districts that are right next door to one another. Moreover, these relatively independent political jurisdictions have
the ability to water-down, to co-opt, and to a considerable extent even veto externally mandated reform efforts[8].
In other words, any federal initiative to reform public education must take state and local educational interests very
seriously. As Cohen and Moffitt argue, the unique governance arrangement of American public education has been
and continues to be a crucial factor in defining and limiting both the nature and scope of all federally sponsored
reform efforts. With that in mind, we now turn to an overview of federal reform efforts in the last half-century.

Education Regs drain finite PC spills over and derails other agenda items
Matveev, 00 --- Alexei Matveev, Department of Educational Policy, Planning, and Leadership, College of William
and Mary, https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/109c/4368a0ec2294107a2b60ab9eb6011999ffb7.pdf
The bottom line is that the problems of development and administration of higher education policy will never be solved
because the conflict between equality and economic efficiency is inescapable. In that sense, capitalism and democracy are really a most
improbable mixture. Maybe that is why they need one another - to put some rationality into equality and some humanity into efficiency" (Okun
1975.) The only way for successful policy construction appears to be political bargaining and " muddling through" in
search of the shaky institutional equilibrium and satisfying temporary solutions for the perceived conflicts. Sub-optimisation and
incrementalism in contrast to maximisation and radicalism are simultaneously a curse and a blessing of democracy. We should
understand that only a limited number of goals can be achieved in a contemporary diverse public higher arena no
matter how compelling the argument or virtuous its claimants are. While choosing a primary institution of higher education
coordination (whether it is the market, government regulations, or academic democracy), we choose not between good
and bad, but, rather, between complementary, although at times conflicting and competing rules and values . There is no
theoretical model for the correct balance [of market forces, government regulation and academic democracy] at a given time,
so we are left with making subjective judgments based upon common sense and upon both conscious and unconscious
biases (Berdahl et al, 1999, p. 10.) These individual choices are made in the institutional context that simultaneously
constrains the individual actors and plays the role of a tool-kit for policy development and administration. One-sided focus
on either institutional context or actors level would miss the boat in understanding educational policy.
 Regs---Process Link
Independently, the speed and process of plans reform guarantees backlash
Shapiro, 16 Robert Y. Shapiro, professor and former chair of the Department of Political Science at Columbia
University; Anja Kilibarda, Sofi Sinozich, and Oliver McClellan of Columbia University; 4-22-2016, American
Public Opinion and Partisan Conflict, draft version for conference The Politics of Education Policy: An
International Perspective at Harvard

Hesss (2015) pointed review of The Real Obama Education Record demonstrates the persistent difficulties and
contentiousness of efforts to improve schooling. While the Obama administrations post-partisan intentions to
capitalize on bipartisan support may have been good, the devil was in all the big details of implementing reforms.
Writing before the passage of the 2015 Act, Hess, describes the struggle involving federal pressure to implement
Common Core standards, and one take-away from this is that the same could occur in the implementation of the
new education legislation. Hess argues that had the Obama administration eased up on the pressure, requiring
promised for state innovations through waivers, the Common Core standards would have been a voluntary
initiative in 15 or 20 states, with far greater commitment from participating state officials. Absent federal demands,
efforts to rethink teacher evaluation, using student test-scores and emphasizing serious differentiation, would be a
still nascent effort in dozens states as they worked through options to find the best methods. (Hess, 2015, p.7-8).
Instead the administration pushed for nationwide adoption on a not well thought out timeline a political rather
than a practical one. Thus potentially promising reforms were bungled , turning encouraging developments into
divisive fads (p.8). This contribute to the need for a change of course in the new legislation, but Hesss analysis
raises the question of whether more of the same conflicts in federal-state-school implementation efforts will recur .
This is to say nothing of disagreements that can be found among the public related to differences in individuals
knowledge about education issues and policies, attitudes toward federal/state/local control, and individuals
perceptions and experiences with elementary and secondary educationas parents or through other points of direct
contact or observation; we see this in opinions toward school testing where partisanship matter very little if at all
(see Lay and Stokes-Brown, 2009; Peterson, Henderson, and West, 2014; Scheuler and West, 2016).
 Regs---Policy Details/Implementation Fights

Arduous implementation and authority disputes sap capital

*also a2: link turns
Mann, 16 Dr. Elizabeth Mann, Fellow in the Brown Center on Education Policy at Brookings, Poli Sci PhD from
Michigan, 8-03-2016, Familiar fissures evident in ESSA implementation debate,
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2016/08/03/familiar-fissures-evident-in-essa-
implementation-debate/

When President Obama signed the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) in December 2015, the law was hailed as a
bipartisan achievement and a dramatic improvement over the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). In
particular, Republicans and Democrats alike lauded the increase in state autonomy and the simultaneous rollback in
the Department of Educations authority.[1] Does this mean that the longstanding debate over the Department o f
Educations role in public education is settled? Not necessarily. Both the existing fault lines within education and
current political conditions suggest that the question of how much authority ESSA grants the Department over
states remains openboth to interpretation and further legislation. Let me explain.
Partisan disagreements over the laws implementation surfaced during committee hearings on the Departments
proposed regulations, released May 26. Republicans criticized the Departments proposed regulations as overreach,
arguing that under ESSA, the Department enjoys limited authority over state policy making. Indeed, in his opening
remarks to a Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committee hearing on ESSA implementation,
committee chairman Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) admonished Secretary of Education John King that already
were seeing disturbing evidence that the Department of Education is ignoring the law that the 22 members of this
committee worked so hard to craft.
From the other side of the aisle, Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) provided a counterweight to Sen. Alexanders
reprimand, emphasizing the importance of the Departments role in holding states accountable for student
achievement: while we were writing this law, we were deliberate on granting the Department the authority to
regulate on the law and hold schools and states accountable for education. In her remarks, she cites a letter from the
Leadership Council on Civil and Human Rights which unequivocally argues that ESSA preserves a robust role for
the Department of Education: ESSA is clear: The department has the authority and responsibility to issue
regulations and guidance, and to provide guidance and technical assistance for the implementation of the Every
Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).
The contrast between Sen. Alexander and Murrays viewpoints exposes a central debate over the Departments
proposed regulations and over ESSA implementation more broadly. This right-left split over the proper role of the
federal government in education policy is not hing new; Republicans and Democrats have been at odds over the
Department of Educations authority since Carter created the cabinet-level department in 1979 . Consider, for
example, heated debates along partisan lines over the Clinton administrations proposal to include opportunity to
learn standards in the 1994 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. As the excerpts above
indicate, this debate over how the Department should hold states accountable for student achievement remains
unresolved .
Paralleling these disagreements among elected officials, since its inception, public support for the Department of
Education (and by rough proxy, federal involvement in public education) has been divided . Roughly the same
proportion of national survey respondents agreed with the Reagan administrations position that the Department was
not needed (39 percent) as those who disagreed (37 percent), while almost a quarter of respondents (24 percent)
responded dont know.[2] Almost thirty years later, public perception of the Department remains split. In a
September 2015 national survey, 44 percent of respondents viewed the Department favorably, while 50 percent
viewed it unfavorably.[3]
Political conditions may also mean that despite bipartisan passage of ESSA, the debate over implementation is far
from over . Research suggests that congressional oversight of the executive branch increases under divided
government. Thus, there may be reason to expect more scrutiny of the Departments proposed regulations to
implement ESSA than if one or both houses of Congress was controlled by the Democrats. On the other hand, in a
new article Bolton, Potter and Thrower find that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) may
accelerate approval of rules that are presidential priorities, although the presidents ability to capitalize on this
advantage is hampered when OIRA is understaffed and over-worked. While the Republican-controlled Congress can
set the agenda in terms of committee hearings, drawing attention to its concerns with the Departments proposed
regulations, OIRA may face pressure to approve rules promulgated by the Department, currently run by Secretary
John King, an Obama appointee.
Finally, evidence suggests that laws passed under divided government are more likely to be amended in subsequent
years than those passed under unified government. The logic is that laws passed under divided government are
products of political compromise and as such are less coherent and more vulnerable to revision down the line.
Passed by a Republican Congress and signed by a Democratic president, ESSA certainly falls into this category.
Ultimately it is hard to say what impact these political conditions will have on the Departments proposed
regulations and on implementation of ESSA more broadly. But at the very least, these conditions are not conducive
to swift or decisive policy making. But that may not be a bad thing. Vigorous debate both across parties, and
across branches of government may help ensure that implementation of ESSA reflects neither a knee-jerk reaction
against NCLB and federal authority nor a defense of the NCLB-era status quo pertaining to the Departments role in
public education.
 Regs---Moderates
Federal mandates alienate the rank-and-file---drains PC and causes congressional mayhem
Mann, 17 Molly E Reynolds, fellow in Governance Studies at Brookings, and Dr. Elizabeth Mann, Fellow in the
Brown Center on Education Policy at Brookings, 2-21-2017, Rifts among congressional, state Republicans over
school choice, https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2017/02/21/gop-rifts-over-school-choice/

These geographic patterns, moreover, may have important consequences for Republican efforts to reshape education
policy even in the face of unified Republican control at the federal level. In Congress, major legislation is unlikely.
Republicans are traditionally champions of state and local control when it comes to education, and this has never
been truer than now. The new federal education law passed in 2015, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), rolled
back the federal role in education in a reversal from the No Child Left B ehind era. In the year since the law
passed, congressional Republicans have sought to restrict what they characterize as federal overreach by the Obama
administration. Just last week, the House passed a resolution to revoke an ESSA regulation finalized in November.
With this Republican-led trend in rolling back federal education authority not likely to reverse any time soon, it
seems unlikely that either chamber will embrace a sweeping federal law that mandates state-level policy change.
The $20 billion dollar school voucher program that President Trump proposed on the campaign trail and similar
school-choice oriented bills that would convert federal aid into individual scholarships may seem attractive to
Republicans eager to remove federal strings from federal education dollars, but it seems unlikely that such a
proposal would garner sufficient support in the Senate.
But lets briefly consider the possibility that such a bill would gain some traction, particularly with such a prominent
school choice advocate as Secretary of Education. Given the dynamics within the Republican Party when it comes to
school choice, members of Congress representing rural districts or largely rural states would be hard-pressed to
make the case for this type of federal intervention. As DeVoss 50-50 confirmation vote illustrates and political
scientist Mona Vakilifathi recently argued, there are no guarantees that the Republican leadership could count on
solid support from their rank-and-file members and the moderate Democrats most likely to vote with Republicans
hail from rural states and are unlikely to cross party lines on this issue.
Just as Republicans in Congress may resist school choice policies that may be a bad fit for rural communities, we are
likely to see similar pushback from state-level Republicans who represent rural voters. In states with large rural
populations, we may not see the forward momentum for school choice policies that DeVoss confirmation seems to
suggest at first glance. True, with unified Republican control of government in 24 states, we are likely entering a
particularly active period of conservative law making at the state level.
 Regs---Plan=Trump Loss/Flip Flop

Plan is a massive loss and flip flop on key Trump campaign promise
Green, 17 --- Erica, NYT, 4/26, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/us/politics/trump-education-policy-
review.html
Trump Orders Review of Education Policies to Strengthen Local Control President Trump issued a sweeping review
of federal education policies on Wednesday in an executive order to pinpoint areas where the government may be
overstepping in shaping operations of local school systems. The order requires Betsy DeVos, Mr. Trumps education secretary, to
review, modify and possibly repeal any regulations and guidelines that are not consistent with federal law. Mr. Trump described the order
as another critical step to restoring local control, and one that fulfills one of his campaign promises . For too
long, the federal government has imposed its will on state and local governments, Mr. Trump said at a news conference
to sign the order. The result has been education that spends more, and achieves far, far, far less. The review will be conducted within 300 days,
and its findings will be published in a public report. It aims to ensure local leaders will have the final say about what happens
in the classroom, said Rob Goad, a senior Education Department official. Ms. DeVos is already empowered to rescind guidance
and regulations, and has already done so, and any attempt at overturning laws would be subjected to a legal, regulatory process. In an
interview, Ms. DeVos called Mr. Trumps order a welcomed opportunity and a clear mandate to take that real hard
look at what weve been doing at the department level that we shouldnt be doing, and what ways we have
overreached. She said Mr. Trump had already espoused the importance of states and localities being able to address
issues that are closest to them. And when it comes to education, decisions made at local levels and at state levels
are the best ones , Ms. DeVos said. The review will focus on K-12 policy , Mr. Goad said. It will be overseen by a
regulatory task force headed by Robert Eitel, who was hired from the for-profit sector to serve as a senior counselor to Ms. DeVos. Mr.
Eitel is a vocal critic of regulations in higher-education and K-12 policy, and his hiring was controversial.
 Regs---Unfunded Mandates
Unfunded federal mandates empirically generate tremendous backlash
McGovern, 11 Shannon K. McGovern, JD from NYU School of Law, A NEW MODEL FOR STATES AS
LABORATORIES FOR REFORM: HOW FEDERALISM INFORMS EDUCATION POLICY, Nov 2011, Lexis

Financial obligations imposed from the top down also animate opposition to NCLB and federal education policy
generally. While NCLB had broad support in Congress, state legislatures controlled by both parties were so alarmed
by NCLB's new conditions that many took the unusual step of formally resisting its implementation. n80 At least
thirty-eight states considered, and some passed, legislative resolutions condemning NCLB, prohibiting the use of
state or local money to support it, and/or urging school districts to reject NCLB funds. n81 Utah went further,
famously becoming the first state to (temporarily) opt out of NCLB entirely. n82
The bulk of this formal opposition to NCLB is rooted in the contention that the states bear most of the costs of
implementing NCLB, in violation of the Spending Clause and NCLB's own unfunded mandates provision. n83 One
lawsuit brought by a state and another by school districts - instrumentalities of states - challenged NCLB on these
grounds but were dismissed. n84 While two unfavorable dispositions [*1535] cast doubt on the viability of legal
challenges to NCLB's unfunded mandates, n85 dicta in these cases have broad and important policy implications.
The Sixth Circuit recognized, albeit indirectly, that practical coercion under the Spending Clause can exist
independently of legally actionable, constitutionally infirm coercion, stating in unequivocal terms that "Congress has
not fully funded the cost of complying with NCLB." n86 Indeed, since the genesis of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA) in the 1960s, K-12 education expenditures by the federal government have increased in
absolute terms but remained flat relative to spending by states and localities. n87 The passage of NCLB, which
increased the number and extent of states' obligations under Title I, as well as the number of affected schools, did
not dramatically alter this calculus. n88 State and local governments remain responsible for most of the cost of
public education.
This data inevitably raises the question "whether it makes sense to permit the federal government ... to exert far
more policy influence than the federal government's financial contribution to state and local school district budgets
might traditionally warrant." n89 The most obvious answer, and thus the least satisfying, is that state implementation
of any of the major federal education initiatives is voluntary, at least in name. Recall, however, that Connecticut
objected to the financial balance struck by NCLB strongly enough to file a federal action, but apparently not
strongly enough to forego the funds in the first [*1536] place. n90 The current recession and concomitant state
budget deficits have surely exacerbated the problem. n91 The states' ability to make meaningful decisions about
whether to accept conditional grants depends not only on the amount in question and the relative burdens of the
strings attached, but also on the vagaries of the financial climate. n92 Neither Race to the Top nor Obama's proposal
for similar incentives-based Title I grants under a revamped and reauthorized NCLB has addressed the disparity
between federal and state spending.

Congress hates unfunded mandates

Joyce, 14 --- phillip, prof @ Maryland School Public Policy, Governing, 4/16,
http://www.governing.com/columns/smart-mgmt/col-is-era-unfunded-federal-mandates-over.html
Is the Era of Unfunded Federal Mandates Over? The current Congress has imposed few of these costly requirements.
But it may be premature for state, local and tribal governments to stop worrying. A Congressional Budget Office report issued in late March
includes a rather surprising revelation: With the exception of the Affordable Care Act and another law affecting child nutrition passed
in 2010, Congress has not passed any significant bill imposing unfunded mandates on state, local or tribal
governments since 2008. When the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) was passed in 1995, the problem was
considered so important that the bill that became this law was the first to be introduced in the new Republican-
controlled House after that party took over Congress for the first time in 40 years . The reason? Republicans desperately
wanted to amend the Constitution to require a balanced federal budget, but states and localities raised concerns that the federal
budget might be balanced simply by passing responsibilities -- and costs -- down to state and local governments.
UMRA requires the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to disclose the cost of any mandate as defined by the law, including
intergovernmental and private-sector mandates that exceed statutory thresholds, before a bill can be considered on the floor of the House
or the Senate. For 2013, that threshold was $75 million for intergovernmental mandates and $150 million for private-sector mandates. The notion
was that highlighting the cost would have a chilling effect on mandates . The most striking figure in the new CBO report
(which carries the not-so-catchy title of "A Review of CBO's Activities in 2013 Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act") is the small
number of laws enacted in 2013 that contained intergovernmental mandates. In fact, there were only four mandates in
the 72 bills that became law in 2013; none of these had costs above the threshold . One other bill -- immigration legislation
involving verification of employment eligibility -- would have had costs exceeding the threshold, but it did not become law. This 2013
experience compares to an average of 45 intergovernmental mandates per year in the prior four years, with only
seven (in two bills, both in 2010) with costs above the statutory threshold. So, judging from the activity reported by the CBO,
Congress has, for all intents and purposes, virtually stopped imposing costly mandates on state, local and tribal
governments. Further, CBO reports that only 13 laws containing 18 intergovernmental mandates above the threshold
have been enacted in the 18 years since UMRA took effect. There is no record of the pace of intergovernmental mandates prior to
the imposition of UMRA, but if the problem of unfunded mandates prompted the enactment of UMRA, the problem seems
to have all but gone away. There are several possible reasons for why this has occurred. First, the 1995 law simply may have worked as
intended. With more information about the cost of mandates available to federal lawmakers, Congress has refrained
from enacting mandates , or at least has taken action to lower the costs of the ones it does enact. The other possible explanations suggest
that more caution is in order. For one thing, it seems likely that the narrow definition of a mandate is partly at issue here. UMRA, for example,
does not cover most "conditions of assistance" even if meeting those conditions might cost state and local governments a lot of money. This
means that the requirements in the No Child Left Behind Act do not meet the UMRA definition of a mandate because states could (theoretically)
choose to forego the federal funding. Similarly, changes to Medicaid have not been identified as mandates because large portions of the program
are optional expansions that states have the authority to change. UMRA also does not cover legislation that supports the guarantee of a federal
constitutional right; if UMRA had been around when the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed, for example, the requirements in that law
would not have been identified as mandates. In addition, as has been well documented, the current Congress not only has failed to pass unfunded
mandates -- it has failed to do lots of things. The 113th Congress passed 72 bills last year, 40 percent fewer than the number passed in 2009 and
less than half of the number passed in 2005. This is a rare positive attribute of a so-called "do nothing" (or, to be fair, "do little") Congress: no
laws, no mandates. In the future, if we return to government controlled by a single party (or even a unified Congress), state and local
governments worried about unfunded mandates imposed by Washington will have to return to a vigilant stance. For the time being,
however, the highly partisan and dysfunctional nature of lawmaking in Congress appears to have at least one silver
lining.
 Regs---A2: Link Turns

Content of the plan is irrelevant---opposition to mandates is structural, not rational, which means the link
only goes one direction
McGovern, 11 Shannon K. McGovern, JD from NYU School of Law, A NEW MODEL FOR STATES AS
LABORATORIES FOR REFORM: HOW FEDERALISM INFORMS EDUCATION POLICY, Nov 2011, Lexis

In its broadest form, opposition to federal oversight of education rests on structural or ideological arguments that
view the states as the historical, and thus rightful , overseers of public education in our federalist system. n33 The
expansion of federal education policy in recent [*1526] years has increasingly shifted the discourse from a debate
on the merits of any federal intervention to an evaluation of the federalism implications of particular federal
programs. Familiarity with recent education initiatives is therefore crucial for understanding persistent legal and
policy objections to the federal role in education. In this subsection, I briefly describe two of many such programs:
NCLB and Race to the Top. These programs will then inform my analysis of the most salient risks posed by a strong
federal role in the formation of education policy.
 Regs---A2: Plan is Small
Even small mandates get vilified as a stepping stone to bureaucratic control
---Specifically calls out unfunded mandates
Usdan, 16 Dr. Michael D. Usdan, PhD from Columbia, Senior Fellow and Former President of the Institute for
Educational Leadership, 2-04-2016, The Ever Debatable Federal Role: Implications for Education Policy, Institute
for Educational Leadership

One of the inherent tensions in the recent expansion of federal influence relates to the fundamental funding patterns
which support K-12 education. The federal governments share of support throughout most of the nations history,
as we alluded to earlier, has been approximately 4 to 6 percent. Currently it is only between 8 and 10 percent.
Indeed, even at the zenith of the Race to the Top program, which provided unprecedented resources to education,
the federal share was only approximately 15 percent.
What has happened somewhat uniquely in education is a contradiction of the popular adage that he who pays the
piper calls the tune. As federal influence has escalated, it has exacerbated tensions with local and state political and
educational leaders who ask the understandable question as to why the very junior financial partner can call the
tune and demand 100 percent of the accountability.
The 1975 passage of the federal Individual Disabilities and Education Act (IDEA) was of particular importance as it
finally shed a national spotlight on the special needs of thousands of youngsters with disabilities who were not able
to gain access to public education. It was estimated at the time IDEA was passed that almost half of special needs
children were not even attending school.
These programs, while receiving strong support among many equity-oriented citizens, also began to sow the seeds
of disenchantment with federal intrusiveness that are so manifest in todays volatile political context. Critics of the
federal role began to decry small categorical programs that have little impact and helped to create dysfunctional
narrow pass-through bureaucracies at the state and localas well as federal governmental levels. As the
categorical programs multiplied, critics bemoaned the hardening of the categories.
The backlash against elements of the IDEA legislation had even more significant implications for subsequent
debates about the appropriate federal role. Critics of IDEA, while applauding the beneficial aspects of widening
access to special services, condemned facets of the legislation as it was implemented . The federal government had
initially indicated that it would assume 40 percent of IDEA costs but the level of its support has remained less than
20 percent throughout the legislations history. This unfulfilled fiscal commitment played directly into the hands of
growing numbers of those who were critical of unfunded federal mandates. In addition, of course, the requirement
in IDEA that each student be the recipient of an individualized learning plan did not sit well with many teachers and
administrators who viewed the requirementfairly or unfairlyas another tedious federal bureaucratic constraint
and an intrusion upon their professional independence.
Links---Specific Areas
 Civil Rights/Minority Education Access---1NC

Election was a game-changer education civil rights and policies benefiting disadvantaged kids drain PC
Education Week, 17 --- 5/17, lexis
How Trump's Altered the Landscape for Education Advocates Education advocates in Washington might not always be
on the same page when it comes to policy, but there's at least one thing the vast majority agree on: The Trump administration-
buttressed by a Republican Congress-is unlike anything they've ever had to contend with before . In particular,
groups that lobby Congress and the U.S. Department of Education on behalf of public school educators, as well as those
representing civil rights issues and advocating for education funding, say that they are fighting what feels like a
multifront war against vouchers, dramatic budget cuts, and what some describe as a general antipathy toward public
schools and disadvantaged children . "Being an advocate for public education gives me job security," joked Noelle Ellerson Ng, the
associate executive director of AASA, the School Superintendents Association. "There's plenty to engage on." Another was more blunt: " It
really sucks, " the advocate said. To be sure, the situation is different-even reversed-for groups that champion school choice and other policy
approaches favored by the Trump administration and Republicans on Capitol Hill. Such groups often found themselves sidelined during President
Barack Obama's tenure. But there's a long list of issues that keep teachers' unions, civil rights organizations, and similar
advocates up at night. On the fiscal front, there's the Trump administration's pitch to cut $9 billion, or 13 percent, from the
Education Department's roughly $70 billion budget, including slashing key programs that help pay for teacher-quality initiatives
and after-school programs. The health-care bill could squeeze up to $4 billion in funding that schools use to cover special education services. And
there are concerns that the Trump administration won't continue to invest in rural broadband, which many educators worry could slow the
progress the Obama administration made in boosting connectivity in remote rural districts. Then there's the administration's big school choice
push, about which there are few hard-and-fast details. The Trump administration has asked for $1 billion in new Title I funding to be directed to
school choice in its budget request. And the spending plan also seeks increased funding for charter schools and resources for a private school
initiative. But the specifics of those programs remain cloudy, frustrating advocates on both sides of this contentious issue. Some organizations
say they are struggling to preserve what they see as victories from the Obama years, including a larger role for the department
in looking out for children's civil rights and a focus on resource equity. "The idea that we might be going backward is just
deeply frustrating," said Liz King, the director of education for the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. Level of
Unpredictability The mechanics of the job now are different, too. The political ranks at the Education Department are thin, since the White House
has been slow to fill subcabinet positions. Some Washington organizations have started providing the kind of technical assistance to their
members that the department used to provide, doing their best to answer questions about matters like implementation of the Every Student
Succeeds Act. Others say their communication with civil servants at the department has been markedly different-policy experts they've long
worked with aren't nearly as accessible or forthcoming. What's more, because President Trump doesn't have a full team in place and doesn't have
a long record on K-12 issues, it's tough for advocates to see around the corner when it comes to education policy and spending. That situation isn't
unique to education, said Mary Kusler, the senior director of the National Education Association's Center for Advocacy. "I would agree it's hard
[to be an advocate] because there is a level of unpredictability. That is not an education-only problem. It is a Washington, D.C., new-world-order
problem," she said. "It makes it impossible to plan for the long term." The choice of Betsy DeVos, a longtime school choice champion, as
education secretary only makes life harder from the perspective of groups like the NEA that vehemently opposed her confirmation. "For the first
time, we have a secretary of education who has no background in public education" and who has a singular focus on school choice, Kusler said.
"Every time she opens her mouth, she shows her lack of qualifications for this job." But Jeanne Allen, the CEO for the Center for Education
Reform, a school choice advocacy organization, sees DeVos' appointment as something to celebrate. "They're singing a song that we've been
singing for a long time," she said of the secretary and her team. That's a far cry from the way Allen expected things would play out early in the
fall, when nearly everyone in Washington was anticipating that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, then-candidate Trump's Democratic
rival, would be in the White House. Allen said her organization was "prepared first and foremost to put most of our time and energy into state
battles and efforts." Electoral Jolt But Trump's surprise win was a jolt of a different kind for many public school educators
and organizations that represent them in the nation's capital. "We went from hearing from our members [that they were] positive
and hopeful tothis drastic shift of almost panic," said Kelly Vaillancourt Strobach, the director of government relations for the National
Association of School Psychologists. "Every proposal that seems to come out is almost like a bomb . You're in constant
damage control, which is frustrating." And advocates for public school educators say they're worried that proposals that once
looked unlikely to come to fruition-like a massive cut to teacher-quality funding-might actually make it across the
legislative finish line. It doesn't help that the Education Department still hasn't filled key positions. So far, Trump has nominated just one
political appointee: Carlos Muniz, as general counsel. Other players in K-12 positions that require Senate sign-off-like Jason Botel, who is acting
as the assistant secretary for elementary and secondary education-are temporary fill-ins. It's unclear how long any of them will stick around in
those roles. Some education representatives are scratching their heads about whom to approach with policy proposals and questions. "I think in
many ways the administration is still getting its people in place," said Jacki Ball, the director of government affairs for the National PTA. "We're
just not always sure who to go to. We're trying to develop relationships with the people that are there," including Botel, who spoke at a recent
PTA conference. "That was a good opportunity to open the door." And one advocate said there have been changes in dealings with the
department's career employees, who stick around from one presidential administration to the next. "Any communication you have with federal
employees now is difficult," the advocate said. "They are really hesitant to communicate via email. They say things like, 'It
is so hostile over
here.' ... Everyone is walking on eggshells." Aides for GOP members in Congress are quick to tout lawmakers' ties to Trump, but aren't
shy about criticizing DeVos, said Sasha Pudelski, the assistant director for policy and advocacy at AASA. "They're attacking the administration
via DeVos," she said. (A similar dynamic prevailed among Democrats in Congress during Secretary Arne Duncan's tenure in the Obama
administration.) There's an upside: Those representing educator groups say their members are fired up and watching Washington closely. That
means more are willing to write letters, sign petitions, call their members of Congress, or lobby in person. "This is a really unique time, where
people who would normally sit back and say it's going to be fine feel a threat" to public education, the NEA's Kusler said. The boost in
education community engagement isn't without its challenges. Several advocates said they got a flood of calls from
their organizations' members about a bill introduced by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, that would create federally supported
vouchers nationwide. That legislation is almost certain to go nowhere. But it can be tougher to get members riled up
about proposals that may actually be able to get traction, including potential budget cuts. Fielding questions about extreme,
dead-on-arrival proposals cuts into advocates' time and energy. "We have to make sure there's not burnout. We have to make sure that the level of
attention is appropriate," Pudelski said. "Every lobbyist I talk to feels like they're running on empty a little bit." Common Cause One thing that
has helped lighten the load: Education advocacy organizations that work on behalf of public school educators and those representing
disadvantaged students are working together much more closely, and on a much broader range of issues, than they have in the past. "Under
Clinton, under Bush, and under Obama, the education community was afforded the luxury of disagreeing with one another," said Ellerson Ng, the
AASA official. "We can no longer afford to disagree, because we have such a basic task of supporting public education." Ultimately, though,
nearly any major education initiative -from the president's proposed budget cuts to any school choice proposal-will
have to go through Congress . Even in a polarized climate on Capitol Hill, advocates say they're still able to keep working with
the same lawmakers and staffers they've relied on in the past. "It's ultimately up to Congress to pass the law," Kusler said. "We're still
working predominantly with members on both sides of the aisle who support public education."
 Civil Rights/Minority Education Access---2NC

Expanding educational access for disadvantaged groups causes massive congressional fights and PC drain
no turns even supports perceive fed reforms as inherently ineffective
Lamiell, 12 --- Patricia, Director Media Relations @ Teachers College, University Columbia, 2/10,
http://www.tc.columbia.edu/articles/2012/february/how-should-politics-influence-
education-policy/
How Should Politics Influence Education Policy? How much does national education policy make a difference in classrooms, and how much
do national politics drive education policy in America, where schools, curricula and teaching have been controlled at
the local and state levels since the dawn of public schools? A lot, according to three distinguished education policy
analysts who took part in a panel discussion on February 8 to inaugurate the Colleges new Education Policy and Social analysis (EPSA)
Department and potentially never more so than now, as Congress weighs reauthorization of the federal No Child
Left Behind law against the backdrop of a highly polarized presidential campaign. The panel discussion, held in TCs Cowin
Conference Center, was moderated by Jeffrey Henig, Professor of Political Science and Education and EPSA department chair. It featured
Christopher T. Cross, a former U.S. Under Secretary of Education and current Chairman of Cross & Joftus, an education-policy consulting firm;
Jack Jennings, founder and recently retired Director of the Center on Education Policy, an education research firm; and Wendy D. Puriefoy,
President of the Public Education Network (PEN), the nations largest network of community-based school reform organizations. Prompted by
Henig, thepanelistswho were welcomed by TC President Susan Fuhrmandiscussed the often bitter and sometimes even
violent disagreements on federal versus local control of education policy that have erupted since the school
desegregation battles of the 1960s. Puriefoy told how, as a young woman, she monitored court-ordered desegregation in Boston, visiting
schools and reporting back to a federal judge whose appointment owed to the victory of Lyndon Johnson, a passionate advocate of school
desegregation, in the 1964 presidential election. Reaching much further back, Puriefoy argued that desegregation surely would never have
occurred had not Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves. Federal politics and education policy are inextricably linked , she said. The
bottom line for all three panelists: Most major changes to American schools have resulted from federal law, jurisprudence or
policy. Cross noted that Title I funding, enacted in 1965, provided extra funding for schools with economically disadvantaged children.
Congress passed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (later the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA) in 1975, when
the notion that children with disabilities should be educatedlet alone integrated into classrooms with non-disabled children, as is happening
nowwas a revolutionary idea. NCLB, enacted in 2002, has had an enormous effect on how and what gets taught, in Crosss view, forcing
teachers to focus on testing at the expense of deep learning. And the Race to the Top program of the Obama administration has significantly
affected spending priorities, teaching and learning in public schools. The question of whether national policy has influenced education
unquestionably has to be answered yes, Cross said. The reality is that almost everything that goes on is, in fact, guided by
what happened in federal policy at some point, even though people in the classroom may not recognize it. The idea that education
policy is or somehow should be apolitical simply is not borne out by history or current facts , Jennings said. A recent case
in point: If John McCain had been elected president in 2008, he, unlike President Obama, would very likely have allowed thousands of teachers
jobs to be eliminated by drastic budget cuts made necessary by the recession. And should Obama fail to win reelection this coming fall, a
Republican president may well seek to do away with the U.S. Department of Education. Policy should really be
integrated into politics, Jennings said. If people of good will dont deal with policy, he said, decisions will be left to those who
are not equipped to make themor worse, who are simply uninterested in fairness and equity in education . The panelists were
unanimous in their criticism of NCLB, which Puriefoy said has gone horribly awry, but they differed on what to do about it. The law has not
been amended since its bipartisan passage in early 2002, and while both Democrats and Republicans now agree it should be changed,
Republicans dont want to give credit to Obama for amending it, Jennings said. Puriefoy concurred, adding that the environment in
Congress has become much more poisonous, and it has become more difficult to create the environment we need
in order to transform education. And while education has always been a polarizing issue , and minorities have always
had to fight for access to good education , for the first time in the countrys history, people dont believe their childrens
lives will be better than theirs, Puriefoy said. They dont believe in the ability of institutions to bring about change . So can
anything be doneand is this years presidential election an opportunity to put national education issues before voters in a way they will notice?
Cross was skeptical, but said he would like both parties to discuss education issues after the election to find common ground. Jennings suggested
creating federal-state partnerships modeled on those in Germany, but Puriefoy noted that Germany also supports children and families with
programs other than education. Schools cant be responsible on their own, she said. They need help. To Henigs final questionWhat
would you like to see in the next administration?Cross replied that the U.S. Department of Education should get rid of the silosEnglish
Language Learners, Special Education and others, which are too large, bureaucratic and costly. Jennings warned that the incoming
president should not listen to the radical right, but instead totally rethink school financing, which is currently based
on property taxes, and fight the long tradition of anti-intellectualism in this country by pursuing a new agenda that
focuses on quality curriculum and teaching. Puriefoy called for a rededication to educating all sectors of children, strong federal standards, and
getting rid of states rights. This fragmentation in education is just unacceptable. We need a new intellectual contract in this country, she said.
Good policy follows good intention. If we resolve to educate every child in this country, regardless of ZIP code, were going to have to
dismantle what were doing. Were not going to get there without significant disruption.

Policies targeted at a narrow demographic are a heavy lift and generate widespread opposition
Jennings, 15 Jack Jennings, former president and CEO of the Center on Education Policy and general counsel for
the House Committee on Education and Labor, Lessons Learned from Federal Involvement in Schooling, in
Presidents, Congress, and the Public Schools: The Politics of Education Reform, p. 152-153

The challenge, then, is how to develop broad support for a federal policy? At a minimum, the task is to avoid
widespread opposition to it.
The specific challenge is to find or build general support while concentrating on major problems that chiefly affect
limited (and often relatively powerless) segments of the population. One such challenge relates to policies to
ameliorate the effects of poverty on schooling. In 1967, when I first started working for the Congress, debates were
ongoing about the relatively new Great Society legislation and the other programs added after the initial burst of
legislating in 1965. As legislative bills were being considered to amend the old programs or add new ones, the
Democratic members of Congress argued among themselves about whether to create programs that affected a broad
range of people or programs with narrow coverage, particularly for persons with low incomes. Proponents of the
latter point of view argued that focused aid was needed to help the poor to do better and that broad coverage would
dilute this assistance. Supporters of the wide-coverage position argued that political support would always be
limited for such narrow programs and that the middle class had to be involved to sustain the programs and achieve
sufficient appropriations. Meanwhile, Republican members of Congress usually wanted a focused approach so that
the programs and funding would not grow too much.
Medicare is an example of a Great Society program that has a broad reach and has endured through dramatic
changes of political control in Washington. Head Start is an example of a focused program that has survived but
continues to struggle with funding and its existence as a federal activity in the face of proposals to turn it over to the
states.
The lesson is that federal policies in education should have a broad reach among the population whenever that is
possible. For example, federal support for higher academic standards helps all students, and should be widely
supported. But it especially helps students in schools with concentrations of children from low-income families
since they are often held to low expectations. The difficulty comes when a particular problem is limited to a smaller
segment of the population. Although that is a challenging circumstance, advocates need to seek political support to
help maintain that effort. This lesson is obviously difficult to implement, especially because the United States has
such significant percentages of children who live in poverty and could benefit from special supports.
 Common Core---1NC*****
Especially good against affs that say common core good, but also works as a rule 1 dont talk about Common
Core card

Common Core is a lightning rod with unique symbolic importance---opposition to change is explosive and
overwhelms all other policy
Usdan, 16 Dr. Michael D. Usdan, PhD from Columbia, Senior Fellow and Former President of the Institute for
Educational Leadership, 2-04-2016, The Ever Debatable Federal Role: Implications for Education Policy, Institute
for Educational Leadership

The partisan and philosophical cleavages over the appropriate federal role are reflected in the ongoing national
debates over issues like the Race to the Top program and the Common Core . Race to the Top provided
unprecedented federal resources (approximately $4 billion) to schools as part of the stimulus program designed to
help the nation recover from the economic collapse it confronted in 2008. The U.S. Department of Education
devised a competition that became quite controversial. Most states applied at a time when resources were
particularly scarce as they strove to acquire desperately needed funds to maintain their teaching force, as well as to
meet other pressing education needs. To be successful in the competition, the applicants had to satisfy in their
proposals a number of Department-set criteria such as incorporating teacher evaluation plans, opportunities to
establish charter schools, and plans to adopt the Common Core. These requirements served as cannon fodder for
critics who condemned federal overreach as only a fraction of the applying states were successful in acquiring
grants. Some criticisms also were articulated about the competitive nature of the grants in a field like education
where federal funds have customarily been dispersed on a formula basis.
No issue has precipitated more controversy about the federal role then the current raging debate about the Common
Core State Standards initiative. Indeed, very few education issues in our history (perhaps only the desegregation
issue) have become so integral to mainstream American politics. Republican governors like Chris Christie of New
Jersey and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana have disavowed their one-time support for the Common Core, which many
Republicans regard as an ill-disguised effort by the federal government to take control of American education.
Indeed many political pundits predict that Jeb Bushs chances to win the Republican nomination for president will
be seriously compromised by his continued support for the Common Core.
The raging contemporary national debate about the Common Core has generated more heat than light. The
standards were developed by two national state-based organizations, the National Governors Association and the
Council of Chief State School Officers. There initially was widespread agreement that it was important for the
country to move toward a voluntary consensus on national standards in the areas of English language arts and
mathematics. The Common Core initiative in its early stages elicited widespread praise and support from diverse
quarters, and more than 45 states agreed to participate. It was widely viewed as an important step forward in the
nations struggle to reach consensus on what should constitute accepted standards in the core areas of English
language arts and mathematics.
Despite this auspicious beginning, critics remained skeptical and feared that the initiative was a Trojan horse that
would inexorably lead to national or federal standards. These skeptics articulated the belief that most of the states
which endorsed the Common Core signed on because they were spurred by the hopes of winning federal Race to the
Top dollars. They contend that many revenue-starved states acquiesced reluctantly to the lure of badly needed
federal funding and in fact were bribed to buy into the Common Core initiative. Many supporters of the initiative
desperately wanted the Obama Administration to steer totally clear of the effort. The Administrations exploratory
efforts to connect the Common Cores standards to the reauthorization of ESEA was feared as a potential kiss of
death.
The ongoing debate about the Common Core supports the early fears of many of its backers that it could well
implode and be caught up in the generic anti-federal government backlash which has erupted in recent months.
Bitter opposition to the centralization of power in education has to a disturbing degree outweighed the rationality
that went into the common standards movement. In fact, as the current political debates reflect, prevailing critiques
of centralizing power in education are part and parcel of the same negative political sentiments being articulated
currently against perceived federal intrusions in areas like health care , the environment , private corporate
operations, and other major policy realms.
 Common Core---Repeal---Lobbies
The plan upsets a broad political coalition that are heavily invested Common Core---that saps capital
*Business lobbies teachers unions GOP governors parents associations Bill Gates
Williams, 14 Joseph P. Williams, 2-27-2014, Who Is Fighting for Common Core?,
https://www.usnews.com/news/special-reports/a-guide-to-common-core/articles/2014/02/27/who-is-fighting-for-
common-core

As he stakes his education legacy on the Common Core State Standards, President Barack Obama has acquired
some powerful if unlikely allies: the right-leaning Business Roundtable , Republican presidential contender Jeb
Bush and Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates.
Other Common Core champions include education-reform activists like Michelle Rhee , the controversial former
Washington, D.C., public schools chancellor, as well as the rank and file of both major teachers unions, several
GOP governors in states that rejected Obama in 2012, and the National Parent Teacher Association.
Theres broad agreement on the objective: prepare kids to compete not only in college but in the rapidly-changing
American job market and the high-tech, information-based global economy. Since U.S. schoolchildren have lost so
much ground to other countries, Common Core advocates believe, the education system is long overdue for the
overhaul.
Tyrone Howard, a professor at UCLAs Graduate School of Education, says supporters believe the Core will help
students develop what are called 21st Century skills - how to problem-solve, how to think critically. The
curriculum, he adds, is designed as a tool to help students catch up with their counterparts in countries like China
and Singapore, whose standardized test scores have surged past the United States in recent decades.
On the surface, people can get behind those ideas, Howard says. But, as they say, the devils in the details.
While the objectives of the Obama administration and Education Secretary Arne Duncan are clear -- upgrade the
American education system to make students, and the country, more competitive globally -- many Common Core
supporters have vested interests in its success.
For example, Bill Gates, whose global foundation provided millions of dollars to help develop Common Core,
wrote in USA Today in February that the standards are inspired by a simple and powerful idea: Every American
student should leave high school with the knowledge and skills to succeed in college and in the job market.
In recent years, tech firms in Silicon Valley, where Gates made his fortune, have argued that a shortage of American
science talent forces them to recruit software engineers and developers from overseas. At the same time, according
to the National Center for Education Statistics, around 20 percent of incoming freshmen at four-year colleges and a
quarter of first-year students at two-year schools need remedial courses in English or math.
Thomas Donohue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce - arguably the nations most powerful business
lobbying organization - sides with Gates: schools, he says, have cut corners and the incoming labor pool is shallow
on quality. In a Washington Post letter to the editor, Donohue fired back at critics like Post columnist George Will,
arguing that Common Core prepares students to succeed in the 21st-century economy.
The standards are not a federal program or a federal mandate. It was created at the state level. Curriculum remains
within the control of districts, school boards, school leaders and teachers, Donohue wrote. Mr. Will and others
should direct their outrage at school systems that tolerate low standards and churn out kids ill-prepared for college or
a career.
Despite backlashes in deep-red states like Georgia and Mississippi, which Obama lost by double digits in 2012, the
National Governors Association (NGA) and most of its members continue to back the Common Core standards,
albeit warily. Having developed the curriculum with contributions from Gates and input by influential public-school
reformer David Coleman, the NGA is heavily invested in Common Core's success.

Repeal alienates high-profile Republicans and teachers unions with entrenched interests in Common Core---
its uniquely symbolic
Barrow, 14 Bill Barrow, Associated Press, 3-24-2014, Common Core spawns widespread political fights,
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-common-core-spawns-widespread-political-fights-2014mar24-
story.html
"Common Core is like Obamacare: They passed it before they knew what was in it," said William Evers, a Hoover
Institute research fellow and lead author of a California Republican Party resolution denouncing Common Core.
To a lesser extent, Democrats must deal with some teachers their unions hold strong influence within the party
who are upset about implementation details. But it's the internal GOP debate that's on display in statehouses,
across 2014 campaigns and among 2016 presidential contenders.
The flap continues as students in 36 states and the District of Columbia begin this week taking field tests of new
assessments based on the standards, although the real tests won't be given for another year.
Paul, a Republican senator from Kentucky, has joined seven colleagues, including Texas' Cruz, to sponsor a measure
that would bar federal financing of any Common Core component. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio isn't among the eight,
but he had already come out against the standards. So has Rick Santorum, a 2012 presidential candidate mulling
another run.
On the other end of the spectrum is Bush, the former Florida governor and Rubio's mentor. "This is a real-world,
grown-up approach to a real crisis that we have, and it's been mired in politics," Bush said last week in Tennessee,
where he joined Republican Gov. Bill Haslam at an event to promote Common Core.
Haslam, who is running for re-election this year, is trying to beat back a repeal effort in the Tennessee legislature.
"These are simply guidelines that say a fourth grader should be learning the same things" regardless of where the
student lives, the governor said recently. "Historically, we haven't been good at setting high standards."
The National Governors Association and state education superintendents developed Common Core. Among other
things, the framework recommends when students should master certain skills. For example, by the end of fifth
grade, a math student should be able to solve complex problems by plotting points on x and y axes. A high school
sophomore should be able to analyze text or make written arguments using valid logical reasoning and sufficient
evidence.
The issue presents a delicate balancing act for some governors. Bobby Jindal's Louisiana and Scott Walker's
Wisconsin initially adopted the new standards. Now both men possible presidential candidates watch as GOP
lawmakers in their states push anti-Common Core bills.
Jindal, who was an NGA member during Common Core's development, won't say where he stands on repeal.
"When it comes to specific bills, when they get to the issue of standards, we'll sit down with the authors and provide
our thoughts about it. But in general when it comes to standards, we don't want to weaken the standards," he told
reporters last week.
Before Wisconsin lawmakers convened, Walker announced support for rethinking Common Core. In both states,
however, the anti-Common Core measures linger late in legislative sessions.
Establishment Republicans in Georgia, meanwhile, derailed a repeal effort in favor of a "study commission"
empowered only to make recommendations. Alabama GOP leaders have held off a repeal measure, as well.
Immediate political consequences of the disputes aren't clear. GOP officials and strategists say any fallout for them
is dwarfed by Democrats' struggle with Obama's health care law. In the meantime, conservative candidates use
Common Core as a symbolic rallying cry.
 Common Core---Repeal---A2: Link Turns
Even if Common Core is unpopular, repeal is worse---creates red tape and spiraling costs that lawmakers
hate
Zhao, 14 Emmeline Zhao, 12-9-2014, Common Core Politics and Elections: Will the Standards Survive Through
2016? (HEAT MAP), Real Clear Education,
http://www.realcleareducation.com/articles/2014/12/09/common_core_future_elections_heat_map_1140.html

As the country inches closer toward the 2016 general election, the fight over Common Core in the states is less
likely to be about full-on repeal and more about implementation related to student assessments and teacher
evaluations, said Michael McShane, a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a right-leaning nonprofit
think tank. States are likely to start editing the Common Core by a thousand cuts to the standards, McShane
added.
Something else for states to consider is impact to their bottom line: the investment of time and funding into
repealing the Common Core , then developing and implementing entirely new standards could cost states
substantially more than tweaking the Common Core standards that are already in place and nearly fully
implemented.
The Common Core got grafted into a broader narrative of overtesting, Obama circumventing the democratic
process, and federal overreach into American classroom, and that just poisons the whole thing, McShane said. The
commonness of the Common Core is also at risk, even if a state shaves the standards to make the words look mostly
like the Common Core but put a different title on top and use their own tests and cut scores, theyre not really
participating in a common enterprise.
Underneath all the noise, more than 40 states are still advancing with the Common Cores standards for students
despite the controversy. As states ready themselves for their first Common Core-aligned tests this coming spring,
some states might peel away from the standards, but Mike Petrilli, president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a
right-leaning education policy think tank, predicts an overwhelming majority will continue with the Common Core .
There were probably at least 10 states last spring that had tough fights, and youll have tough fights again, with the
biggest ones in the most conservative states and mostly in the south. But politicians respond to voters, and pro-
Common Core politicians won midterm elections across party lines, Petrilli said. At least two-thirds of states will
stick with Common Core. Thats pretty remarkable for a country thats been allergic to common standards.
 Common Core---Reform---Flip Flop

Reforming Common Core is a massive flip flop on Trumps one area of unwavering consistency
Tomar, 17 David A. Tomar, 2-28-2017, Education Gets Trumped, Pt. 2: Ending Common Core, Best Schools,
https://thebestschools.org/magazine/education-gets-trumped-pt-2-repealing-common-core/

Donald Trump hates Common Core . He told us so in as many ways as he possibly could during an election season
in which little was otherwise said on the subject of education. He hates it. But does he fully understand it?
When prompted to discuss education on the campaign trail, Trumps most frequent refrain was his vow to repeal
Common Core. He promised voters that he would take steps to return control to states and local communities.
While discussion on education was rare during the campaign season, this is one position that Trump returned to
both repeatedly and with unwavering consistency.
 Curriculum---1NC

Fed curriculum requirements causes poisonous congressional fighting and GOP backlash no turns
perceived as inherently ineffective
Lamiell, 12 --- Patricia, Director Media Relations @ Teachers College, University Columbia, 2/10,
http://www.tc.columbia.edu/articles/2012/february/how-should-politics-influence-
education-policy/
How Should Politics Influence Education Policy? How much does national education policy make a difference in classrooms, and how much
do national politics drive education policy in America, where schools, curricula and teaching have been controlled at
the local and state levels since the dawn of public schools? A lot, according to three distinguished education policy
analysts who took part in a panel discussion on February 8 to inaugurate the Colleges new Education Policy and Social analysis (EPSA)
Department and potentially never more so than now, as Congress weighs reauthorization of the federal No Child
Left Behind law against the backdrop of a highly polarized presidential campaign. The panel discussion, held in TCs Cowin
Conference Center, was moderated by Jeffrey Henig, Professor of Political Science and Education and EPSA department chair. It featured
Christopher T. Cross, a former U.S. Under Secretary of Education and current Chairman of Cross & Joftus, an education-policy consulting firm;
Jack Jennings, founder and recently retired Director of the Center on Education Policy, an education research firm; and Wendy D. Puriefoy,
President of the Public Education Network (PEN), the nations largest network of community-based school reform organizations. Prompted by
Henig, thepanelistswho were welcomed by TC President Susan Fuhrmandiscussed the often bitter and sometimes even
violent disagreements on federal versus local control of education policy that have erupted since the school
desegregation battles of the 1960s. Puriefoy told how, as a young woman, she monitored court-ordered desegregation in Boston, visiting
schools and reporting back to a federal judge whose appointment owed to the victory of Lyndon Johnson, a passionate advocate of school
desegregation, in the 1964 presidential election. Reaching much further back, Puriefoy argued that desegregation surely would never have
occurred had not Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves. Federal politics and education policy are inextricably linked , she said. The
bottom line for all three panelists: Most major changes to American schools have resulted from federal law, jurisprudence or
policy. Cross noted that Title I funding, enacted in 1965, provided extra funding for schools with economically disadvantaged children.
Congress passed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (later the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA) in 1975, when
the notion that children with disabilities should be educatedlet alone integrated into classrooms with non-disabled children, as is happening
nowwas a revolutionary idea. NCLB, enacted in 2002, has had an enormous effect on how and what gets taught, in Crosss view, forcing
teachers to focus on testing at the expense of deep learning. And the Race to the Top program of the Obama administration has significantly
affected spending priorities, teaching and learning in public schools. The question of whether national policy has influenced education
unquestionably has to be answered yes, Cross said. The reality is that almost everything that goes on is, in fact, guided by
what happened in federal policy at some point, even though people in the classroom may not recognize it. The idea that education
policy is or somehow should be apolitical simply is not borne out by history or current facts , Jennings said. A recent case
in point: If John McCain had been elected president in 2008, he, unlike President Obama, would very likely have allowed thousands of teachers
jobs to be eliminated by drastic budget cuts made necessary by the recession. And should Obama fail to win reelection this coming fall, a
Republican president may well seek to do away with the U.S. Department of Education. Policy should really be
integrated into politics, Jennings said. If people of good will dont deal with policy, he said, decisions will be left to those who are not
equipped to make themor worse, who are simply uninterested in fairness and equity in education. The panelists were unanimous in their
criticism of NCLB, which Puriefoy said has gone horribly awry, but they differed on what to do about it. The law has not been amended since
its bipartisan passage in early 2002, and while both Democrats and Republicans now agree it should be changed, Republicans dont want to give
credit to Obama for amending it, Jennings said. Puriefoy concurred, adding that the environment in Congress has become much
more poisonous, and it has become more difficult to create the environment we need in order to transform
education. And while education has always been a polarizing issue , and minorities have always had to fight for access to good
education, for the first time in the countrys history, people dont believe their childrens lives will be better than theirs, Puriefoy
said. They dont believe in the ability of institutions to bring about change . So can anything be doneand is this years
presidential election an opportunity to put national education issues before voters in a way they will notice? Cross was skeptical, but said he
would like both parties to discuss education issues after the election to find common ground. Jennings suggested creating federal-state
partnerships modeled on those in Germany, but Puriefoy noted that Germany also supports children and families with programs other than
education. Schools cant be responsible on their own, she said. They need help. To Henigs final questionWhat would you like to see in
the next administration?Cross replied that the U.S. Department of Education should get rid of the silosEnglish Language Learners, Special
Education and others, which are too large, bureaucratic and costly. Jennings warned that the incoming president should not listen to
the radical right, but instead totally rethink school financing, which is currently based on property taxes, and fight the
long tradition of anti-intellectualism in this country by pursuing a new agenda that focuses on quality curriculum and
teaching. Puriefoy called for a rededication to educating all sectors of children, strong federal standards, and getting rid of states
rights. This fragmentation in education is just unacceptable. We need a new intellectual contract in this country, she said. Good policy
follows good intention. If we resolve to educate every child in this country, regardless of ZIP code, were going to have to dismantle
what were doing. Were not going to get there without significant disruption.
 Curriculum---2NC

federal curriculum requirements are broadly despised and get drawn in to thorny disputes over standards
Burke, 13 Lindsey M. Burke, doctoral student at GMU, 4-8-2013, Why Theres a Backlash against Common
Core, National Review, http://www.nationalreview.com/article/344897

Concerns about nationalizing the content taught in every public school in America arent limited to tea-party
activists, as Kathleen Porter-Magee and Sol Stern implied on NRO last week. Nor should the concerns of the Tea
Party be dismissed. They express the understandable fear of many moms and dads and teachers that the federal
government is on the brink of dictating the content taught in every school. Their concerns are echoed by a wide
array of groups and citizens, including academics, members of state boards of education, residents of local school
districts, and analysts at public-policy foundations.
Their sentiments mirror the concerns of the governors who have opposed Common Core national standards from the
beginning. I dont want to have a federal bureaucracy monitoring whether or not we are having the right programs
in our schools, said Virginia governor Bob McDonnell recently. The bottom line is, we dont need the federal
government with the Common Core telling us how to run our schools in Virginia. Well use our own system, which
is very good. Its empirically tested.
Texas governor Rick Perry, never one to mince words, said, The academic standards of Texas are not for sale.
A bill introduced by the chair of the Senate Education Committee in Alabama to reverse the states Common Core
adoption failed by just one vote in committee last month. Common Core opponents have vowed to keep fighting.
Colorado recently held hearings taking a second look at Common Core adoption. Its a discussion that had never
occurred but needed to occur, said Bob Schaffer, former chairman of the state board of education.
Concerns about Common Core national standards have been voiced repeatedly and often by experts in
mathematics and English.

Federal curriculum mandates get seized on by interest groups and generate massive opposition
Elmore, 97 Richard F. Elmore, professor of political science at Harvard, The Politics of Education Reform,
Issues, Volume XIV Issue 1, Fall 1997

The principle of dispersed control leads me to predict that states will continue to push toward state-to-school
accountability measures until they can muster evidence on student performance that allows them to make a
persuasive argument that they are discharging their political and fiscal responsibilities. States and localities vary
widely in their capacities and in their political incentives to engage in standard-setting, and therefore the result of
this dispersed activity will, at least in the short term, be a high degree of variability in standards from one place to
another and (ironically) less standardization of policy and practice from a national perspective. Local districts and
the federal government will increasingly become spectators in this state-to-school struggle unless they can find
some way to participate in it productively.
The principle of political pluralism leads me to predict that political debate about the content of standards will
probably continue , especially in highly contentious areas such as history and literacy, because content is such an
attractive target for organized interests. But this debate will increasingly become a sideshow in the larger standards
game. Schools, as they are subjected to increasing pressure for accountability, will reach for content and
performance standards in order to simplify their task and reduce uncertainty and will find ways to submerge and
deflect debate over the content of standards so they can get on with the task of satisfying state and local
accountability pressures. The principle of political pluralism also leads me to predict that professional communities
and commercial and nonprofit enterprises will become increasingly prominent in supplying advice on curriculum
and pedagogy in response to pressures on schools for increased accountability for student performance, further
fueling the press for standards.
 Curriculum (Reading/Canon)

Reading curriculum changes are incredibly volatile and persistently controversial

Berlak, 05 Harold Berlak, prof at Wash U, doctorate in educational research from Harvard, The No Child Left
Behind Act and the Reading First program, reprinted from Critical Issues in American Education by Svi Shapiro
and David E. Purpel, http://www.educationanddemocracy.org/Resources/Berlak_control.htm

Controversies over reading curriculum

When the words literacy or fundamentals are introduced into conversation, what come immediately to mind are
not math, geography, history, or the arts, but reading. It is difficult to exaggerate the cultural and political
significance of how reading is taught in the early grades. Reading is important not only for the obvious reasons that
it is crucial for survival in daily life and for success at school, but also for the less obvious reasons that how basic
reading is taught sets the tone of a school, and shapes the entire primary school curriculum, as well as students
cultural beliefs, and basic attitudes toward learning and knowledge --including how they perceive their own
intellectual capacities and potential.
Controversies over approaches to teaching reading are not new. They persist over time because they are deeply
rooted in profound differences in basic cultural and political beliefs and values about what children can and should
read; about the importance of race, gender, culture and language differences in the selection of content and teaching
methods; and about the role schools should play fostering cultural diversity and democracy.
 Curriculum (Laundry List)
Activist curriculum requirements spark widespread controversy
Medwin, 14 Deborah Medwin, 2-15-2014, 30 Most Controversial Education Practices in U. S. History,
http://www.topeducationdegrees.org/30-most-controversial-education-practices-in-u-s-history/, publish date
obtained via Google-Fu

The nature of a controversy is a dispute that is prolonged , impassioned , and often public in nature . Top Education
Degrees began by defining controversy in education based on one or more of the following four guidelines:
1. A subjective social or religious issue that uniquely affects education
Issues like gun control, sex ed, prayer, creation v. evolution and spanking in schools are, for the most part, matters
of personal opinion. Implementation of rules regarding such issues may be based on legal precedent or pressure
from political, administrative or parental authority, but when opposing perspectives among interested parties
converge, controversy is inevitable .
2. A deviation from traditional methods
Educational practices, teaching methods, and curriculum vary from school to school; nevertheless, in most public
schools in the U.S., there exists a basic concept of education. Children are required by law to attend an educational
institution whose responsibility is to impart knowledge and understanding of the traditional subjects: mathematics,
English, social studies, and sciences. A certain level of non-traditional teaching style and subject emphasis is
generally tolerated or desired, of course, but when non-standard educational movements become broad, such as
flipped schools, MOOCs, or homeschooling, or threaten to affect traditional schools, like same sex schools or
integration of students with special needs, controversy ensues.
 HEA Reauthorization---1NC

HEA reauthorization causes congressional gridlock and paralysis

AASCU, 15 ---- American Association of State Colleges and Universities, Policy Brief, January,
www.aascu.org/policy/publications/policy-
matters/Top10StatePolicyIssues2015.pdf+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
States have constitutional authority over higher education, and state lawmakers, working in concert with campus governing bodies, have
jurisdiction over foundational higher education policies: state funding, capital construction, enrollment policy and tuition pricing. States
role
in determining the policy framework for public colleges and universities is only expected to intensify this year, as political
polarization and paralysis in Congress have left a backlog of federal education bills for congressional committees to
consider in the next session. Much attention will be on Congress ability to govern effectively now that the U.S. House and Senate are both in the
hands of Republicans. If Congress success in the 114th session is assessed in comparison to the outgoing sessionwhether related to education
or notthe threshold for success is unusually low, given that the just-concluded 113th session of Congress witnessed the lowest number of bills
passed in modern Congressional history.
One of the most concrete examples of federal education policy stasis is the unlikely Congressional passage this
year of the overdue reauthorization of the Higher Education Act (HEA). Among all the higher education policies and programs ripe for
reform, there exists a tremendous need and opportunity for Congress to use the HEA reauthorization to align state and federal higher
education financing and incentivize states to re-invest in public higher education. Recent traction in the U.S. Senate on a proposed
State-Federal College Affordability Partnershipan annual federal block grant designed to spur new state investments in public higher
educationwilllikely be slowed due to changes in Senate leadership. Public higher education leaders will be called on to work
with their Congressional delegation to build awareness and support of the State-Federal College Affordability Partnership in order
to ensure that it is included in the final HEA reauthorization bill. An in-depth discussion of potential implications for higher education policy
stemming from the 2014 elections is provided in the policy brief, Higher Education and the 2014 Elections, published by the American
Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU). The paper discusses the Obama administrations higher education agenda, the
Congressional outlook for its 114th session, policy challenges Congress will face, as well as state-level outcomes of the elections. This paper
provides a summary of the top 10 higher education policy issues that are likely to witness considerable activity in state legislatures across the
country this year. It is the view of the AASCU state relations and policy staff that these issues will be at the forefront of both discussion and
action in state capitols. This eighth annual synopsis is informed by a variety of sources, including an environmental scan of outcomes from last
years legislative sessions, recent gubernatorial priorities, as well as trends and events that are shaping the higher education policy
landscape. Some issues are perennial in nature, while others reflect more recent economic, fiscal and political dynamics . Results, no
doubt, will vary by state.
 Market Based Reforms---Charter Schools/School Choice---1NC

(School Choice/Charter Schools) drain PC dems backlash because trump, conservatives backlash because
fed, pro-market lobby fights itself outweighs support for policy specifics pre-election ev is irrelevant
Camera, 17 --- Lauren Camera is an education reporter at U.S. News & World Report. Shes covered education
policy and politics for nearly a decade and has written for Education Week, The Hechinger Report, Congressional
Quarterly, Roll Call, and the Chronicle of Higher Education. She was a 2013 Spencer Education Fellow at Columbia
Universitys School of Journalism, where she conducted a reporting project about the impact of the Obama
administrations competitive education grant, Race to the Top, US News and World Report, 3/13,
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2017-03-23/trump-school-choice-proposals-drive-wedge-
between-charter-school-advocates
To be sure, the presidents budget proposal is just that, a proposal , and the funding for private school vouchers or some
type of scholarship tax credit is not a slam dunk, even among Republicans and especially among those who
represent rural states where children have few, if not zero, education options outside the public school system. Those
variables were at play last week in conservative Kentucky, when the governor signed a bill after months of heated debate in the
state legislature that will allow charter schools for the first time . The Blue Grass State was one of just seven now six that did not
allow charter schools. The carefully worded legislation only allows local school boards to authorize charter schools, with the exception of
Louisville and Lexington, where the mayors may also do so. Groups like the Center for Education Reform lobbied for the bill to also allow
universities to act as charter authorizers and to include virtual charters as an educational option. The fracture within the charter school
sector is reflective of the larger splintering of the education reform community. I think the Trump presidency is
going to be a challenging time for education reform, Petrilli, says. Just as weve seen a growing polarization in
politics, we see a growing polarization in the education reform community. Most education reformers who would
identify as liberal Democrats are aghast at Donald Trump even if he supports some of the school reform agenda . He
continued: I think for groups like Democrats for Education Reform, you tend to see them putting the Democrat before the
education reform. They really seem to feel like because of the threats to the budget, but also because of the threats around
immigration and treatment of Muslims and everything else that this is a time when they have to focus on their
solidarity with other groups on the left rather than focus on maybe some benefits for school choice or school reform. Not
to be overlooked, Petrilli noted, are the handful of conservative and libertarian policy organizations, like the Heritage
Foundation and CATO, that have long supported voucher programs but dont want the federal government to be the
lever for pushing them. The White House has yet to unveil any details of its $250 million private school choice proposal, or how the
proposed $1 billion in increase Title I funding would be doled out to states willing to expand their school choice offerings. DeVos said Monday
that those details are still being debated. When those policies
are solidified, the battle lines between the school choice
organizations will likely become even more obvious. The question will be: Where is the division between public and private
here? says Robin Lake, the director of the Center on Reinventing Public Education. A lot of charters serve kids who are immigrants or who live
the politics of this are going to get interesting for sure. When push comes to shove I think charters
in inner cities and
will always side with the public school community, she says. They are public schools.
 Market Based Reforms---Charter Schools/School Choice---2NC

(School Choice/Charter Schools) drain trump PC supporters have splintered they fight intensely over the
policy details ignore pre-election ev
Camera, 17 --- Lauren Camera is an education reporter at U.S. News & World Report. Shes covered education
policy and politics for nearly a decade and has written for Education Week, The Hechinger Report, Congressional
Quarterly, Roll Call, and the Chronicle of Higher Education. She was a 2013 Spencer Education Fellow at Columbia
Universitys School of Journalism, where she conducted a reporting project about the impact of the Obama
administrations competitive education grant, Race to the Top, US News and World Report, 3/13,
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2017-03-23/trump-school-choice-proposals-drive-wedge-
between-charter-school-advocates
The Trump administration's plan to ax $9 billion in federal education spending but direct millions to a new program
that would help students afford private school exposed a fissure among charter school advocates , one not publicly
acknowledged but privately widening at an increasingly fast pace since the election. In reacting to the fiscal 2018
blueprint, organizations that support charter schools split: Some admonished the administration for its proposed education cuts, as
well as billions in cuts to health care and wraparound social service programs on which the country's most disadvantaged students rely. Others
touted the increases for school choice policies, which, in addition to a $250 million private school choice program, included $168 million more
for charter schools and a $1 billion boost in Title I for poor students whose states allow them to use the money to enroll at any public school of
their choice. Today, President Trump demonstrated that he is a strong supporter of charter public schools, Nina Rees, president and CEO of the
National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, said in a statement. The charter school movement is grateful for the presidents support, and we
applaud his commitment to providing critically needed funding. But Greg Richmond, president and CEO of the National Association of Charter
School Authorizers, took a different tack. We are deeply concerned about proposed cuts to other important education programs, as charter
schools are part of not a substitute for a strong public education system, Richmond said in his public statement. Charter schools cannot
succeed without strong teachers and a seamless, affordable path to college for their graduates. Unfortunately, this proposed budget harms
different responses highlight whats become a more
programs that are important for students, teachers, and public education. The
visible divide , though one thats long existed, among school choice proponents and specifically among charter
school supporters who can get behind private school choice policies and those who cannot. Those who cannot, like
Richmond, are adamant that any schools that use taxpayer dollars, including charter schools, must be held accountable
for being good stewards of those dollars and show positive results for students. "From a policy perspective, accountability to the public for
outcomes is what makes charter schools public schools," he says. "If there is no accountability to the public about the results youre producing
and how youre spending your money, then youre not public." What he and others fear is that accountability will be greatly
diminished under Trump, whose stated mission is to direct $20 billion in federal funding to school choice policies,
who has touted programs that allow students to use state dollars to attend private schools, and who tapped private
school voucher advocate Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education. On the other side are those who take a more liberal view of
accountability, subscribing instead to a free-market philosophy that relies on competition to weed out schools that aren't holding up their
end of the bargain. To be sure, the charter school movement has always been comprised of people with different education philosophies.
While the coalition has largely held together thanks to the reform-friendly agenda of the Obama administration that allowed the sector to flourish,
it's since begun splintering . That played out in a very public way for the first time last summer, when the charter sector
found itself in the crosshairs of a burgeoning and wide-scale debate over who truly holds communities of color in their best
interest. This wedge has existed for a long time, says Michael Petrilli, president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Its a big tent,
for charter schools supporters especially, and just as weve seen a growing polarization in politics, we see a growing
polarization in the education reform community. Trumps focus on private school choice is pushing that wedge
into the public spotlight again and is forcing charter school advocates to plant their flags on the proverbial spectrum of
accountability. Over the years, its kind of been a gentlemens agreement in the charter tent that we dont fight with each other about that,
Richmond says But whats been happening lately and it really picked up steam after the election is the free-market
supporters within the charter tent are trying to redefine charter schools to be more like vouchers. He continued:
Theyre really pushing back hard against accountability. Perhaps that should not come as a surprise. In DeVos home state of
Michigan, she and her family have spent millions of dollars backing proposals to expand school choice policies like
charters and private school vouchers. And the landscape there, particularly the charter school landscape in Detroit, represents
more of a free-market, hands-off approach that trusts in parents to choose the best schools for their children and in
competition to put poor-performing schools out of business. Those ideals stand in contrast to charter school policies in other
cities and states, like New Orleans, New York and Massachusetts, where charter schools are under close scrutiny of the government
and under more pressure and a tighter timeline to show positive results for their students. Charter school advocates see the new
administration as an opportunity to push their agendas, but those agendas are increasingly at odds with each other.
Trumps budget proposal elucidated those disparities, differentiating groups like the Center for Education Reform and American Federation for
Children, which have long supported private school vouchers, from groups like Democrats for Education Reform and the Fordham Institute,
which have only supported private school vouchers that have rigorous accountability systems attached, from groups like Stand for Children,
which have pushed back against private school vouchers.

(School Choice/Charter Schools) drain PC fierce backlash from dems and teachers unions, splits GOP
public support not salient
Swanson, 17 --- Emily, Hartford Courtant, 5/14, lexis
Even as fierce political battles rage in Washington over school choice, most Americans know little about charter
schools or private school voucher programs. Still, more Americans feel positively than negatively about expanding those programs,
according to a new poll. "I wonder what the fuss is about," said Beverly Brown, 61, a retired grocery store worker in central Alabama. Brown,
who doesn't have children, says U.S. schools need reform, but she is not familiar with specific school options and policies. Fifty-eight percent of
respondents say they know little or nothing at all about charter schools and 66 percent report the same about private school voucher programs,
according to the poll conducted by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Charters are schools funded by
taxpayer money, but they operate independently of school districts and thus have more freedom in setting their
curriculum and hiring staff. Vouchers are publicly funded scholarships given to low-income families to help cover tuition in private
schools, including religious ones. Using taxpayer money to aid struggling public schools or diverting it to fund more
charter schools or make private schools available to more families has been hotly debated since Donald Trump was
elected president. During the campaign, Trump promised to fund a $20 billion school choice program. He picked a charter and private school
advocate, Betsy DeVos, as his education secretary. Earlier this month the president welcomed a group of students who were voucher recipients to
the White House and asked Congress to work with him to make school options available nationwide. Those efforts
face fierce resistance
from teachers unions and some Democrats who say that school choice drains funds from public schools while leaving
charter and private schools unaccountable in terms of academic standards and civil rights protections. Other Democrats support some of the
choice measures, which also divide Republicans . Patrick McGuinn, an education professor at Drew University, said he was surprised
that most Americans had little knowledge about school choice options. "That's pretty remarkable given the growth and high-profile
politics around charters," he said. "As much as policymakers are talking the heck about this, the debate really hasn't
permeated the general public's discussion yet." Charter schools operate in 42 states and the District of Columbia. D.C. has only the
federally funded voucher program, while 30 states have voucher or similar education choice programs. Even though they are unfamiliar to many,
Americans have largely positive reactions to charter schools and vouchers. While 55 percent of respondents say parents in their communities had
enough options with regard to schools, about 4 in 10 feel the country in general would benefit from more choice. Forty-seven percent say they
favor opening more public charter schools, 23 percent are opposed and 30 percent feel neutral about it. Meanwhile, 43 percent of respondents
support giving low-income families tuition vouchers for private schools, 35 percent are opposed and 21 percent don't have a strong opinion either
way. Republicans are slightly more likely than Democrats to favor opening more charter schools, 53 percent to 42 percent, but there is little
partisan variation for voucher programs. At the same time, opposition to vouchers is highest among those who have heard the
most about them

Intersection of Geography and politics ensures PC drain

Carey, 16 --- Kevin, Director Education Policy @ New American Foundation, NYT, 11/23,
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/23/upshot/why-donald-trumps-education-pick-would-
face-barriers-for-vouchers.html?_r=0
This is where the intersection of geography and politics makes any national voucher plan much more difficult to
enact. The practicality of school choice is highly related to population density. Children need to be able to get from
home to school and back again every day. In a large metropolis with public transportation, there could be dozens of schools within
reasonable travel distance of most families. In a small city, town or rural area, there will be few or none . And population
density, as Americans saw in the last election, is increasingly the dividing line of the nations politics. A significant
number of Mr. Trumps most ardent supporters live in sparsely populated areas where school choice is logistically
unlikely . At the same time, many of the municipalities where market reforms are theoretically much easier to put in
voted overwhelmingly against the president-elect. On Election Day, voters in liberal Massachusetts rejected a ballot
measure by a 62-38 margin that would have increased the number of charter schools in the state, despite strong evidence
that the states well-supervised charters produce superior results for low-income and minority schoolchildren. In theory, information technology
offers a way around the population density problem. Virtual schools can be attended from anywhere with an internet connection. For-profit
colleges that have pocketed billions of dollars by offering low-quality online courses are poised to make a comeback under the Trump
administration, which is likely to roll back President Obamas efforts to regulate them. But the federal government is a much larger
financial contributor to colleges and universities than to K-12 schools, and college students dont need an adult looking after
them all day. Ms. DeVos will probably be a boon to the relatively small, growing population of families that home-school their children. But
most parents will still want their children in a school building during the day, taught by a teacher, not by a computer. Ms.
Devos will also be hamstrung by the fact that her deregulated school choice philosophy has not been considered a
resounding success. In her home state, Detroits laissez-faire choice policies have led to a wild west of cutthroat competition and poor
academic results. While there is substantial academic literature on school vouchers and while debates continue between opposing
camps of researchers, its safe to say that vouchers have not produced the kind of large improvements in academic achievement that market-
oriented reformers originally promised.

Charter schools spark intense fights turns only prove link BOTH sides battle hard
Schmidt, 17 --- Peter, Chronicle of Higher Education, 1/24, lexis
The nominee for education secretary faces bitter opposition from teachers' unions and civil-rights groups, but is
backed by prominent Republicans and others seeking to overhaul public schools.
The prospect of Ms. DeVos overseeing the Education Department has inspired both intense opposition and strong
support from key players in several educational policy debates. Although most of the controversy surrounding Ms.
DeVos, a Michigan billionaire and philanthropist, stems from her role as a leading advocate of public charter
schools and school vouchers, some of her statements about higher-education issues such as Title IX enforcement
have also been divisive. Her confirmation hearing last week, before members of the Senate education committee,
proved rocky, with Democrats on the panel complaining that they did not get enough time to question her.
The committee has postponed its vote on whether to recommend Ms. DeVos's confirmation - originally scheduled
for Tuesday - until January 31 to allow its members time to review her extensive financial disclosures and her plans
to avoid conflicts of interest. If no disqualifying information emerges during that review, she is widely expected to
win Senate confirmation narrowly and along partisan lines, with that chamber's slight Republican majority carrying
the day. Most past presidents' picks for the position have won confirmation easily and with little opposition, through
voice votes.
Ms. DeVos's confirmation appears unlikely to silence her critics. Moreover, new controversies may erupt as the
Trump administration names other political appointees to Education Department posts with titles such as assistant
secretary or under secretary. Robert Kelchen, an assistant professor of higher education at Seton Hall University
who advised the department under President Barack Obama, says, "I am much more interested in who are the
political appointees in the department other than secretary," because "those are the people who have to have
expertise in the key higher-education policy areas."
Christopher T. Cross, a former Education Department official who chronicled that agency's history in the book
Political Education, says education secretaries typically have little say over political appointees to other agency
posts because "most of those end up being White House-directed." Mr. Cross, a consultant who in the early 1990s
served as assistant secretary for educational research and improvement under President George H.W. Bush,
predicted that Mr. Trump's transition team will seek to have people tied to his campaign placed in top Education
Department posts, and top Republican members of Congress will offer up names on their own.
Based on the reaction to Ms. DeVos's nomination, especially contentious will be the vetting of the Trump
administration's picks for the department's assistant secretary for civil rights and top posts focused on evaluating and
improving elementary and secondary schools.
Following is a breakdown of key players who have weighed in on the nomination of Ms. DeVos.
Supporters
Establishment Republicans. Strongly backing Ms. DeVos's nomination is Sen. Lamar Alexander, the chairman of
the Senate education committee, who encouraged the creation of charter schools as education secretary under
President George H.W. Bush and has characterized her views on them as mainstream. Senator Alexander, who on
Monday denied a request from Democratic committee members to hold a second hearing on Ms. DeVos, is hardly
the only big-name Republican to get behind her. Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who was the
Republican party's nominee for president in 2012, wrote a Washington Post op-ed saying Ms. DeVos "cares deeply
about our children" and dismissing her detractors as having a financial stake in thwarting needed changes at
elementary and secondary schools. The former first lady Barbara Bush, who established a foundation to promote
literacy, has similarly praised Ms. DeVos as having "a proven record of championing reforms," as has Jeb Bush, the
former governor of Florida. Twenty current Republican governors of states or U.S. territories have endorsed her
confirmation as someone who "will fight to streamline the federal education bureaucracy, return authority back to
states and local school boards, and ensure that more dollars are reaching the classroom." Among them, Gov. Scott
Walker of Wisconsin, a supporter of school vouchers who has frequently clashed with that state's public-college
professors over their workplace rights, separately wrote the Senate education committee to say her appointment
"will help to create an effective education system." (According to data compiled by the nonpartisan National
Institute on Money in State Politics, Ms. DeVos has contributed to the campaigns of Mr. Walker and six other state
governors who signed the letter. Her family has contributed to the campaigns of Mr. Walker and eight others.)
Critics of Public Schools. Republican senators and governors have been joined in their support for Ms. DeVos by
other prominent advocates of change in the financing and governance of public schools. They include Grover G.
Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. In a letter, he told the Senate committee that Ms. DeVos, in her
former capacity as head of the American Federation for Children, a pro-school-choice advocacy group, has played a
key role in persuading states to adopt policies that help children get needed educational services. Also praising Ms.
DeVos: Eva Moskowitz, founder of Success Academy Charter Schools, which operates more than 40 charter schools
in New York City, and scholars at the Thomas B. FordhamInstitute, which promotes charter schools. The Union of
Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, which advocates school choice and the provision of federal services to
children in nonpublic schools, has weighed in on her behalf.
Joseph Lieberman. Ms. DeVos was glowingly introduced to the Senate education committee by Joseph Lieberman,
the former Connecticut senator who was the Democratic Party's nominee for vice president in 2000. Mr. Lieberman,
who sits on the American Federation for Children's board, described Ms. DeVos as a sorely needed "change agent"
whose outsider status will be an asset. "She doesn't come from within the education establishment," he said. "But
honestly, I believe that today that's one of the most important qualifications you could have for this job."
Opponents
Teachers Unions. At the forefront in opposing the nomination of Ms. DeVos are the nation's two major teachers'
unions, the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers, each of which has affiliates
that represent college instructors. Both unions had uneasy relations with President Obama as a result of clashes over
his administration's efforts to promote school accountability and make it easier for schools to fire teachers. Their
leaders declared support for Hillary Clinton early in the Democratic primaries, based on her statements suggesting
she would be more sympathetic. The election of Donald Trump and his nomination of Ms. DeVos, a longtime
advocate of charter-school and school-voucher laws that the unions oppose, has dashed such hopes and put them
even more on the defensive than they had been before. Randi Weingarten, president of the AFT, has faulted Ms.
DeVos for lacking any experience as an educator, blamed her for advocacy efforts in Michigan for poorly
performing charter schools there, and called her "the most ideological, anti-public education nominee" for education
secretary since the position was created by President Jimmy Carter. Lily Eskelsen Garca, president of the NEA, has
described Ms. DeVos as "dangerously unqualified," faulting her for, among other things, not being a public-school
graduate or sending her children to public schools. Helping to organize a recent protest against the appointment of
Ms. DeVos: the Professional Staff Congress, which represents education workers at the City University of New
York and is affiliated with both the AFT and the American Association of University Professors. The AAUP's
national office, which collaborates with the AFT in organizing unions of college instructors, has not formally
discouraged the Senate from confirming Ms. DeVos but last week emailed The Chronicle a statement that called her
"part of the economic elite." It argued that Ms. DeVos "would implement whatever policies the new president wants
to put into place which, frankly, could get scary."
Public-School Officials. Although public-college associations have stayed out of the fray over Ms. DeVos, the major
groups representing leaders of public elementary and secondary schools have shown no such reticence. National
associations representing elementary school principals, secondary school principals, and school superintendents
have joined National PTA, the major teachers unions, and a long list of other associations and advocacy groups in
sending the Senate committee a letter that says Ms. DeVos has no record on "many critical issues affecting students
and schools" and that what they know about her record is "deeply troubling."
Other Liberal Advocacy Groups. Leaders of several of the nation's leading civil-rights organizations have expressed
doubts about Ms. DeVos's qualifications, arguing in a joint statement that, compared to previous education
secretaries, her "lack of experience stands out." Among them, Wade Henderson, president of the Leadership
Conference on Civil and Human Rights, has said, "Nothing that we know about DeVos's advocacy and background
leads us to believe that she'll hold fast to the department's civil-rights mission, and everything we do know makes
her unfit to lead it." Susan Henderson, executive director of the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, said
most of the voucher and school-choice programs that Ms. DeVos has advocated have resulted in a "a loss of civil
rights for children with disabilities under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act." Two separate advocacy
groups, the Center for American Progress and People for the American Way, have been steadily beating drums of
opposition. The Education Trust, an advocacy group that promotes high education achievement at all levels of
education, has accused Ms. DeVos of showing a willingness to let the Education Department sit back and let state
and local decision-makers shortchange students.
 Market Based Reforms---Vouchers---1NC

Vouchers drain PC dems backlash because trump, conservatives backlash because fed, pro-market
education lobby fights itself pre-election ev is irrelevant outweighs support for policy specifics
Camera, 17 --- Lauren Camera is an education reporter at U.S. News & World Report. Shes covered education
policy and politics for nearly a decade and has written for Education Week, The Hechinger Report, Congressional
Quarterly, Roll Call, and the Chronicle of Higher Education. She was a 2013 Spencer Education Fellow at Columbia
Universitys School of Journalism, where she conducted a reporting project about the impact of the Obama
administrations competitive education grant, Race to the Top, US News and World Report, 3/13,
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2017-03-23/trump-school-choice-proposals-drive-wedge-
between-charter-school-advocates
To be sure, the presidents budget proposal is just that, a proposal, and the funding for private school vouchers or some type of
scholarship tax credit is not a slam dunk, even among Republicans and especially among those who represent
rural states where children have few, if not zero, education options outside the public school system. Those variables
were at play last week in conservative Kentucky, when the governor signed a bill after months of heated debate in the state legislature that will
allow charter schools for the first time. The Blue Grass State was one of just seven now six that did not allow charter schools. The carefully
worded legislation only allows local school boards to authorize charter schools, with the exception of Louisville and Lexington, where the mayors
may also do so. Groups like the Center for Education Reform lobbied for the bill to also allow universities to act as charter authorizers and to
include virtual charters as an educational option. The fracture within the charter school sector is reflective of the larger
splintering of the education reform community. I think the Trump presidency is going to be a challenging time for
education reform, Petrilli, says. Just as weve seen a growing polarization in politics, we see a growing polarization
in the education reform community. Most education reformers who would identify as liberal Democrats are aghast
at Donald Trump even if he supports some of the school reform agenda . He continued: I think for groups like Democrats
for Education Reform, you tend to see them putting the Democrat before the education reform. They really seem to feel
like because of the threats to the budget, but also because of the threats around immigration and treatment of Muslims and
everything else that this is a time when they have to focus on their solidarity with other groups on the left rather
than focus on maybe some benefits for school choice or school reform. Not to be overlooked, Petrilli noted, are the handful of
conservative and libertarian policy organizations, like the Heritage Foundation and CATO, that have long supported voucher
programs but dont want the federal government to be the lever for pushing them. The White House has yet to unveil any
details of its $250 million private school choice proposal, or how the proposed $1 billion in increase Title I funding would be doled out to states
willing to expand their school choice offerings. DeVos said Monday that those details are still being debated. When those policies are
solidified, the battle lines between the school choice organizations will likely become even more obvious. The
question will be: Where is the division between public and private here? says Robin Lake, the director of the Center on Reinventing Public
Education. A lot of charters serve kids who are immigrants or who live in inner cities and the politics of this are going to get
interesting for sure. When push comes to shove I think charters will always side with the public school
community, she says. They are public schools.
 Market Based Reforms---Vouchers---2NC

Vouchers cant pass without massive PC expenditure

Education Week, 17 --- 5/17, lexis
How Trump's Altered the Landscape for Education Advocates Education advocates in Washington might not always be
on the same page when it comes to policy, but there's at least one thing the vast majority agree on: The Trump administration-
buttressed by a Republican Congress-is unlike anything they've ever had to contend with before . In particular,
groups that lobby Congress and the U.S. Department of Education on behalf of public school educators, as well as those
representing civil rights issues and advocating for education funding, say that they are fighting what feels like a
multifront war against vouchers, dramatic budget cuts, and what some describe as a general antipathy toward public
schools and disadvantaged children . "Being an advocate for public education gives me job security," joked Noelle Ellerson Ng, the
associate executive director of AASA, the School Superintendents Association. "There's plenty to engage on." Another was more blunt: " It
really sucks, " the advocate said. To be sure, the situation is different-even reversed-for groups that champion school choice and other policy
approaches favored by the Trump administration and Republicans on Capitol Hill. Such groups often found themselves sidelined during President
Barack Obama's tenure. But there's a long list of issues that keep teachers' unions, civil rights organizations, and similar
advocates up at night. On the fiscal front, there's the Trump administration's pitch to cut $9 billion, or 13 percent, from the
Education Department's roughly $70 billion budget, including slashing key programs that help pay for teacher-quality initiatives
and after-school programs. The health-care bill could squeeze up to $4 billion in funding that schools use to cover special education services. And
there are concerns that the Trump administration won't continue to invest in rural broadband, which many educators worry could slow the
progress the Obama administration made in boosting connectivity in remote rural districts. Then there's the administration's big school choice
push, about which there are few hard-and-fast details. The Trump administration has asked for $1 billion in new Title I funding to be directed to
school choice in its budget request. And the spending plan also seeks increased funding for charter schools and resources for a private school
initiative. But the specifics of those programs remain cloudy, frustrating advocates on both sides of this contentious issue. Some organizations
say they are struggling to preserve what they see as victories from the Obama years, including a larger role for the department
in looking out for children's civil rights and a focus on resource equity. "The idea that we might be going backward is just
deeply frustrating," said Liz King, the director of education for the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. Level of
Unpredictability The mechanics of the job now are different, too. The political ranks at the Education Department are thin, since the White House
has been slow to fill subcabinet positions. Some Washington organizations have started providing the kind of technical assistance to their
members that the department used to provide, doing their best to answer questions about matters like implementation of the Every Student
Succeeds Act. Others say their communication with civil servants at the department has been markedly different-policy experts they've long
worked with aren't nearly as accessible or forthcoming. What's more, because President Trump doesn't have a full team in place and doesn't have
a long record on K-12 issues, it's tough for advocates to see around the corner when it comes to education policy and spending. That situation isn't
unique to education, said Mary Kusler, the senior director of the National Education Association's Center for Advocacy. "I would agree it's hard
[to be an advocate] because there is a level of unpredictability. That is not an education-only problem. It is a Washington, D.C., new-world-order
problem," she said. "It makes it impossible to plan for the long term." The choice of Betsy DeVos, a longtime school choice champion, as
education secretary only makes life harder from the perspective of groups like the NEA that vehemently opposed her confirmation. "For the first
time, we have a secretary of education who has no background in public education" and who has a singular focus on school choice, Kusler said.
"Every time she opens her mouth, she shows her lack of qualifications for this job." But Jeanne Allen, the CEO for the Center for Education
Reform, a school choice advocacy organization, sees DeVos' appointment as something to celebrate. "They're singing a song that we've been
singing for a long time," she said of the secretary and her team. That's a far cry from the way Allen expected things would play out early in the
fall, when nearly everyone in Washington was anticipating that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, then-candidate Trump's Democratic
rival, would be in the White House. Allen said her organization was "prepared first and foremost to put most of our time and energy into state
battles and efforts." Electoral Jolt But Trump's surprise win was a jolt of a different kind for many public school educators
and organizations that represent them in the nation's capital. "We went from hearing from our members [that they were] positive
and hopeful tothis drastic shift of almost panic," said Kelly Vaillancourt Strobach, the director of government relations for the National
Association of School Psychologists. "Every proposal that seems to come out is almost like a bomb . You're in constant
damage control, which is frustrating." And advocates for public school educators say they're worried that proposals that once
looked unlikely to come to fruition-like a massive cut to teacher-quality funding-might actually make it across the
legislative finish line. It doesn't help that the Education Department still hasn't filled key positions. So far, Trump has nominated just one
political appointee: Carlos Muniz, as general counsel. Other players in K-12 positions that require Senate sign-off-like Jason Botel, who is acting
as the assistant secretary for elementary and secondary education-are temporary fill-ins. It's unclear how long any of them will stick around in
those roles. Some education representatives are scratching their heads about whom to approach with policy proposals and questions. "I think in
many ways the administration is still getting its people in place," said Jacki Ball, the director of government affairs for the National PTA. "We're
just not always sure who to go to. We're trying to develop relationships with the people that are there," including Botel, who spoke at a recent
PTA conference. "That was a good opportunity to open the door." And one advocate said there have been changes in dealings with the
department's career employees, who stick around from one presidential administration to the next. "Any communication you have with federal
employees now is difficult," the advocate said. "They are really hesitant to communicate via email. They say things like, 'It
is so hostile over
here.' ... Everyone is walking on eggshells." Aides for GOP members in Congress are quick to tout lawmakers' ties to Trump, but aren't
shy about criticizing DeVos, said Sasha Pudelski, the assistant director for policy and advocacy at AASA. "They're attacking the administration
via DeVos," she said. (A similar dynamic prevailed among Democrats in Congress during Secretary Arne Duncan's tenure in the Obama
administration.) There's an upside: Those representing educator groups say their members are fired up and watching Washington closely. That
means more are willing to write letters, sign petitions, call their members of Congress, or lobby in person. "This is a really unique time, where
people who would normally sit back and say it's going to be fine feel a threat" to public education, the NEA's Kusler said. The boost in
education community engagement isn't without its challenges. Several advocates said they got a flood of calls from
their organizations' members about a bill introduced by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, that would create federally supported
vouchers nationwide. That legislation is almost certain to go nowhere . But it can be tougher to get members riled up
about proposals that may actually be able to get traction, including potential budget cuts. Fielding questions about extreme,
dead-on-arrival proposals cuts into advocates' time and energy. "We have to make sure there's not burnout. We have to make sure that the level of
attention is appropriate," Pudelski said. "Every lobbyist I talk to feels like they're running on empty a little bit." Common Cause One thing that
has helped lighten the load: Education advocacy organizations that work on behalf of public school educators and those representing
disadvantaged students are working together much more closely, and on a much broader range of issues, than they have in the past. "Under
Clinton, under Bush, and under Obama, the education community was afforded the luxury of disagreeing with one another," said Ellerson Ng, the
AASA official. "We can no longer afford to disagree, because we have such a basic task of supporting public education." Ultimately, though,
nearly any major education initiative -from the president's proposed budget cuts to any school choice proposal-will
have to go through Congress . Even in a polarized climate on Capitol Hill, advocates say they're still able to keep working with
the same lawmakers and staffers they've relied on in the past. "It's ultimately up to Congress to pass the law," Kusler said. "We're still
working predominantly with members on both sides of the aisle who support public education."

Vouchers drain trump PC even pro-market supporters have splintered post election plan only causes
them to fight each other
Camera, 17 --- Lauren Camera is an education reporter at U.S. News & World Report. Shes covered education
policy and politics for nearly a decade and has written for Education Week, The Hechinger Report, Congressional
Quarterly, Roll Call, and the Chronicle of Higher Education. She was a 2013 Spencer Education Fellow at Columbia
Universitys School of Journalism, where she conducted a reporting project about the impact of the Obama
administrations competitive education grant, Race to the Top, US News and World Report, 3/13,
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2017-03-23/trump-school-choice-proposals-drive-wedge-
between-charter-school-advocates
The Trump administration's plan to ax $9 billion in federal education spending but direct millions to a new program
that would help students afford private school exposed a fissure among charter school advocates, one not publicly
acknowledged but privately widening at an increasingly fast pace since the election. In reacting to the fiscal 2018
blueprint, organizations that support charter schools split: Some admonished the administration for its proposed education cuts, as
well as billions in cuts to health care and wraparound social service programs on which the country's most disadvantaged students rely. Others
touted the increases for school choice policies, which, in addition to a $250 million private school choice program, included $168 million more
for charter schools and a $1 billion boost in Title I for poor students whose states allow them to use the money to enroll at any public school of
their choice. Today, President Trump demonstrated that he is a strong supporter of charter public schools, Nina Rees, president and CEO of the
National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, said in a statement. The charter school movement is grateful for the presidents support, and we
applaud his commitment to providing critically needed funding. But Greg Richmond, president and CEO of the National Association of Charter
School Authorizers, took a different tack. We are deeply concerned about proposed cuts to other important education programs, as charter
schools are part of not a substitute for a strong public education system, Richmond said in his public statement. Charter schools cannot
succeed without strong teachers and a seamless, affordable path to college for their graduates. Unfortunately, this proposed budget harms
different responses highlight whats become a more
programs that are important for students, teachers, and public education. The
visible divide , though one thats long existed, among school choice proponents and specifically among charter
school supporters who can get behind private school choice policies and those who cannot. Those who cannot, like
Richmond, are adamant that any schools that use taxpayer dollars, including charter schools, must be held accountable
for being good stewards of those dollars and show positive results for students. "From a policy perspective, accountability to the public for
outcomes is what makes charter schools public schools," he says. "If there is no accountability to the public about the results youre producing
and how youre spending your money, then youre not public." What he and others fear is that accountability will be greatly
diminished under Trump, whose stated mission is to direct $20 billion in federal funding to school choice policies,
who has touted programs that allow students to use state dollars to attend private schools, and who tapped private
school voucher advocate Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education. On the other side are those who take a more liberal view of
accountability, subscribing instead to a free-market philosophy that relies on competition to weed out schools that aren't holding up their
end of the bargain. To be sure, the charter school movement has always been comprised of people with different education philosophies.
While the coalition has largely held together thanks to the reform-friendly agenda of the Obama administration that allowed the sector to flourish,
it's since begun splintering . That played out in a very public way for the first time last summer, when the charter sector
found itself in the crosshairs of a burgeoning and wide-scale debate over who truly holds communities of color in their best
interest. This
wedge has existed for a long time, says Michael Petrilli, president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Its a big tent,
as weve seen a growing polarization in politics, we see a growing
for charter schools supporters especially, and just
polarization in the education reform community. Trumps focus on private school choice is pushing that wedge
into the public spotlight again and is forcing charter school advocates to plant their flags on the proverbial spectrum of
accountability. Over the years, its kind of been a gentlemens agreement in the charter tent that we dont fight with each other about that,
Richmond says But whats been happening lately and it really picked up steam after the election is the free-market
supporters within the charter tent are trying to redefine charter schools to be more like vouchers. He continued:
Theyre really pushing back hard against accountability. Perhaps that should not come as a surprise. In DeVos home state of
Michigan, she and her family have spent millions of dollars backing proposals to expand school choice policies like
charters and private school vouchers. And the landscape there, particularly the charter school landscape in Detroit, represents
more of a free-market, hands-off approach that trusts in parents to choose the best schools for their children and in
competition to put poor-performing schools out of business. Those ideals stand in contrast to charter school policies in other
cities and states, like New Orleans, New York and Massachusetts, where charter schools are under close scrutiny of the government
and under more pressure and a tighter timeline to show positive results for their students. Charter school advocates see the new
administration as an opportunity to push their agendas, but those agendas are increasingly at odds with each other.
Trumps budget proposal elucidated those disparities, differentiating groups like the Center for Education Reform and American Federation for
Children, which have long supported private school vouchers, from groups like Democrats for Education Reform and the Fordham Institute,
which have only supported private school vouchers that have rigorous accountability systems attached, from groups like Stand for Children,
which have pushed back against private school vouchers.

Vouchers drain PC fierce backlash from dems and teachers unions public support not salient
Swanson, 17 --- Emily, Hartford Courtant, 5/14, lexis
Even as fierce political battles rage in Washington over school choice, most Americans know little about charter
schools or private school voucher programs. Still, more Americans feel positively than negatively about expanding those programs,
according to a new poll. "I wonder what the fuss is about," said Beverly Brown, 61, a retired grocery store worker in central Alabama. Brown,
who doesn't have children, says U.S. schools need reform, but she is not familiar with specific school options and policies. Fifty-eight percent of
respondents say they know little or nothing at all about charter schools and 66 percent report the same about private school voucher programs,
according to the poll conducted by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Charters are schools funded by
taxpayer money, but they operate independently of school districts and thus have more freedom in setting their
curriculum and hiring staff. Vouchers are publicly funded scholarships given to low-income families to help cover tuition in private
schools, including religious ones. Using taxpayer money to aid struggling public schools or diverting it to fund more
charter schools or make private schools available to more families has been hotly debated since Donald Trump was
elected president. During the campaign, Trump promised to fund a $20 billion school choice program. He picked a charter and private school
advocate, Betsy DeVos, as his education secretary. Earlier this month the president welcomed a group of students who were voucher recipients to
the White House and asked Congress to work with him to make school options available nationwide. Those efforts
face fierce resistance
from teachers unions and some Democrats who say that school choice drains funds from public schools while leaving
charter and private schools unaccountable in terms of academic standards and civil rights protections. Other Democrats support some of the
choice measures, which also divide Republicans . Patrick McGuinn, an education professor at Drew University, said he was surprised
that most Americans had little knowledge about school choice options. "That's pretty remarkable given the growth and high-profile
politics around charters," he said. "As much as policymakers are talking the heck about this, the debate really hasn't
permeated the general public's discussion yet." Charter schools operate in 42 states and the District of Columbia. D.C. has only the
federally funded voucher program, while 30 states have voucher or similar education choice programs. Even though they are unfamiliar to many,
Americans have largely positive reactions to charter schools and vouchers. While 55 percent of respondents say parents in their communities had
enough options with regard to schools, about 4 in 10 feel the country in general would benefit from more choice. Forty-seven percent say they
favor opening more public charter schools, 23 percent are opposed and 30 percent feel neutral about it. Meanwhile, 43 percent of respondents
support giving low-income families tuition vouchers for private schools, 35 percent are opposed and 21 percent don't have a strong opinion either
way. Republicans are slightly more likely than Democrats to favor opening more charter schools, 53 percent to 42 percent, but there is little
partisan variation for voucher programs. At the same time, opposition to vouchers is highest among those who have heard the most
about them
Federal vouchers trigger massive funding fights and PC loss specifically trades off with tax cuts
Carey, 16 --- Kevin, Director Education Policy @ New American Foundation, NYT, 11/23,
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/23/upshot/why-donald-trumps-education-pick-would-
face-barriers-for-vouchers.html?_r=0
Why Betsy DeVos Wont Be Able to Privatize U.S. Education Were resurfacing this article after the narrow confirmation of Betsy
DeVos as education secretary on Tuesday. As we noted in November, she
will be highly constrained in trying to voucherize
American K-12 education. Betsy DeVos, a wealthy Republican philanthropist, whom Donald J. Trump selected on Wednesday as the
next secretary of education, has spent her career promoting a market-based, privatized vision of public education. If she
pursues that agenda in her new role, she is quite likely to face disappointment and frustration . Market-based school
reforms generally come in two flavors: vouchers and charter schools. They differ in both structure and political orientation. Charter
schools are public schools, open to all, accountable in varying degrees to public authorities, and usually run by nonprofit organizations. Vouchers,
by contrast, allow students to attend any school, public or private, including those run by religious organizations and for-profit companies. While
charters enjoy support from most Republicans and some Democrats, vouchers have a narrower political base , those who tend to
favor free markets to replace many government responsibilities. Working primarily in Michigan, Ms. DeVos has been a strong
advocate of vouchers, and her charter work has often focused on making charter schools as private as possible. The large majority of Michigan
charters are run by for-profit companies, in contrast with most states. The DeVos family donated more than $1 million to Republican lawmakers
earlier this year during a successful effort to oppose new oversight of charters. That support made Ms. Devos a natural choice for Mr. Trump,
who proposed a $20 billion federal voucher program on the campaign trail , and has likened the public school system to a
monopoly business that needs to be broken up. But
any effort to promote vouchers from Washington will run up against the
basic structures of American education. The United States spends over $600 billion a year on public K-12 schools. Less than 9 percent
of that money comes from the federal government, and it is almost exclusively dedicated to specific populations of children, most notably
students with disabilities and students in low-income communities. There are no existing federal funds that can easily be turned
into vouchers large enough to pay for school tuition on the open market. Mr. Trumps $20 billion proposal would be,
by itself, very expensive. It may be hard to fit into a budget passed by a Republican Congress that has pledged to
enact large tax cuts for corporations and citizens, expand the military and eliminate the budget deficit, all at the same time. Yet $20
billion isnt nearly enough to finance vouchers nationwide, which is why Mr. Trumps proposal assumes that states
will kick in another $110 billion. States dont have that kind of money lying around . The only plausible source is existing school
funding. But even if Ms. DeVos were to find a willing governor and state legislature, its not that easy. Roughly half of all nonfederal
education funding comes from local property taxes raised by over 13,000 local school districts. They and their elected representatives will have a
say, too.

Geography and politics ensures federal vouchers drain PC

Carey, 16 --- Kevin, Director Education Policy @ New American Foundation, NYT, 11/23,
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/23/upshot/why-donald-trumps-education-pick-would-
face-barriers-for-vouchers.html?_r=0
This is where the intersection of geography and politics makes any national voucher plan much more difficult to
enact. The practicality of school choice is highly related to population density. Children need to be able to get from
home to school and back again every day. In a large metropolis with public transportation, there could be dozens of schools within
reasonable travel distance of most families. In a small city, town or rural area, there will be few or none . And population
density, as Americans saw in the last election, is increasingly the dividing line of the nations politics. A significant
number of Mr. Trumps most ardent supporters live in sparsely populated areas where school choice is logistically
unlikely . At the same time, many of the municipalities where market reforms are theoretically much easier to put in
voted overwhelmingly against the president-elect. On Election Day, voters in liberal Massachusetts rejected a ballot
measure by a 62-38 margin that would have increased the number of charter schools in the state, despite strong evidence
that the states well-supervised charters produce superior results for low-income and minority schoolchildren. In theory, information technology
offers a way around the population density problem. Virtual schools can be attended from anywhere with an internet connection. For-profit
colleges that have pocketed billions of dollars by offering low-quality online courses are poised to make a comeback under the Trump
administration, which is likely to roll back President Obamas efforts to regulate them. But the federal government is a much larger
financial contributor to colleges and universities than to K-12 schools, and college students dont need an adult looking after
them all day. Ms. DeVos will probably be a boon to the relatively small, growing population of families that home-school their children. But
most parents will still want their children in a school building during the day, taught by a teacher, not by a computer. Ms.
Devos will also be hamstrung by the fact that her deregulated school choice philosophy has not been considered a
resounding success. In her home state, Detroits laissez-faire choice policies have led to a wild west of cutthroat competition and poor
academic results. While there is substantial academic literature on school vouchers and while debates continue between opposing
camps of researchers, its safe to say that vouchers have not produced the kind of large improvements in academic achievement that market-
oriented reformers originally promised.

No Turns vouchers split GOP base, cause dems backlash and house GOP opposition rural republicans
hate it
Bump, 14 --- PHILIP BUMP is a former politics writer for The Atlantic Wire, The Atlantic, 1/22,
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/01/why-dont-republicans-want-school-vouchers-places-
republicans-actually-live/357277/
Why Don't Republicans Want School Vouchers in Places Republicans Actually Live ? Republicans are once again passionate
about school vouchers, believing that "school choice" is a key to winning over minority voters. But you know who often doesn't
like the idea? Republicans from rural areas. A number of prominent members of the GOP have spoken about
vouchers recently, largely in the context of addressing poverty and inequality. Politico documents a number of them: House Majority Leader
Eric Cantor, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, state representatives around the country. "Its a winning issue for us," the GOP's outreach director to
African-American media told Politico. "Were going to be talking about educational opportunity in every state." Receptions
in those states will vary. In statehouse battles over the past several years, it has been an alliance of Democrats and
rural Republicans that have opposed expanding or implementing vouchers. For the same reason: vouchers pull
resources from schools that need every dollar they can get after years of scaling back. The debate over vouchers is
usually centered on urban schools, since it provides the Republicans' dream pitch: A failing local school has parents of every color and
creed looking for alternatives. Siphon money from the big government education pool, and let parents decide if they'd like to use it toward a
private or charter school. School choice. It appeals to those dissatisfied urban parents urban parents who, the demographics tell us, would
usually vote Democratic. "Failing" is a relative term, of course. But there's no question that public schools like all components of government
are struggling with reduced budgets. According to a Census Bureau report that came out last year, 2011 marked the first year in four decades
that per-student spending in public schools declined but that data wasn't adjusted for inflation. That year, 65.6 percent of spending was from
local property taxes, but the amount from the federal government dropped 2.5 percent from 2010 when adjusted to 2013 dollars. That's a
constriction that is part-and-parcel with the Republicans' higher-priority message: less government spending. As the graph at right shows, federal
education spending in 2013 dollars dipped not quite as severely in the 1980s during the tenure of Ronald Reagan. Break the schools, offer a
fix. That fix has been less likely to resonate with Republicans representing only rural parts of states, as has been
demonstrated a number of times in recent years. In Kansas last year, a proposal for a voucher program failed even
after it received the stipulation that it would only apply to "high-density, at-risk" schools. That bill echoed one in
Pennsylvania, an expansion of which went down in 2011, opposed by "Democrats and some rural Republicans." A big
fight over vouchers in Wisconsin last year saw opposition to a proposal by Gov. Scott Walker from the Wisconsin Rural Schools
Alliance and Assembly Republicans. Fourteen members representing rural parts of the state called for more public school
funding during that fight. In North Carolina, a pro-voucher group ran into opposition in 2013 from, among other
groups, the Rural School and Community Trust. Education Week outlined the group's argument: "Rural school districts have long
known their fundamental challenge is a lack of local wealth to devote to their schools. This provision doesn't get to the root of the problem and
will most assuredly widen the equity gap in the N.C. education system." But the most evocative example comes, perhaps predictably,
from Texas. In 2012, Tea Party leaders in the state renewed a "school choice" push that had stalled out several years before.
critical votes in past voucher fights have been rural Republicans, who dont
The Texas Observer explains that failure: "The
much care for vouchers because their districts dont have private schools." Rewind to 2005, and the Observer offers a
memorable quote from an unnamed rural Republican explaining the concern: In many parts of rural Texas, where schools and prisons are the only
economic engines, the school superintendent is one of the most powerful people in the county. As one rural House member, who wishes to
remain anonymous, will say after the debate: I could fuck a goat and my constituents might forgive me, but I could never mess with the public
schools in my district. This is the same argument that urban parents often make, albeit less colorfully. Pulling resources from public schools is
risky. Even if a school is faltering on objective and subjective measures, it's hard to see how reducing resources will improve the school. Instead,
vouchers let for-profit private and charter schools skim the more capable and wealthier students from the public school system, risking an
exacerbation of the existing problem. In rural areas, with fewer private school options and, often, a stronger sense of community around the
school system, those risks are more exposed. Politico points to a pro-school-choice presentation apparently created by the conservative group
FreedomWorks. "School Choice For All," one section reads. "Ideally, parents will have access to their money with that money following the child
to the school/institution of their choice." The group is calling for a February 1 march to Washington, as part of a "bi-partisan
effort" to garner support for the initiative. In a state-by-state effort, the opposition to vouchers has often been
equally bipartisan.

Vouchers spark intense fights turns only prove link BOTH sides battle hard
Schmidt, 17 --- Peter, Chronicle of Higher Education, 1/24, lexis
The nominee for education secretary faces bitter opposition from teachers' unions and civil-rights groups, but is
backed by prominent Republicans and others seeking to overhaul public schools.
The prospect of Ms. DeVos overseeing the Education Department has inspired both intense opposition and strong
support from key players in several educational policy debates. Although most of the controversy surrounding Ms.
DeVos, a Michigan billionaire and philanthropist, stems from her role as a leading advocate of public charter
schools and school vouchers, some of her statements about higher-education issues such as Title IX enforcement
have also been divisive. Her confirmation hearing last week, before members of the Senate education committee,
proved rocky, with Democrats on the panel complaining that they did not get enough time to question her.
The committee has postponed its vote on whether to recommend Ms. DeVos's confirmation - originally scheduled
for Tuesday - until January 31 to allow its members time to review her extensive financial disclosures and her plans
to avoid conflicts of interest. If no disqualifying information emerges during that review, she is widely expected to
win Senate confirmation narrowly and along partisan lines, with that chamber's slight Republican majority carrying
the day. Most past presidents' picks for the position have won confirmation easily and with little opposition, through
voice votes.
Ms. DeVos's confirmation appears unlikely to silence her critics. Moreover, new controversies may erupt as the
Trump administration names other political appointees to Education Department posts with titles such as assistant
secretary or under secretary. Robert Kelchen, an assistant professor of higher education at Seton Hall University
who advised the department under President Barack Obama, says, "I am much more interested in who are the
political appointees in the department other than secretary," because "those are the people who have to have
expertise in the key higher-education policy areas."
Christopher T. Cross, a former Education Department official who chronicled that agency's history in the book
Political Education, says education secretaries typically have little say over political appointees to other agency
posts because "most of those end up being White House-directed." Mr. Cross, a consultant who in the early 1990s
served as assistant secretary for educational research and improvement under President George H.W. Bush,
predicted that Mr. Trump's transition team will seek to have people tied to his campaign placed in top Education
Department posts, and top Republican members of Congress will offer up names on their own.
Based on the reaction to Ms. DeVos's nomination, especially contentious will be the vetting of the Trump
administration's picks for the department's assistant secretary for civil rights and top posts focused on evaluating and
improving elementary and secondary schools.
Following is a breakdown of key players who have weighed in on the nomination of Ms. DeVos.
Supporters
Establishment Republicans. Strongly backing Ms. DeVos's nomination is Sen. Lamar Alexander, the chairman of
the Senate education committee, who encouraged the creation of charter schools as education secretary under
President George H.W. Bush and has characterized her views on them as mainstream. Senator Alexander, who on
Monday denied a request from Democratic committee members to hold a second hearing on Ms. DeVos, is hardly
the only big-name Republican to get behind her. Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who was the
Republican party's nominee for president in 2012, wrote a Washington Post op-ed saying Ms. DeVos "cares deeply
about our children" and dismissing her detractors as having a financial stake in thwarting needed changes at
elementary and secondary schools. The former first lady Barbara Bush, who established a foundation to promote
literacy, has similarly praised Ms. DeVos as having "a proven record of championing reforms," as has Jeb Bush, the
former governor of Florida. Twenty current Republican governors of states or U.S. territories have endorsed her
confirmation as someone who "will fight to streamline the federal education bureaucracy, return authority back to
states and local school boards, and ensure that more dollars are reaching the classroom." Among them, Gov. Scott
Walker of Wisconsin, a supporter of school vouchers who has frequently clashed with that state's public-college
professors over their workplace rights, separately wrote the Senate education committee to say her appointment
"will help to create an effective education system." (According to data compiled by the nonpartisan National
Institute on Money in State Politics, Ms. DeVos has contributed to the campaigns of Mr. Walker and six other state
governors who signed the letter. Her family has contributed to the campaigns of Mr. Walker and eight others.)
Critics of Public Schools. Republican senators and governors have been joined in their support for Ms. DeVos by
other prominent advocates of change in the financing and governance of public schools. They include Grover G.
Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. In a letter, he told the Senate committee that Ms. DeVos, in her
former capacity as head of the American Federation for Children, a pro-school-choice advocacy group, has played a
key role in persuading states to adopt policies that help children get needed educational services. Also praising Ms.
DeVos: Eva Moskowitz, founder of Success Academy Charter Schools, which operates more than 40 charter schools
in New York City, and scholars at the Thomas B. FordhamInstitute, which promotes charter schools. The Union of
Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, which advocates school choice and the provision of federal services to
children in nonpublic schools, has weighed in on her behalf.
Joseph Lieberman. Ms. DeVos was glowingly introduced to the Senate education committee by Joseph Lieberman,
the former Connecticut senator who was the Democratic Party's nominee for vice president in 2000. Mr. Lieberman,
who sits on the American Federation for Children's board, described Ms. DeVos as a sorely needed "change agent"
whose outsider status will be an asset. "She doesn't come from within the education establishment," he said. "But
honestly, I believe that today that's one of the most important qualifications you could have for this job."
Opponents
Teachers Unions. At the forefront in opposing the nomination of Ms. DeVos are the nation's two major teachers'
unions, the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers, each of which has affiliates
that represent college instructors. Both unions had uneasy relations with President Obama as a result of clashes over
his administration's efforts to promote school accountability and make it easier for schools to fire teachers. Their
leaders declared support for Hillary Clinton early in the Democratic primaries, based on her statements suggesting
she would be more sympathetic. The election of Donald Trump and his nomination of Ms. DeVos, a longtime
advocate of charter-school and school-voucher laws that the unions oppose, has dashed such hopes and put them
even more on the defensive than they had been before. Randi Weingarten, president of the AFT, has faulted Ms.
DeVos for lacking any experience as an educator, blamed her for advocacy efforts in Michigan for poorly
performing charter schools there, and called her "the most ideological, anti-public education nominee" for education
secretary since the position was created by President Jimmy Carter. Lily Eskelsen Garca, president of the NEA, has
described Ms. DeVos as "dangerously unqualified," faulting her for, among other things, not being a public-school
graduate or sending her children to public schools. Helping to organize a recent protest against the appointment of
Ms. DeVos: the Professional Staff Congress, which represents education workers at the City University of New
York and is affiliated with both the AFT and the American Association of University Professors. The AAUP's
national office, which collaborates with the AFT in organizing unions of college instructors, has not formally
discouraged the Senate from confirming Ms. DeVos but last week emailed The Chronicle a statement that called her
"part of the economic elite." It argued that Ms. DeVos "would implement whatever policies the new president wants
to put into place which, frankly, could get scary."
Public-School Officials. Although public-college associations have stayed out of the fray over Ms. DeVos, the major
groups representing leaders of public elementary and secondary schools have shown no such reticence. National
associations representing elementary school principals, secondary school principals, and school superintendents
have joined National PTA, the major teachers unions, and a long list of other associations and advocacy groups in
sending the Senate committee a letter that says Ms. DeVos has no record on "many critical issues affecting students
and schools" and that what they know about her record is "deeply troubling."
Other Liberal Advocacy Groups. Leaders of several of the nation's leading civil-rights organizations have expressed
doubts about Ms. DeVos's qualifications, arguing in a joint statement that, compared to previous education
secretaries, her "lack of experience stands out." Among them, Wade Henderson, president of the Leadership
Conference on Civil and Human Rights, has said, "Nothing that we know about DeVos's advocacy and background
leads us to believe that she'll hold fast to the department's civil-rights mission, and everything we do know makes
her unfit to lead it." Susan Henderson, executive director of the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, said
most of the voucher and school-choice programs that Ms. DeVos has advocated have resulted in a "a loss of civil
rights for children with disabilities under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act." Two separate advocacy
groups, the Center for American Progress and People for the American Way, have been steadily beating drums of
opposition. The Education Trust, an advocacy group that promotes high education achievement at all levels of
education, has accused Ms. DeVos of showing a willingness to let the Education Department sit back and let state
and local decision-makers shortchange students.
 Links---Native American Education---1NC

Native education legislation cant pass congress without PC

Meza, 15 --- Nizhone, BYU Education and Law Journal, lexis
Current Federal Indian Education Policy Although there are provisions regarding Indian education in over 150 treaties between tribes and the
United States, n19 there are differing opinions , not explored in this Comment, on the extent and even on the existence of the
United States' legal responsibility for Indian education. n20 And while the Supreme Court has continually upheld the unique trust
responsibility to the tribes as "domestic dependent nations," n21 it is Congress and the Executive Branch that have agreed "that the federal
government has a special responsibility for the education of Indian peoples." n22 In fact, not only has Congress included Indian education in bills
such as the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act and specific provisions in the No Child Left Behind Act, but also "Congress
has codified this responsibility more explicitly in the Native American Education Improvement Act." n23 A. Indian Education Act of 1972 The
Indian Education Act addressed the special educational and cultural needs of American Indian and Alaska Native [*357] students through the
Department of Education. The Act created the National Advisory Council. n24 It was also the source of funding for "research activities and
various discretionary programs" and ""basic' funding to public school districts, tribes, and Bureau-funded schools based on eligible student
enrollment." n25 A wide variety of programs could use the basic funding as long as the program addressed "the culturally related academic needs
of Indian children, promoted high educational standards, included student performance goals and was developed with the active involvement of
the Indian community and approved by a committee selected by Indian parents and students." n26 B. No Child Left Behind - Title VII: Indian
Education In 2001, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was reauthorized as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). n27 The Statement
of Policy and Purpose of Title VII of NCLB, or Indian Education, was amended to read as follows: Sec. 7101. Statement of Policy. It is the policy
of the United States to fulfill the Federal Government's unique and continuing trust relationship with and responsibility to the Indian people for
the education of Indian children. The Federal Government will continue to ... ensure that programs that serve Indian children are of the highest
quality and provide for not only the basic elementary and secondary education needs, but also the unique educational and culturally related
academic needs of these children. Sec. 7102. Purpose. (a) Purpose - It is the purpose ... to support the efforts ... to meet the unique educational
and culturally related academic needs of American Indian and Alaska Native students, so that such students can meet the same challenging State
student academic achievement standards as all other students are expected to meet. n28 Title VII of NCLB provides funding for research, [*358]
evaluation, data collection, technical assistance as well as direct assistance for programs that meet the unique educational and culturally related
academic needs of American Indian and Alaska Natives. n29 Title VII also provides for the training of Indian persons as educators, counselors,
and other professionals serving Indian people. n30 In 2013, House Republicans attempted to bring a partisan bill to the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act HR 5 that would have consolidated federal funds designated for special populations. n31 This
was met with some resistance and Congresswoman McCollum issued the following statement: I object in the strongest terms to this abandonment
of our federal trust responsibility to Native American youth. Students throughout Indian Country are already bearing the brunt of sequestrations
cuts to education. Now this partisan bill would strip away the guaranteed funding and the crucial academic and cultural supports that Native
students need. n32 Subsequently, the House voted to pass the Young-Gabbard-Hanabusa-McCollum Amendment to the Student Success Act
which not only restored funding for students throughout Indian Country, but illustrated "the recognized need for the federal government to live up
to its trust responsibility for our Native students by guaranteeing the funding needed to provide high quality culturally appropriate education."
n33 C. The Native American Languages Act In stark contrast to the assimilation period, the Native American Languages Act n34 "specifically
recognizes the [*359] importance of indigenous language, including Native Hawaiian and Native Pacific Islander languages, and the policy of the
United States to work with native communities to ensure their survival." n35 It has been noted that native language programs may be necessarily
incorporated to ensure student achievement. This realization comes after generations of children have been denied an appropriate education due
to the failure of addressing the needs of native speakers. n36 The Act recognized official Native American government languages as well as the
rights of tribes "to use native languages as a medium of instruction." n37 The purpose of the Act was not only to ensure equal access to education,
but its purpose was also "to support indigenous language survival, cultural awareness, and student success and self-confidence." n38 The Act
encouraged "teaching native languages in the same manner, and with the same status, as foreign languages." n39 [*360] Amendments to the
Native American Programs Act in 2006 "authorized funding for immersion programs and other programs designed to restore native languages as
living languages, by funding "Native American language nests' for children under the age of seven, "Native American language survival schools'
for school age students, and restoration programs, including native language and culture camps." n40 IV. Current State of Indian Education
Native American students continue to perform at a much lower rate than the general population. n41 It is estimated that 81 percent of Indian
students read below grade level. n42 In 2005, it was estimated that only 50.6 percent of Native American students graduated from high school.
n43 Furthermore, American Indians and Alaska Native students have significantly lower than average scores "on both the math and verbal
portions of the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT)" and are the least likely ethnic group to attend college. n44 American Indian Education policy can
no longer be limited to the federal level. The 2010 Census revealed that about 70 percent of the American Indian and Alaska Native population
now live in metropolitan areas. n45 About 90 percent of all American Indian and Alaska Native students attend regular public schools with only 7
percent attending schools administered by the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs. n46 [*361] As a result, state education policy impacts the
education of Native American and Alaska Native students more than federal policy. The influence of United States Indian Education policy on
the independent sovereign states is limited and dependent on each individual state and its state school board's understanding of federal funds that
are intended to benefit the American Indian and Alaska Native student. As a result, there are sporadic effects on Indian education. Tribal
sovereignty is indirectly being affected by the education of the future generation. There are an estimated 209 indigenous languages still spoken in
America with 562 recognized sovereign tribal nations in the United States. n47 A recent survey n48 by the National Indian Education Study
(NIES) showed that a higher percentage of students at Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) schools reported having more knowledge of their
American Indian/Alaska Native history than in low-density public schools. n49 Children are the tribes' most vital resource to tribal sovereignty,
but without student success in education and the foundational knowledge of culture and language, tribal governments may be left ill prepared. V.
The Future of Indian Education The future of Indian Education remains unknown. However, the preservation of culture and language
is beginning to be recognized federally and by a few states as an indirect means to improve the state of Indian Education. Proposed federal
legislation includes financial support for preserving American Indian cultures and languages. State support varies between individual states as
well as discrepancies of program implementation among individual school districts within the same state. When all major players influencing the
education [*362] of Native American students work together, the state of Indian education has the potential to make a dramatic turn. A.
Continued Support for Culture and Language Preservation 1. H.R. 5 - Student Success Act The recently proposed Student Success Act
contains many provisions that indirectly preserve tribal sovereignty by restoring traditional culture and language to Indian
Education. The bill would revise the current Title VII Indian Education program and consolidate federal funds designated for special
populations. n50 The Student Success Act would add activities that could be supported by grants such as Native American language immersion
programs and Native American language restoration programs. n51 However, the pending Student Success Act has garnered
mixed reactions . While the House passed the bill with amendments, H.R. 5 only has a 20 percent chance of passing the
Senate. n52 As of the date of this publication, the bill remains in Senate Committee . n53
 NCLB---1NC
Card mostly says NCLB is bad links best to Reform/Reauth affs

Touching NCLB is a states rights nightmare that creates waves of backlash

Usdan, 16 Dr. Michael D. Usdan, PhD from Columbia, Senior Fellow and Former President of the Institute for
Educational Leadership, 2-04-2016, The Ever Debatable Federal Role: Implications for Education Policy, Institute
for Educational Leadership

I trust that this somewhat lengthy historical contextual presentation has provided the necessary backdrop to fully
understand the nature of the contemporary polarized debate about the appropriate role that should be played by the
federal government in determining educational policy. The history is important because it helps to explain why the
unprecedented proactive role played by the federal government in very recent years has elicited such negative
responses from those who believe so strongly that it runs counter to the American tradition of local and state
control of education which has prevailed throughout most of our history.
Passage of the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation in 2001, which was a further reauthorization of the
original ESEA, represented a singularly important landmark in the history and evolution of the federal role in
education. For the first time, federal legislation was enacted that had direct ramifications for the teachers and
students in every school and classroom in the land. George W. Bush, a compassionate conservative Republican
president, spearheaded passage of the bill which generated broad bipartisan support among influential liberal
Democrats, particularly the late Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts and Representative George Miller of
California. The irony is that NCLB, unquestionably the most intrusive federal legislation ever enacted by the U.S.
Congress, was initiated by a Republican president leading the party which traditionally had opposed for decades
more extensive federal involvement in school matters. Passage of the NCLB legislation, in essence, was the
capstone of years of efforts to make schools more accountableefforts that were supported by the countrys most
influential business and political leaders.
NCLB imposed a host of requirements on school districts if they wished to maintain their eligibility for federal
funding. The bill required (among other things): annual testing in reading and math in grades 3-8, interventions in
low-performing schools, teacher evaluations, mandatory public school and supplemented services if school failures
persisted, and reports on Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), disaggregated data.
This cascading of requirements , as NCLB was implemented, not surprisingly generated tremendous discontent
among teachers, administrators, and school board members throughout the country. In addition to trampling on the
hallowed traditions of local control of education, complaints were rampant that more and more decisions were being
made by those who were furthest from the classrooms where teaching and learning occur.
These complaints were transmitted to elected officials at every governmental level as NCLB ultimately became
toxic. Efforts to reauthorize the legislation (an event that is to occur every five years) failed and the original
legislation still stands at this writing 14 years after its original enactment. New political coalitions have formed over
the years with very different perspectives as to what a newly authorized ESEA should look like. Civil rights and
equity advocates remain distrustful as to whether states and localities will meet the educational needs of growing
members of poor and minority children. They continue to have greater confidence that federal officials will be more
mindful of equity concerns than their state and local counterparts.
The Democrats themselves are divided over the shape of NCLBs next iteration. For example, a relatively new
organization, Democrats for Education Reform, has been supportive of charters and many of the accountability
measures undertaken by the Obama Administration. The organizations representing educators such as the
multimillion member teacher unions, school administrators, and school board members, who usually are firmly in
the Democratic camp on federal legislative issues, have been alienated by policies of the present Department of
Education. The Department, they feel, has ignored the perspectives of practitioners and professional educators and
has pushed for unfair and unproven accountability measures that undermine teacher and administrator morale.
The Republicans, having gained control of both the House and the Senate in the November 2014 elections, have as
their major agenda restoring the prerogatives of the states and localities in determining education policy. They
sharply criticize federal overreach and desire to consolidate federal programs and give the states far greater
influence. Indeed, Republicans advocate stripping most of the federal authority and punitive elements currently
embedded in NCLB. Although some components of a renamed NCLB, such as Title I, school ratings, charter school
grants and disaggregated data, will probably survive the reauthorization process whenever it might occur, and the
Republican Congress will no doubt persist in seeking to dramatically curb the federal role. Republicans simply will
not support a continuation of the current level of federal influence, and the viability of compromise with Democrats
and those supporting continued federal leadership on equity and related issues is a very open question, as is the
issue of whether a presidential veto can be averted.
 NCLB---Reform---2NC

Touching NCLB is a kiss of death---federal reform generates immediate backlash, regardless of content---
prefer our author, hes worked on it
Aldeman, 17 Chad Aldeman, was a policy adviser at the U.S. Department of Education, where he worked on
ESEA waivers, teacher preparation, and the Teacher Incentive Fund, 1-18-2017, The Teacher Evaluation Revamp,
In Hindsight: What the Obama administration's signature reform got wrong, Education Next 17:2,
http://educationnext.org/the-teacher-evaluation-revamp-in-hindsight-obama-administration-reform/

When President Obama took office in 2009, his administration quickly seized on teacher evaluations as an important
public-policy problem. Today, much of his legacy on K12 education rests on efforts to revamp evaluations in the
hopes of improving teaching across the country, which his administration pursued via a series of incentives for
states. In response, many states adopted new systems in which teachers performance would be judged, in significant
part, on their contributions to growth in student achievement.
Those moves have paid off in some ways, but in others, they backfired . Teacher evaluations today are more
nuanced than they were eight years ago, and have contributed to better decisionmaking and enhanced student
achievement in some districts. But progress was uneven, hampered by both design flaws and capacity challenges.
And the changes were unpopular , helping generate a backlash against much of the reform playbook for the last few
decadesas well as a strong federal role in education policy writ large. As we look ahead into the next four or
eight years, an honest reflection can yield useful lessons about the potential, and limits, of federally led reform.
In this piece, I attempt to assess what went right, what went wrong, and what we can learn from the Obama
administrations efforts to improve teacher evaluation systems. I do this as someone who played a role in the events
that I describe: in 2011 and 2012, I was part of the policy team working on the No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
waiver initiative and grant programs like the Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF), and played a role in spreading the
Obama administrations teacher evaluation policies across the country.

touching NCLB causes massive congressional fights and PC drain

Lamiell, 12 --- Patricia, Director Media Relations @ Teachers College, University Columbia, 2/10,
http://www.tc.columbia.edu/articles/2012/february/how-should-politics-influence-
education-policy/
How Should Politics Influence Education Policy? How much does national education policy make a difference in classrooms, and how much
do national politics drive education policy in America, where schools, curricula and teaching have been controlled at
the local and state levels since the dawn of public schools? A lot, according to three distinguished education policy
analysts who took part in a panel discussion on February 8 to inaugurate the Colleges new Education Policy and Social analysis (EPSA)
Department and potentially never more so than now, as Congress weighs reauthorization of the federal No Child
Left Behind law against the backdrop of a highly polarized presidential campaign. The panel discussion, held in TCs Cowin
Conference Center, was moderated by Jeffrey Henig, Professor of Political Science and Education and EPSA department chair. It featured
Christopher T. Cross, a former U.S. Under Secretary of Education and current Chairman of Cross & Joftus, an education-policy consulting firm;
Jack Jennings, founder and recently retired Director of the Center on Education Policy, an education research firm; and Wendy D. Puriefoy,
President of the Public Education Network (PEN), the nations largest network of community-based school reform organizations. Prompted by
Henig, thepanelistswho were welcomed by TC President Susan Fuhrmandiscussed the often bitter and sometimes even
violent disagreements on federal versus local control of education policy that have erupted since the school
desegregation battles of the 1960s. Puriefoy told how, as a young woman, she monitored court-ordered desegregation in Boston, visiting
schools and reporting back to a federal judge whose appointment owed to the victory of Lyndon Johnson, a passionate advocate of school
desegregation, in the 1964 presidential election. Reaching much further back, Puriefoy argued that desegregation surely would never have
occurred had not Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves. Federal politics and education policy are inextricably linked , she said. The
bottom line for all three panelists: Most major changes to American schools have resulted from federal law, jurisprudence or
policy. Cross noted that Title I funding, enacted in 1965, provided extra funding for schools with economically disadvantaged children.
Congress passed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (later the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA) in 1975, when
the notion that children with disabilities should be educatedlet alone integrated into classrooms with non-disabled children, as is happening
nowwas a revolutionary idea. NCLB, enacted in 2002, has had an enormous effect on how and what gets taught, in Crosss view, forcing
teachers to focus on testing at the expense of deep learning. And the Race to the Top program of the Obama administration has significantly
affected spending priorities, teaching and learning in public schools. The question of whether national policy has influenced education
unquestionably has to be answered yes, Cross said. The reality is that almost everything that goes on is, in fact, guided by
what happened in federal policy at some point, even though people in the classroom may not recognize it. The idea that education
policy is or somehow should be apolitical simply is not borne out by history or current facts , Jennings said. A recent case
in point: If John McCain had been elected president in 2008, he, unlike President Obama, would very likely have allowed thousands of teachers
jobs to be eliminated by drastic budget cuts made necessary by the recession. And should Obama fail to win reelection this coming fall, a
Republican president may well seek to do away with the U.S. Department of Education. Policy should really be
integrated into politics, Jennings said. If people of good will dont deal with policy, he said, decisions will be left to those who are not
equipped to make themor worse, who are simply uninterested in fairness and equity in education. The panelists were unanimous in their
criticism of NCLB, which Puriefoy said has gone horribly awry, but they differed on what to do about it. The law has not been amended since
its bipartisan passage in early 2002, and while both Democrats and Republicans now agree it should be changed, Republicans dont want to give
environment in Congress has become much
credit to Obama for amending it, Jennings said. Puriefoy concurred, adding that the
more poisonous, and it has become more difficult to create the environment we need in order to transform
education. And while education has always been a polarizing issue , and minorities have always had to fight for access to good
education, for the first time in the countrys history, people dont believe their childrens lives will be better than theirs, Puriefoy
said. They dont believe in the ability of institutions to bring about change . So can anything be doneand is this years
presidential election an opportunity to put national education issues before voters in a way they will notice? Cross was skeptical, but said he
would like both parties to discuss education issues after the election to find common ground. Jennings suggested creating federal-state
partnerships modeled on those in Germany, but Puriefoy noted that Germany also supports children and families with programs other than
education. Schools cant be responsible on their own, she said. They need help. To Henigs final questionWhat would you like to see in
the next administration?Cross replied that the U.S. Department of Education should get rid of the silosEnglish Language Learners, Special
Education and others, which are too large, bureaucratic and costly. Jennings warned that the incoming president should not listen to
the radical right, but instead totally rethink school financing, which is currently based on property taxes, and fight the
long tradition of anti-intellectualism in this country by pursuing a new agenda that focuses on quality curriculum and
teaching. Puriefoy called for a rededication to educating all sectors of children, strong federal standards, and getting rid of states rights. This
fragmentation in education is just unacceptable. We need a new intellectual contract in this country, she said. Good policy follows good
intention. If we resolve to educate every child in this country, regardless of ZIP code, were going to have to dismantle what were
doing. Were not going to get there without significant disruption.
 STEM---1NC

Drains PC GOP backlash and appropriation fights link only one way
Robelen, 11 --- Erik, Education Week, 1/12, lexis
With no fanfare , President Barack Obama last week signed a reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act, legislation that
contains a variety of measures to improve education in the STEM fields. Among those is a call for greater coordination across federal
agencies in their work to advance education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, and another to reauthorize and make it easier
for higher education institutions to participate in the Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship program. Also, one of the new programs appears aimed
at replicating the "UTeach" model of training math and science teachers. The Senate passed the legislation in December by unanimous consent,
but in the House it was approved by a partisan vote of 228-130, with most Republicans opposed . A chief concern was
the bills price tag of $46 billion over three years. Given the GOPs new majority in the House, that resistance could make it
tougher to secure funding for existing and new programs authorized under the revised law. President Obama, a vocal
champion of STEM education who has hosted several White House events on the issue, held no special ceremony to sign the measure. Instead, a
White House press release simply included it on a long list of bills he signed Jan. 4. That said, in a blog post last month, White House science
adviser John P. Holdren hailed passage of the bill as a “major milestone on this nation’s path to building an innovation
economy for the 21st century.” During floor debate in late December, Rep. Bart Gordon, D-Tenn., the chairman of the House Science
and Technology Committee at the time, acknowledged that there have been concessions made in light of the economic
environment.” Indeed, with time short in the lame-duck session, the House went along wholesale with a scaled-back
Senate bill with fewer programs and less funding authorized. Nonetheless, Rep. Gordon, who retired from Congress this month,
said the legislation was crucial to support basic scientific research, foster innovation, and improve education, and would help the nation
“maintain its scientific and economic leadership.” Rep. Ralph Hall, R-Texas, the new chairman of the science
committee, didn't share the enthusiasm. "This measure continues to be far too expensive, particularly in light of the
new and duplicative programs it creates," he said. Funding Questionable The legislation had widespread support outside
Congress, including from the Business Roundtable, the National Science Teachers Association, the American Chemical Society, and university
leaders. The reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act—the acronym stands for Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote
Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science—contains many STEM education provisions. For instance, it calls for the creation of a
White House panel to better coordinate federal programs and activities in support of STEM education, including at the National Science
Foundation, the departments of Education and Energy, and NASA. Also, the legislation amends the Noyce program to ease the participation of
higher education institutions by lowering the financial match they must make from 50 percent to 30 percent. The $55 million program encourages
talented STEM majors and professionals to become K-12 math and science teachers. In addition, the law authorizes $10 million each year for a
new program that observers say is aimed at replicating the UTeach model of teacher preparation first developed at the University of Texas at
Austin, or programs akin to that approach. The program would provide competitive grants to universities to launch undergraduate programs that
produce high-caliber elementary and secondary STEM teachers. Whether such new programs will ever be funded is an open
question . In fact, many STEM education programs authorized in the law as first enacted in 2007 never received a dime .
("Many Authorized STEM Projects Fail to Get Funding," Feb. 24, 2010.) Recognizing that, at least some were deleted from the law .
Susan Traiman, the public policy director at the Business Roundtable in Washington, said stem education advocates will need to work
hard to ensure Congress, especially the new Republican majority in the House, sees the value in continuing to fund
such initiatives. “In terms of everything in it, particularly programs like Noyce,” she said, whats going to
matter, whats going to make this real, is what happens in appropriations .
 STEM---1NC

Federal STEM funding drains PC triggers zero sum appropriation fights and congressional opposition
Shastri, 16 --- Devi, Science Magazine, 6/21, http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/06/stem-educators-fear-
spending-bill-undermines-goal-new-us-law
STEM educators fear spending bill undermines goal of new U.S. law A federal grant has helped 500 teachers in Tampa, Florida,
discover new ways to teach science at every grade level. The knowledge theyve gained over the past 3 years has translated into 24 new lessons
and a curriculum that includes hands-on strategies such as engineering design challenges. But the fate of that and dozens of other federally
funded programs to improve STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) education in U.S. elementary and
secondary schools is up in the air following the first move by Congress to fund a new education law that reshuffles
money allocated for STEM activities. A 2017 spending bill approved earlier this month by the Senate appropriations
committee falls well short of what STEM educators had expected, setting off a potentially zero-sum game between
science and other parts of the curriculum. Last year Congress replaced the 2002 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, reviled for its
emphasis on annual testing, with the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). The new blueprint for federal oversight of public education
wiped out the $153-million-a-year Math and Science Partnership (MSP) program that had funded the training of Tampa-area
teachers, along with three smaller accounts to support physical education, school counseling, and advanced placement courses. Those
activities must now compete for money in a new account, called Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants. The block
grants are designed to give local educators greater flexibility to tailor programs that meet the needs of their districts, according
to federal lawmakers, while keeping STEM education a high priority. And to sweeten the pot, Congress authorized $1.65 billion for the grants,
some six times the combined amount earmarked for the four programs under the old law. Everyone who was involved had to give a little to get a
little, said David Evans, executive director of the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) in Arlington, Virginia. Losing the MSP
program was a real lossI wont pretend that that is something that we were willing to put on the chopping block easily. [But] given the
authorized value of the bill, we were very hopeful that with the addition of the STEM language and the attention that it specifically called to those
programs, the loss of the MSP would be something we could sustain. But instead of the $1.65 billion the lawmakers authorized for
the new grants, Senate appropriators this month allocated just $300 million. Although the total is $22 million higher than
current levels for the four combined programs, it is lower than what they received from 2005 through 2010 . (The amount has
fluctuated in recent years, with a low of $222 million during the 2013 sequester.) The full Senate has yet to act on the spending bill, and the
House of Representatives has not begun debating its version, but House
legislators are not expected to be any more generous
than their Senate counterparts. The reduced funding has turned the increased local flexibility into a potentially
catastrophic situation, says Larry Plank, director of K12 STEM education for the Hillsborough County School District, which includes
Tampa. Its $4.5 million MSP grant application won out over other STEM proposals from districts across the state. And although Plank couldnt
count on always being successful, he was at least guaranteed a chance to compete. Not any longer. Perhaps [states] will maintain a significant
level of funding for STEM or perhaps they wont, he says. With MSP, we knew that [some] funding would be available for those types of
things. Under ESSA, school districts are required to spend at least 20% of their grants on each of two areasproviding students with a well-
rounded education, and ensuring a safe and healthy environment. Another unspecified portion of the award must expand the use of technology to
improve instruction. The money will be given out as block grants based on the overall size of the school district and the proportion of
impoverished students it serves. Districts that receive less than $30,000 dont have to do a needs assessment and are exempt from the allocations
in the law. With everything a possible priority , Evans says, the money wont go very farand the students could lose out. [The
funding level] is likely to engender more competition between subjects rather than what could have been an opportunity for
collaboration that would really benefit the kids, he said. The low appropriation from the Senate, he adds, leaves the bill rather
hollow . Innovation could also fall by the wayside. My biggest fear is that, with the language and the minimal appropriations, there is a risk
that our country loses the ability to test new ways to teach kids science and engineering, Plank says. Thats true for all fields, says Myrna
Mandlawitz, director of government relations for the School Social Work Association of America based in London, Kentucky. She says that
many school districts used the nearly $50 million allocated to school counseling under NCLB as seed money to hire their first social worker,
psychologist, or counselor, who then demonstrated their value to students. But she worries that grants to individual districts under the new law
may be too small to finance such positions. The shift in power is forcing states and national groups like NSTA to work on a local
level to guide STEM programs. Plank says that his district, the eighth largest in the country with 211,000 students, has plenty of
experience assessing needs and deciding how to allocate for STEM programs. But he worries that smaller districts may receive little guidance
from their state and, given sparse funds, decide not to make STEM a priority. We all know that art programs and music programs
dont receive enough funding, he says. Some districts may see this as an opportunity to fund programs that have been severely
underfunded for many years. I would never be the person to say that art isnt important, that [physical education] isnt important, that civics isnt
important. But when you lump all of that together with STEM and you underfund the entire portfolio , its a recipe for
disaster.
 Strings-Attached Funding---1NC
Conditional school funding taps into widespread backlash
Mulholland, 15 Quinn Mulholland, Harvard Political Review, 3-3-2015, A Party Divided: Why Education Is a
Wedge Issue for Democrats, http://harvardpolitics.com/united-states/education-wedge-issue-democrats/

The Obama administration has used federal funding as an incentive for states to adopt policies, such as encouraging
the growth of charter schools and tying teacher evaluations to test scores, that are championed by the new reformers
but opposed by public education activists. In urban centers like Chicago, Philadelphia, and Newark, strong
grassroots movements, consisting primarily of Democratic constituencies, have emerged to oppose these policies,
according to Jeff Bryant, a fellow at the Campaign for Americas Future, a liberal advocacy group. These were
supposed to be the communities that were going to be helped in the reform movement, and yet these are the
communities where youre seeing the most vociferous opposition, Bryant said in an interview with the HPR. And
its coming from advocacy groups that are on the ground there.
According to Johnson, many public education activists were excited when Obama took office. But the Presidents
appointment of Arne Duncan as Secretary of Education over Linda Darling-Hammond, whom many of these
activists preferred, and the subsequent policies that Duncans Department of Education implemented quickly
alienated teachers unions and their allies. The traditional side of the Democratic Party in education was sort of
sidestepped, Johnson said. Many of Obamas education policies, especially those tying standardized test scores to
teacher evaluations, were very similar to those of his predecessor. A lot of them had come from George Bush, and
people said that [Obamas] Race To The Top was [Bushs] No Child Left Behind on steroids, Hiller explained.
 Targeted Policy---1NC
Policies targeted at a narrow demographic are a heavy lift and generate widespread opposition
Jennings, 15 Jack Jennings, former president and CEO of the Center on Education Policy and general counsel for
the House Committee on Education and Labor, Lessons Learned from Federal Involvement in Schooling, in
Presidents, Congress, and the Public Schools: The Politics of Education Reform, p. 152-153

The challenge, then, is how to develop broad support for a federal policy? At a minimum, the task is to avoid
widespread opposition to it.
The specific challenge is to find or build general support while concentrating on major problems that chiefly affect
limited (and often relatively powerless) segments of the population. One such challenge relates to policies to
ameliorate the effects of poverty on schooling. In 1967, when I first started working for the Congress, debates were
ongoing about the relatively new Great Society legislation and the other programs added after the initial burst of
legislating in 1965. As legislative bills were being considered to amend the old programs or add new ones, the
Democratic members of Congress argued among themselves about whether to create programs that affected a broad
range of people or programs with narrow coverage, particularly for persons with low incomes. Proponents of the
latter point of view argued that focused aid was needed to help the poor to do better and that broad coverage would
dilute this assistance. Supporters of the wide-coverage position argued that political support would always be
limited for such narrow programs and that the middle class had to be involved to sustain the programs and achieve
sufficient appropriations. Meanwhile, Republican members of Congress usually wanted a focused approach so that
the programs and funding would not grow too much.
Medicare is an example of a Great Society program that has a broad reach and has endured through dramatic
changes of political control in Washington. Head Start is an example of a focused program that has survived but
continues to struggle with funding and its existence as a federal activity in the face of proposals to turn it over to the
states.
The lesson is that federal policies in education should have a broad reach among the population whenever that is
possible. For example, federal support for higher academic standards helps all students, and should be widely
supported. But it especially helps students in schools with concentrations of children from low-income families
since they are often held to low expectations. The difficulty comes when a particular problem is limited to a smaller
segment of the population. Although that is a challenging circumstance, advocates need to seek political support to
help maintain that effort. This lesson is obviously difficult to implement, especially because the United States has
such significant percentages of children who live in poverty and could benefit from special supports.
 Trans- Bathrooms---1NC

Plan drains PC and courts dont shield GOP, public and religious backlash - congress will try to intervene
turns prove link because fighting is intense on both sides
Sanchez, 16 --- Ray, CNN digital editor/writer/producer, foreign correspondent, author, NYU grad, CNN, 5/16,
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/14/politics/transgender-bathrooms-backlash/index.html
Feds' transgender guidance provokes fierce backlash The Obama administration's directive on the use of school
bathrooms by transgender students has provoked a torrent of criticism . It also marks a new front in America's long-
running culture wars . The latest battle over trans gender rights and sexual identity comes in response to a joint letter
Friday from the Departments of Education and Justice directing public schools to ensure that "transgender students enjoy a
supportive and nondiscriminatory school environment." Vanita Gupta, head of the Justice Department's civil rights division,
addressed the issue Saturday in remarks at the University of Minnesota Law School commencement. "Even after the Supreme Court's landmark
gay marriage decision last year in Obergefell v. Hodges that guaranteed all people 'equal dignity in the eyes of the law,' we see new efforts to
deny LGBTI individuals the respect they deserve and the protection our laws guarantee," she said. "Efforts like House Bill 2 in North Carolina
not only violate the laws that govern our nation, but also the values that define us as a people." A legal standoff between the administration
and North Carolina over
the state's controversial House Bill 2 is part of a broader public debate on transgender rights in
schools and public life. The statewide policy bans individuals from using public bathrooms that do not correspond to their biological sex
and restricts cities from passing nondiscrimination laws. The Obama administration directive goes beyond the bathroom issue to touch on privacy
rights, education records and sex-segregated athletics. And that has unleashed a fierce backlash from ministers, parents and
politicians who say the federal government has gone too far. The joint letter, of course, does not carry the force of law. The threat
of a cut in federal funding, however, is abundantly clear. Politicians lead the charge Prominent politicians across the nation are
defiantly standing up against the guidance from Washington. Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick accused the Obama administration of
"blackmail" and called the directive "social engineering." "Families in America will not accept it," he told reporters. Texas Gov. Greg
Abbott, on Twitter, promised a fight: "Obama can't rewrite the Civil Rights Act. He's not a king." Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who railed against such
laws when he was a Republican presidential candidate, did not hold back. "America has woken up to yet another example of President Barack
Obama doing through executive fiat what he cannot get done through our democratic process," Cruz said. He added, "Having spent many years in
law enforcement, I've handled far too many cases of child molesters, of pedophiles, of people who abused little kids. The threats of predators are
serious, and we should not facilitate allowing grown men or boys to be in bathrooms with little girls." North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory
called on Congress to intervene . " Most Americans , including this governor, believe that government is searching for a
solution to a problem that has yet to be defined," he said in a statement. "Now, both the federal courts and the U.S.
Congress must intercede to stop this massive executive branch overreach, which clearly oversteps constitutional authority." 'It's up to
Congress to write the law' Lamar Alexander, the chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, reiterated that
the guidance was not federal. "This is the kind of issue that parents, schools boards, communities, students and teachers
should be allowed to work out in a practical way with a maximum amount of respect for the individual rights of all students," the
Tennessee Republican said in a statement. "Insofar as the federal government goes, it's up to Congress to write the law ,
not the executive departments." Justice and Education Department officials have repeatedly made clear that under their interpretation of Title IX,
the federal anti-discrimination law in education, schools receiving federal funds may not discriminate based on a student's sex, including a
student's transgender status. "The guidance makes clear that both federal agencies treat a student's gender identity as the student's sex for purposes
of enforcing Title IX," the administration said Thursday. "There is no room in our schools for discrimination of any kind, including
discrimination against transgender students on the basis of their sex," Attorney General Loretta Lynch said. "This guidance gives administrators,
teachers and parents the tools they need to protect transgender students from peer harassment and to identify and address unjust school policies."
LGBT groups praised the guidelines as a validation of transgender rights and a repudiation of so-called "bathroom bills" that ban
people from using public bathrooms that do not correspond with their biological sex. "This is a truly significant moment not only for
transgender young people but for all young people, sending a message that every student deserves to be treated fairly and supported by their
teachers and schools," Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin said. But in North Carolina, Republican State Rep. Craig
Horn told CNN affiliate WBTV that he received emails from parents worried about the safety of their children. "There
certainly could be a safety issue," he told the station. "I am not ringing the bell of fear, but I have to be concerned. Kids are kids. We do
crazy things." Horn said topics such as "underserved kids, failing schools, violence in schools, making sure kids get a great education" deserve as
much attention from the federal government as the use of bathrooms. 'The conflict has only just begun' Denny Burk, professor of biblical
studies at Boyce College, the undergraduate school of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kentucky, wrote in his blog: "This radical
directive is a heavy-handed, unconstitutional overreach in order to force Americans to pretend that some boys are girls and some girls are boys. It
is absurd and wrong." Burk predicted that the directive would "cause unrest and conflict all over the country. It is one thing for
an individual to embrace a fictional identity. It is another thing for the federal government to coerce everyone else to embrace it too. This is far
from over. Indeed the conflict has only just begun." Rodney Cavness, superintendent of the Port Neches-Groves public school district
in Texas, told CNN affiliate KFDM-TV that he was throwing the Obama administration directive in the trash. "I don't recognize President
Obama," he told the station. "Nothing he does has any shred of leadership ... This is one of those deals where it's total overreach of the
federal government." A member of the Rowan-Salisbury Board of Education in North Carolina this week suggested the use of school
bathrooms by transgender students justified allowing high school students to carry pepper spray to class. "Depending on how the courts rule on
the bathroom issues, it may be a pretty valuable tool to have on the female students if they go to the bathroom, not knowing who may come in,"
board member Chuck Hughes said of the pepper spray, according to the Salisbury Post. The board voted Monday to change a policy prohibiting
mace or pepper spray in high school, CNN affiliate WSOC-TV reported. But Hughes told the station and he and other board members -- after
weighing the pros and cons -- will vote against the change later this month. "I was not thinking about the LGBT issue," Hughes said. "Perverts
and pedophiles taking advantage of this law in bathrooms was my major concern." A threat to federal funding In Fannin County, Georgia,
hundreds of parents attended a school board meeting Thursday night to voice concerns about bathroom policy, CNN affiliate WSB-
TV reported. Some threatened to remove their children from school. "They will never set foot in a Fannin County school again,"
one mother said, according to the station. "I will stay home every day and homeschool as long as it takes. But that is my belief, and that is my
motherly right, and that is where I stand." Fannin County Schools Superintendent Mark Henson told the station that losing about $3 million in
federal funds was not an option. In a letter to U.S. Education Secretary John King this week, North Carolina's ten Republican
members of Congress said they were " deeply troubled by the threat" to withhold federal funds and demanded
assurances the state would not be punished. King said the directive came in response to requests from schools and parents seeking
guidance. It's a clarification of the federal government's position that gender identity is protected under Title IX.
 Trans- Batherooms---2NC

drains PC and courts dont shield its a foundational, litmus test issue and triggers congressional fights aff
spun as enabling predatory behavior
Green, 16 --- Emma, staff writer at The Atlantic, where she covers politics, policy, and religion., The Atlantic, 5/31,
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/americas-profound-gender-
anxiety/484856/
Americas Profound Gender Anxiety Outrage over transgender bathroom use is just the beginning of a long conflict
over what it means to be men and women. In April, the state of Mississippi did something unusual. It made the definition of man and
woman a matter of law: Male (man) or female (woman) refer to an individuals immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy
and genetics at time of birth. The Magnolia state is not alone in grappling with the meaning of gender and sex. This spring, after North
Carolinas legislature ordered public agencies and local school boards to allow people to use only public bathrooms that correspond to their
biological sex at birth, the U.S. Department of Justice announced it is suing the state. A similar bathroom bill was passed and vetoed earlier this
spring in South Dakota. And the people of Washington will vote on a bathrooms ballot initiative in November. America is experiencing a
period of profound gender anxiety . Mainstream understandings of gender are changing, which may be why Mississippi legislators
felt the need to codify concepts that have always seemed culturally implicit. Perhaps because the stakes are so basic,
both sides tend to draw the other as caricatures : Those opposed to transgender bathroom rights are obvious bigots; those who
support them want to allow men in womens bathrooms and enable other predatory behavior . Bigotryfear or animus
toward transgender peopleis undoubtedly part of the outcry over bathrooms. But thats not a sufficient explanation. To some Americans,
maleness and femaleness is a basic, absolute part of what makes us human, a fact that undergirds their faith, sense
of self, and daily life. To others, gender is mutable, ambiguous, and ultimately chosen. American culture has been shifting in this direction
for some time, pushed along by academic gender theorists, the sexual revolution, and the gay-rights movement. But even as feminists argued for
decades that gender is socially constructed and multi-formed, and increasing numbers of people became open about being gay, lesbian, or
bisexual, most Americans remained comfortable with the notion that some people are men and some people are
women. All of a sudden, a different consensus seems to have emerged. Culture can be selectively avoided, but the law cannot. Although some
states have long protected transgender peoples access to public spaces, like bathrooms, those laws have been scattershotroughly half the
country does not have them. Until very recently, the federal government has not definitively protected transgender rights. Now, state governments
that formerly did not concern themselves with these issues are being forced to confront them. And so are their people. In some sense,
Americas new wave of gender anxiety began with something very straight: marriage. Although recent debates have focused on
trans people and bathrooms, they were enabled by the U.S. Supreme Courts decision to legalize gay marriage in the
summer of 2015. The strategy behind the same-sex-marriage campaign has been well-documented: LGBT advocates purposefully tried to make
gay marriage seem as disconnected from sex as possible by putting older lesbians on ads and focusing on love over sexual freedom. Yet,
some gender bending is implicit: Married to a person of the same sex, men and women have to define and reinvent how they relate to one
another. So long as its just been an institution thats made up of a man and a woman, a husband and a wife, [marriage] has had a kind of
stabilizing effect, said Katherine Franke, a law and gender-studies professor at Columbia University. Allowing gay people to get married is
destabilizing a gender binary, she said. I think its very unsettling to people, so it makes absolute sense to me that the next place they would go
with that anxiety is targeting transgender people. At first, legislators focused on giving legal cover to business owners, government
officials, and clergy who did not want to participate in same-sex-marriage ceremonies. These kinds of exemption bills, ostensibly created to
protect religious conscience, are still being debated in statehouses around the country. They are
a clear, direct reaction to the Supreme
Courts same-sex marriage decision . But why did bathrooms come next? These bills seem to be about something slightly different.
Theyre not objections to what people dohaving gay sex, for example, or getting married to a person of the same sex. Theyre objections to
what people are, which isnt tied to any particular act. It doesnt really matter who transgender people have sex with, or if they have sex at all.
What matters is their status: If a person is designated a boy or girl at birth, the objectors say, thats what determines his or her gender for life.
There are a number of possible answers to the question, why bathrooms? This is one of the last remaining gendered spaces in
public life, where women and men are divided and body parts exposed. And transgender people consistently struggle with bathroom access
which can lead to higher rates of attempted suicidemaking this a key issue for advocates. But theres also a more complicated explanation:
Non-traditional notions of gender have finally become widespread enough to foment a sustained backlash . For a
long time, the federal government hung back on creating firm protections for transgender people. But it has taken this
question up in fits and starts over the last several years, recently making an unambiguous stand. The Justice Department maintains North
Carolinas bathroom law qualifies as sex discrimination under Title VII and Title IX of the Civil Rights Act. United States Attorney General
Loretta Lynch compared the legislation to Jim Crow in a recent press conference: State-sanctioned discrimination never looks good in
hindsight, she said. As the federal government takes steps to create protections for transgender peoplewhich, quietly, it
hasstates will have less of a say in questions like where transgender people can use the bathroom. In one sense, these legal protections
are everything. Comprehensive legislation would outlaw discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations and provide
protections in arenas such as health care. The law is essential for making sure transgender people can move through the world free from violence
and harassment, and mitigating the side effects of extreme marginalization, including significantly higher rates of depression and suicide. But its
also curious that these questions are being hashed out via lawsuits and legislation. This is a very recent dynamic, where legislatures feel they
need to define what it is to be a man and what it is to be a woman, Franke said. The law is an imperfect tool for shaping culturea back-up
cudgel for times when softer methods of persuasion dont work. The fact that legislators in overreach-hating, small-government-loving
states like Mississippi and North Carolina have resorted to the law to protect their notions of gender shows the depth of their
panic about these ambient cultural shifts. Politicians are taking note . In the dying days of his campaign, Ted Cruz picked
transgender bathroom access not the economy , not the fight against ISIS, not abortionas his last hope to win
conservatives away from Donald Trump. He stumped hard on the issue in the days before the Indiana primary, proclaiming the country
had gone stark raving nuts. It didnt work. Trumpwho has said he would let Caitlyn Jenner, the transgender former Olympic athlete,
use any bathroom in Trump Towerbeat him by a wide margin. Yet, Trumps own rhetoric often emphasizes his masculinity and stresses
the importance of traditional gender roles. Gender is becoming a new litmus test in the culture wars. Thats one reason
its so important to understand why, exactly, the specter of men in womens bathrooms causes such anxiety to understand its
parts, beyond simple hatred. Progressives may believe attitudes on gender and sexuality will go the way of race, with history neatly arcing toward
acceptance, aided by generational replacement and a bit of federal strong-arming. But just as that story doesnt really capture the evolution of race
relations in the United States, so the progressive narrative might not hold true on gender. While these bathroom bills may be a temporary flare-up,
the divisions underlying them are foundational, and unlikely to be resolved by the Supreme Court or the Justice
Department.

Drains PC - Massive religious and public backlash outweighs depth of opposition

Green, 16 --- Emma, staff writer at The Atlantic, where she covers politics, policy, and religion., The Atlantic, 5/31,
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/americas-profound-gender-
anxiety/484856/
One word that consistently shows up in legislation about bathrooms and same-sex-wedding vendors is religion. These bills
claim to protect people with sincerely held religious beliefs about the nature of men and women. Some opponents of gay
marriagelargely conservative Christiansfear being legally compelled to participate in these ceremonies, with which they disagree. The exemption
language tends to echo that in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a federal law thats been emulated by many states, which was
designed to protect Americans from being forced to violate their religious beliefs. Many publications have started using scare
quotes or so-called when they write about these putatively religious claims, implying skepticism that refusal to serve LGBT people in any context is a matter of
conviction rather than bigotry. The two motivationsconviction and bigotryare difficult to tease apart. Particularly in the United States, a country
that remains more religious that its Western peers, faith and culture are in a feedback loop , complementing, responding,
and reacting to one another. This is especially true when it comes to trans people in public bathrooms . Wisdom from the
Bible can be brought to bear on any question, but on this issue, the ideas at stake are foundational . They are part of the way of
reading the Bible, going back to Genesis said R. Marie Griffith, a professor of religion and politics at Washington University in St. Louis. Theres
this belief that God created man, and out of man, he created woman. And these are really crystal-clear categories. Theres something
very deep and fundamental about that for the Christians who have a way of thinking about the Bible as the word of God. The idea that
someone might not identify with the gender that corresponds to the sex assigned to them at birth directly contradicts those categories. Anything that
challenges that idea, of the clarity of gender, is really suspect. Its anxiety-producing, and it makes people angry ,
Griffith said. Some Christian leaders have tried to wrestle thoughtfully with this challenge to their beliefs on gender. Russell Moore, who leads the Southern Baptist
Conventions political arm, responded to Caitlin Jenners Vanity Fair cover with empathy, writing, We do not see our transgendered neighbors as freaks to be
despised. They feel alienated from their identities as men or women In a fallen universe, all of us are alienated, in some way, from who we were designed to be.
To Moore, gender is part of how humans are created by God, and it is not our role to change that. Many others share Moores belief, but without the same degree of
empathy. Christians are used to being challenged on the truth of the Bible; after all, a core component of the faith is sharing the good news of Jesus with those who
dont yet know him. But challenges
to the Bibles description of gender attack something basic . And in some communities, these
challenges are relatively new. This may be why the language of the
bathroom backlash hasnt been overtly religious. It has been the language of
self-evident truth gender difference as a fact that requires not faith, but logic, to understand. Its common sense, said Vicki Wilson, a parent
who is part of a lawsuit against an Illinois school district that has let a transgender student use the girls locker and restrooms. All children must be protected and
respected, and having common sense, reasonable boundaries in these private, intimate spaces is protected by law, she said. Under an agreement with the U.S.
Department of Education that took effect in January, Township High School District 211 agreed to let Student A, as the transgender child is called in the legal
proceedings, have access to girls facilities. Student A is to use a private changing station behind a curtain, and any other girls in the school are also allowed to
use these stations. The other girls can also request further accommodation, like changing in a single-stall facility or getting their own schedule for using the bathroom.
With this new policy, the lawsuit claims, the 14-to-17-year-old girls at William Fremd High School experience embarrassment, humiliation, anxiety, fear,
apprehension, stress, degradation, and loss of dignity because they will have to use the locker room and restroom with a biological male. They dont want this person
to see them without their clothes on, and they dont want to have to look. They are afraid of having to attend to their most personal needs, especially during a time
when their body is undergoing often embarrassing changes as they transition from childhood to adulthoodtheir periods, in other words. According to the filing,
some girls avoid going to the bathroom to avoid sharing it with the transgender student, thus risking certain health problems; they wear their gym clothes under their
regular clothes so they never have to be naked at school; or theyre late for class because of the time they spend looking for an empty restroom. As much as anything,
this is an issue of body parts. If Student A has a penis, as the filing seems to imply, the girls may be uncomfortable for reasons similar to those that led Student A
to ask to use the girls facilities. But more broadly, this is also a question about gender roles. In a recent PRRI / The Atlantic poll, 42
percent of Americans
said they believe society is becoming too soft and feminine . Thirty-nine percent said they believe society is better off when men and
women stick to the jobs and tasks they are naturally suited for, including 44 percent of Republicans and 58 percent of white evangelical Protestants. These numbers
suggest nervousness about fluid gender identitiesand that America isnt even close to a consensus that men and women should
choose the way they act.

Opponents control spin framed as pro sexual assault triggers intense fighting and unique political
stalement
Green, 16 --- Emma, staff writer at The Atlantic, where she covers politics, policy, and religion., The Atlantic, 5/31,
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/americas-profound-gender-
anxiety/484856/
the bathroom backlash has been framed in terms of sexual violence . If menthe putatively stronger, more powerful, and
Its no accident that

are allowed in womens bathrooms, the argument goes, women will be in danger of sexual
more physically intimidating sex

assault . What were looking at is a sex panic, said Franke, the Columbia professor. Bathroom-based fear, particularly framed in the
context of the safety of women, is not new. One of the arguments against the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment is that it would require the dismantling of
sex-segregated bathrooms, and that would be horrible both with respect to the privacy of women and the safety of women, she said. If transgender people are able to use the bathroom of their
choice, that suggests women are perfectly safe when former men, or women who have masculine characteristics, enter their intimate spaces. Part of the threat here is that women are saying they
do not need protection from men. That has long been a source of anger for men and women who believe in this notion of female submission to male authority, said Griffith. At least in part,
men who are supporting this are reasserting a protective role. In situations like the high-school bathroom, further work-arounds might be possible. The parents in the Illinois lawsuit, for
example, say they support the possibility of an alternate arrangement for Student A, such as providing a single-stall restroom. (Although according to the lawsuit, Student A was dissatisfied
with this original arrangement.) Arguably, this is as much a problem of school set-up as gender. What we have to do in the schools is to increase privacy for all students, said Mara Keisling, the
executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality. School lockers rooms arent being built anymore with wide-open dressing rooms and wide-open locker rooms. Nobody likes
that. Nobody feels comfortable getting naked in front of strangersespecially teenagers. But t heres alsoa tension inherent in this conflict . Student A perceives
herself to be female. The girls do not agree. Wilson said she empathizes with Student As feelings of discomfort, but kids should have a right to choose when they are seen in a state of undress
by the opposite sex, whether or not that child identifies as the opposite sex, she said. Many of us raise our kids to have modesty, and somebody else shouldnt be able to come in and decide
what your modesty should entail. That should be a personal decision. Although this particular case is a legal dispute over rightswhether one students claim of sex discrimination should trump
a cultural truce over gender expression might not be possible. Queer sex acts
other students claims of a privacy violationits evidence that
can be private. Queer gender expression requires acknowledgement and acceptance. Trans people ask to be recognized as their chosen gender in
everyday interactions. Going to the bathroom may be the most obvious, because parts are exposed and people may feel vulnerable. But these interactions include everything from
securing IDs to seeking medical help to interacting with employers or salespeople or friends. Being seen is not primarily a matter of legal rights. Its cultural: the composite of a thousand
On most political issues in
moments of locking eyes with someone in a restroom mirror and feeling fear, or not. Can Americans live divided on issues of gender expression?
the United States, theres an acceptable band of opinion. Progressives and conservatives might disagree on topics
like taxes, military spending, or entitlement reform, but opponents dont typically see each other as hateful for their
views. Debates over identity, however, are not this straightforward. They are personal, and carry a moral valence . While
there is arguably still an acceptable band of racism in America, it has shifted. Those who believe it is right to enslave other humans as chattel or send black people to the back of the bus are a tiny
minority, and most everywhere, those views are roundly shamed and condemned. Categorically denying someones personhood on the basis of race is no longer acceptable in mainstream
American culture. For people who are trans, or who express their gender in non-stereotypical ways, gender is part of their personhood. When the parents and kids of William Fremd High School
tell a student who identifies as female that she is a biological male, that is a denial of who she says she is. Many Americans think its fine for trans people to express their gender however they
want. But as the bathroom controversies have shown, many others do not. For some, this may reflect some combination of fear or lack of knowledge. Ignorance isnt always bigotry, said
Keisling. I dont think everybody is a hateful bigot. But I wish they would go out and meet some trans people and understand that were spectacular, and not a threat, and I wish politicians
would leave our children alone. And its true: Exposure and education may change peoples views on bathroom access. This is largely what happened with people who are lesbian, gay, and
bisexual, said Brian Powell, a professor at the University of Indianaas more Americans met gay people, gay people became more accepted. Regarding transgender issues,
were still at a really early stage on this, and in a very early stage of where its going to go, he said. Right now, [people] have a visceral
reaction. This is not unlike peoples views about same-sex marriage from 10 or 15 years ago. Yet, its not clear that T will go the same way as L, G, and B. Transgender people
make up a tiny portion of the American populationthe numbers alone will make it harder for people to resolve these issues by education and exposure alone.
Meanwhile, many Americans believe in the firmness of gender as a matter of conviction . They dont see male and

female as socially constructed, mutable categories, perhaps because God created them, or perhaps simply because that is what they believe. It will never be possible to
completely disentangle conviction and bigotrybelief shapes prejudice, and prejudice shapes belief. But parents like those concerned about the girls locker rooms at William Fremd High
School seem unlikely to change their views any time soon. And though their kids generation will likely be, on average, much more open to fluid gender expression than their parents, the lawsuit
suggests that some of these beliefs are being passed to the next generation. Gender is not going to disappear. Its part of how people navigate the world, a shorthand for understanding others, a set
Calls for
of cues for reading and placing them and interpreting them. It is central to how people understand themselves, whether theyre conservative Christians or choosing to transition.

pluralism fail to take this seriouslyhow deeply gender shapes people, and how viscerally both camps feel about
its (im)mutability. Fights over bathrooms may seem trivial, but they are the logical meeting ground for this battle over the
definition of gender, sitting between two irreconcilable camps

Drains PC massive congressional backlash perceived as annihilating local control and states rights
Paxton, 16 --- Ken, Attorney General Texas, National Review, 9/8,
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/439840/texas-battles-obamas-bathroom-edicts-defend-constitution
Why Texas Is Fighting Obamas Unconstitutional Directives on Bathrooms and Locker Rooms The president does not have the
power to rewrite Title IX, or any other law, of his accord. The president does not have the power to rewrite Title IX, or any other law, of his
accord. The New York Times is unhappy with me and the State of Texas for c hallenging yet another of President Obamas sweeping
directives. This one would require all school districts across the country to permit transgender students to use the
bathroom facilities of their choice. The editorial board of the paper calls the presidents order a common-sense approach and claims
that our lawsuit against the administration amounts to legal assaults . . . based on bigotry. This is nonsense. It is certainly correct that Texas
and 23 other states are waging a massive legal battle against the presidents latest edict. Yet for some reason the New York
Times editors refuse to acknowledge what this legal fight is actually about: the Constitution. It should surprise no one that the New
York Times has its own agenda but it is still frustrating when it blatantly mischaracterizes the facts and the law to fit its own narrative.
Control over intimate facilities in schools has always been left to the states . In Texas, for example, state law says that
decisions over who uses what facilities will be made by local school districts most of which have chosen to decide
such weighty issues on a case-by-case basis. The states have never ceded this control to the federal government , yet
President Obama is now trying to seize it through the use of Title IX and he is violating the Constitution in the process. Congress passed
Title IX in 1972 to forbid sex discrimination in schools. Under Title IX, sex means an individuals biological sex at birth. This should
not be a controversial conclusion. For decades, across multiple federal statutes, Congress has consistently used the term sex to refer to an
individuals status as male or female as determined by the individuals biological sex at birth. Congress made the deliberate decision
for Title IX to address sex but not gender identity. EDITORIAL: The Obama Administration Rewrites Title IX Make no mistake:
Congress knows the difference between sex and gender identity, and it knows how to write a law to address both sex
and gender identity. Recently, Congress amended the Violence Against Women Act and the Hate Crimes Act to address both sex
discrimination and gender-identity discrimination. In Title IX, however, Congress has chosen to address only sex discrimination
not gender-identity discrimination . In fact, Congress has repeatedly rejected attempts to amend Title IX to
include gender-identity discrimination, even as recently as 2015. President Obama is apparently unhappy that gender identity
is not included in Title IX. He has the right to be unhappy, and he doesnt have to settle for just being unhappy, either. The president is a
powerful guy. He can do a lot of big, important things. He can ask Congress to pass a bill amending Title IX. He can go on TV and
urge the American people to elect representatives who will amend Title IX. He can beg, plead, cajole, and expend all the political
capital he wants to try to get Congress to change the law.
 Trans- Bathrooms---Plan = Trump Loss

Plan is a political loss for Trump

Mead, 17 --- Rebecca, Rebecca Mead joined The New Yorker as a staff writer in 1997, 2/23, 17,
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/betsy-devoss-spineless-transgender-bathroom-politics
BETSY DEVOSS SPINELESS TRANSGENDER BATHROOM POLITICS When historians write their accounts of the Trump eraassuming the practice of
historical scholarship survives ita small but significant portion of those chronicles will be concerned with the bewildering phenomenon of grown Republican men
policing the bathroom habits of vulnerable teen-agers. With the announcement today that Trump has rescinded a civil-rights rule put in place under
President Obama, providing transgender students in public schools with the right to use the bathroom of their choice, the
President and his Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, have scored a political victory. Voters who believe that a hazard is presented
by, for example, a transgender eighth grader using the bathroom corresponding to her gender identity will be satisfied by the new policy,
which states that local districts will now be at liberty to make their own policies regarding who gets to go to the bathroom where.
Schools will, presumably, be able to insist that transgender students use the bathroom that is opposite to their gender identity, oras is often proposed as a reasonable,
middle-ground solutiona separate bathroom altogether, such as one intended for teachers. Reports emerged yesterday suggesting that Betsy DeVos, Trumps
recently appointed and highly controversial Education Secretary, had misgivings about rescinding or revising the policy as it stood. A story in
the Times reported that DeVos had expressed concern that rolling back the recently acquired rights of transgender students would open such students up to potential
harm, and noted that she had been quietly supportive of gay rights for some time. According to the report, DeVos expressed her reservations to Sessions, who could
not be persuaded, and sought out Trumps support for his own position. The President reportedly told DeVos that she could get onboard or she could resign. DeVos
chose to keep her job, and signed off on the new rules. At the same time, the Times reported, she insisted that the letter rescinding the policy should incorporate
wording that all students have the right to learn and thrive in a safe and trusted environment, and that the departments Office of Civil Rights would remain
committed to investigating claims of discrimination, harassment, and bullying. This account was greeted in some quarters with something approaching approbation:
Betsy DeVos tried to do something good, but of course Trump overruled her was one take, in The New Republic.
Links---Actors
 Courts---1NC
Links to both Supreme Court affs as well as lower courts

Court education decisions are highly controversial and derail the agenda---the plan causes court stripping
and congressional backlash
Jennings, 15 Jack Jennings, former president and CEO of the Center on Education Policy and general counsel for
the House Committee on Education and Labor, Lessons Learned from Federal Involvement in Schooling, in
Presidents, Congress, and the Public Schools: The Politics of Education Reform, p. 144-145

STRONG POLICIES
When the federal government has adopted forceful policies, the effect is greater than when weaker policies have
been usedthis is common sense. The means of carrying out federal policies exist along a continuum of
forcefulness.
Supreme Court decisions are the most powerful means of ensuring action on a policy, and lower federal court
rulings are also potent. The Supreme Court's 1974 Lau ruling, which held that the San Francisco school district
violated the constitutional rights of students who were not proficient in English because they were not afforded
additional assistance to learn English, changed practices throughout the country. Lower federal court decisions,
which found violations of the Fourteenth Amendment in school districts' treatment of children with disabilities, not
only affected the defendant school districts but more importantly spurred congressional action in writing what has
come to be known today as IDEA.
Brown v. Board of Education, although it was issued somewhat before the time frame of this book, was
tremendously important not only in desegregating the schools but also in establishing the ideal that America should
be a country for all peoples. In sharp contrast, the Supreme Court's San Antonio Independent School District v.
Rodriguez closed the federal doors to efforts to bring greater fairness in the funding of public education. This 1973
case involved Texas's substantial reliance on local real estate taxes to fund the schools even though that meant that
property-poor school districts had much less available for education than did property-rich school districts. The
Court said that there was no remedy at the federal level, and so sent the issue back to the states.
As powerful as they are, federal court rulings can be affected by congressional action. Over a period of many years,
the Congress enacted laws that sought to limit the Supreme Court's Swann decision, which held that the lower
federal courts could order busing of school children for the purpose of desegregation. While enacting those laws,
Congress tried not to go head-to-head with the courts, since they could rule those laws as unconstitutional, but
eventually Congress succeeded in limiting busing, assisted by presidential appointments of judges disposed against
that practice. With Title IX, Congress changed the law after the Supreme Court ruled in Grove City that only one
part of that institution of higher education would be affected by the prohibition on discrimination against women.
The Civil Rights Restoration Act, in effect, overruled the Court's decision by clarifying congressional intent that
entire institutions were affected, not only by Title IX but also by other civil rights laws. Even though court rulings
are a powerful federal tool to execute policy, they are not necessarily the last word .
 Courts---A2: Courts Shield---2NC

No Shielding court decisions are highlight controversial and derail the agenda the spur backlash,
congressional action and legislative fights over court stripping prefer education policy specific ev thats
Jennings

Court uniquely politicized and rulings tied to trump Blocking Garland vote changed the game
Turow, 17 --- Scott, partner of the international law firm Dentons, former US Assistant Attorney, member of the
U.S. Senate Nominations Commission, 2/1, http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/02/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court

CAN NEIL GORSUCH DE-POLITICIZE THE SUPREME COURT? Or will he make matters worse? The ultimate consequence of a
court viewed as a political instrument is that it will be disrespected, and even disobeyed, by the political majority. The nomination of federal
Appellate Court Judge Neil Gorsuch to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court is destined to speed up the already
rapid politicization of the court , a process that threatens to rob it of legitimacy and, sooner or later, produce open defiance of its decisions. This has
next to nothing to do with the bona fides of Judge Gorsuch, who appears to have the intellectual qualificationsa doctorate from Oxford, no lessand the judicial
experience that one, in theory, would want in a Supreme Court justice. The
problem, of course, is the way we got here. Even before Barack
Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland to succeed Justice Scalia last year, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell
refused to allow hearings to
proceed on any name that the president sent forth. Instead, McConnell said, the nomination should belong to the next
president chosen by the American people. There was virtually no precedent for McConnells position: Justice Anthony
Kennedy was confirmed in the last year of President Reagans second term by a Democratic Senate. Worse, by essentially proposing that the choice for a Supreme
Court justice would be decided as the result of a plebiscite, McConnell was suggesting that the court should be controlled by the
voters. McConnells actions were all the more ironic because they concerned the seat of the courts most committed originalist, as those who supposedly
interpret the Constitution according to the intent and understandings of its framers are called. In this case, the intent of the framers was pretty clear on a couple of
matters. First, Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution says: The President...shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall
appoint...Judges of the [S]upreme Court... Lawyers, including originalists, love plain language, and the plain language here vests the appointment power solely in
the president, with the Senates role limited to advising and consenting. By withholding any vote in committee or on the Senate floor, McConnell clearly ignored the
constitutional command to offer advice or affirmation. Furthermore, by
awaiting the next presidential election, McConnell was saying that
the voters deserved to decide the direction of the court . Again, this is not what the framers of the constitution wanted. They could have easily
provided for the election of judges. They didnt. The framers envisioned the court as a less political institution on which the justices would
serve for life, so that they were not prisoners of the popular will.

President is the focal point of politics they get the credit or the blame, deserved or not
Rosati 4. [Jerel A., University of South Carolina Government and International Studies professor The Politics of
United States Foreign Policy, 2004, p. 80]

Given the popular image of presidential power, presidents receive credit when things are perceived as going well and are
blamed when things go badly. Unfortunately, American politics and the policy process are incredibly complex and
beyond considerable presidential control. With so many complex issues and problems to address the debt problem, the
economy, energy, welfare, education, the environment, foreign policy this is a very demanding time to be president. As long as
presidential promises and public expectations remain high, the presidents job becomes virtually an impossible task. Should success occur, given
the lack of presidential power, it is probably not by the presidents own design. Nonetheless, the president the person perceived to be the
leader of the country will be rewarded in terms of public prestige, greater power, and reelection (for him or his successor).
However, ifthe president is perceived as unsuccessful a failure this results not only in a weakened president but
one the public wants replaced, creating the opportunity to challenge an incumbent president or his heir as
presidential nominee.

No Shielding
Greenwald 6 (Glenn, Civil Rights Lawyer and Author How would a Patriot Act?,
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006_06_01_glenngreenwald_archive.html)
Additionally, court opinions historically have a political impact as well as legal effects. Despite the concerted, destructive attacks
on the credibility of the Supreme Court by the likes of Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh, who hate and wage war on any institution (such as the
media) which dares to challenge the Powers of the President, Americans still retain a respect for the Supreme Court as an important and credible
institution. The Court's proclamation that the President has been acting beyond his legal and constitutional authority strengthens that argument as
a political matter. It is also likely to further galvanize those in Congress and the media who have been gradually taking a
stand against the Administration. A Supreme Court ruling that is this decisive, on an issue this significant, is virtually never
confined to the legal realm, but almost always has impact, often profound impact, in the political realm as well.

Thats true for individual rulings post Gorsuch

Turow, 17 --- Scott, partner of the international law firm Dentons, former US Assistant Attorney, member of the
U.S. Senate Nominations Commission, 2/1, http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/02/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court

It goes without saying that McConnells actions, while the most recent and most radical step in politicizing the court, were
hardly the first. Conservatives like to say, with some merit, that all of this began when the Democrat-controlled Senate refused to confirm Robert Bork,
President Reagans first nominee for the seat that Kennedy eventually filled. Bork, who had the same kind of intellectual credentials and experience as Gorsuch, had
tarnished himself for good during Watergate. As acting attorney general, he had followed President Nixons order to fire the independent special prosecutor, Archibald
Cox, but only after Attorney General Eliot Richardson and his replacement, Deputy Attorney General William Ruckleshaus, had both resigned rather than fire Cox
themselves. (Sound familiar?) Being Borked, in the conservative lexicon, soon became a synonym for being derailed only because of ones political leanings. That
said, its worth wondering where we would be today if the Democrats in the Senate in 1987 had had McConnells gall and guile and simply refused to bring Borks
terms of politicization, even McConnells overreach might have been
nomination to a vote because Reagan was a lame duck. In
exceeded by the court itself when it decided to step into the 2000 election in Bush v. Gore. Acres of precedent required the court to defer
to the Florida Supreme Courts interpretation of Florida law, which that court said required a recount. But to sidestep those decisions, the High Court offered an
adventuresome interpretation of the Equal Protection clause of the Constitutionone that was so out of keeping with existing jurisprudence that it has been largely
disregarded ever since. The case was a one-off and clearly result-oriented. In essence, the severely divided court decided to hold the election for president all over
againin its own chambers. I will always believe the nine justices voted on the case exactly as they did at their actual ballot boxes. In the late 19th and early 20th
centuries, a variety of revered legal thinkers, starting with Oliver Wendell Holmes, began positing a theory of law called legal realism. In its many different strands,
legal realism concedes that judges are inclined to validate their own personal moral and political beliefs in their decisions. To avoid politicizing decision-making,
therefore, it is best for judges to restrict their decisions to the narrowest questions and grounds available, and to defer to legislative judgments whenever possible. Ever
since, both liberals and conservatives have invoked realist principles when the situation suited them. Judge Gorsuch
himself, in words hell be
chewing on for many months, has accused liberals of using the courts for social engineering . In an article for the conservative
journal National Review, written in 2005 before taking the bench, Gorsuch asserted, American liberals have become addicted to the courtroom, relying on judges and
lawyers, rather than elected leaders and the ballot box, as the primary means of effecting their social agenda on everything from gay marriage to assisted suicide to the
use of vouchers for private-school education. Gorsuch concluded that doing so was bad for the judiciary. The problem, Judge Gorsuch notwithstanding, is that
conservatives have been no more restrained than liberals in using the judiciary to implement their political agenda .
And originalists have been especially hypocritical. For example, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court in 2008 took up a 25-year-old D.C. statute that
generally prohibited owning handguns. Deferring to legislative judgments would have meant giving wide berth to a longstanding law. Instead, Justice Scalia and his
conservative allies foundmore than two centuries after the adoption of the the Second Amendmentthat it granted a constitutional right to keep handguns in ones
home, overruling the courts own decision from 1934, which had read the Second Amendment as applying solely to weapons to be used for the local militia. Even
more important, perhaps, to an originalist, should have been the fact that the modern repeat-action handgun was not invented until nearly a century after the
Constitution was written. So how could its framers possibly have intended to protect the right to have such weapons in the home? Or take the great bte noir of liberals
like me: the Supreme Courts 2010 decision in Citizens United, which allowed corporations and unions to ignore congressionally enacted restrictions on political
advertising. Most of the frenzied outcry about the decision has focused on its effects, which give the richest economic entities in our society a disproportionate voice
in political discussions. But the fact of the matter is that the decision itself depended on radical jurisprudence. The conservative court majority invalidated not only a
congressional enactment but also overruled not one, but two previous decisions of the court itself. Furthermore, its most outrageous conclusionthat corporations
effectively have an unlimited right to free speech on political questionscannot possibly be shoehorned into any sincere version of originalism. I challenge any
conservative to find any declaration in the writings of Madison or Hamilton or Franklin or Washingtonindeed, any of the other framersthat corporations have the
same free-speech rights as individuals. The framers all would have fainted at the idea, since the modern corporate form essentially did not begin to evolve until the
middle of the 19th century. Nevertheless, Judge Gorsuchs declaration that using the courts as a proxy for politics is bad for the judiciary bears some heed. The
ultimate consequence of a court viewed as a political instrument is that it will be disrespected and even disobeyed by the political majority. In fact, its been widely
speculated that Chief Justice John Roberts voted twice to uphold the Affordable Care Act against challenges by Republican groups because he feared the
consequences of using the court to invalidate legislation that was the signature political act of the Obama administration and was passed by a super majority in the
U.S. Senate. Which brings us back to JudgeGorsuch. He is being installed by a president who lost the popular vote by nearly 3
million ballots after Senate Republicans hijacked the constitutional prerogative of Obama to nominate Justice Scalias
replacement. As a consequence, Gorsuchs vote on the court will always be regarded as illegitimate by many
people . For a while now, I have been thinking that the wisdom of the legal realists bears serious reconsideration. The only real hope of de-
politicizing the court is by getting the institution out of the business of making the kinds of moral and political
judgments that we have become accustomed to . But that means that those on both sides of the aisle need to make a pact to, in essence, put an ice
pick through our hearts. For people like me, that means conceding, with enormous pain (and as the most inflammatory example) that legislatures, not courts, should
have decided whether gay people had the right to marry. For conservatives that means conceding that Citizens United is bad law. Full stop. Will Neil Gorsuch, in his
confirmation hearings, lead the way?

Congressional reaction inevitably draws plan into partisan politicization process cant be insulated
Floyd, 17 --- John, director of United Kingdom manufacturing, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., vice president of
manufacturing and international operations, General Tire & Rubber Co., and director of manufacturing, Chrysler
Corp 4/14, http://www.gadsdentimes.com/news/20170414/john-f-floyd-judges-pulled-into-
washingtons-quagmire
Judges pulled into Washingtons quagmire Websters New World Dictionary defines a judge as an elected or appointed official
with authority to hear and decide cases in a court of law. There is no mention of conservatism, liberalism or any other isms.
All my life I have considered anyone with the annotation of judge before his or her name as someone who has answered a higher calling. Special,
extraordinary and impartial are adjectives that come to mind when describing individuals who that title. However, this hallowed description
has been annihilated by the political process and present-day politicians. Todays politics are rotten, corruptible and have
pulled judges and the U.S. court system into the quagmire. Judges fall into two categories: those who adhere to a strict
interpretation of the Constitution, and those who view the Constitution as a living document open to their personal interpretation. Judge Neil M.
Gorsuchs recent confirmation hearing for the Supreme Court is a prime example of politicizing a process that should be
inoculated from the normal merry-go-round of dumb questions for which Washington is famous. As Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, stated in an
article in the Wall Street Journal, Supreme Court nominees are typically highly talented lawyers and judges. The Senates role is to probe their
qualifications and judicial philosophies. At its best, the process is removed from the pettiness of partisan politics .
Unfortunately, with the intellect of both Democrats and Republicans in Congress, pettiness in partisan politics is the
name of the game . Judge Gorsuch, a man of impeccable integrity and extraordinary judicial accomplishments, was asked a series of
asinine questions by Democratic senators. They asked him how he would rule on hypothetical cases. He would not directly
answer the questions because each case is to be decided by legal and factual determinations. Sen. Hatch went on to say that judges should be
neutral arbiters, and asking them to prejudice themselves raises serious due process concerns for future litigants who deserve the opportunity to
make their arguments in full. Judge Gorsuchs confirmation hearing could have been shortened considerably by Democrats asking one question:
Are you a conservative judge and will your decisions reflect conservative values? He could answer that question in many ways, but Democratic
senators were already told how to vote. This mockery of a confirmation hearing was a waste of time. The Democrats initiated a filibuster to delay
Judge Gorsuchs confirmation. For him to be confirmed, the Republicans resorted to an up or down vote known as the nuclear option. The
nuclear option has been used by Democrats to confirm judges at the lower level, but never for a Supreme Court nominee.
Republicans changed the rules of confirmation and applied the nuclear option to confirm Judge Gorsuch to the
Supreme Court, an act unparalleled in U.S. legislative history. Why would any man or woman want to endure the kind of cross-
examination that has become standard procedure for taking on the mantra of government service? In the case of Judge Gorsuch, the patronizing
ignorance of some senators must have given him second thoughts about pursuing the highest of judicial responsibilities. Many of President
Donald Trumps cabinet nominations experienced the same mentality. Civility and respect are dead in Washington politics. It will
take a completely new set of politicians to reverse the malaise that now affects the nations capital. Government agencies
that should be politically neutral are now so politicized, there is no trust between parties. The two-party system has failed
the American people when compromise is impossible . An example is Obamacare: Why not take the good parts of Obamacare, modify the
troublesome aspects and create a bipartisan solution to its many inequities? I know, it is too simple.
 Courts---A2: Courts Shield---Extensions
Yes political backlash
Woodward 10. [Calvin, AP writer, Obamas high court smackdown prompts read-my-lips dissent from a justice
and a decorum debate Business News -- Jan 28 -- http://blog.taragana.com/business/2010/01/28/obamas-high-
court-smackdown-prompts-read-my-lips-dissent-from-a-justice-and-a-decorum-debate-25811/]
An unusual piece of theater that unfolded in the blink of an eye at the State of the Union speech raises questions:
Was President Barack Obama rude to criticize a Supreme Court decision in the company of the justices? Was his
complaint about the decision, which removed corporate campaign spending limits, right? Was Justice Samuel Alitos read-my-lips critique
not true not true? Republicans huffed Thursday about Obamas jab at the court. But it was worth keeping in mind that presidents and
lawmakers routinely criticize Supreme Court decisions and the justices who make them. Remember Bush v. Gore
and the mutterings about a politically rigged court? Democrats huffed about the huffing and declared that one of the great things
about America is that powerful people can disagree in public. But it also was worth remembering that the justices were guests for Wednesday
nights speech to Congress, placed as always in the best seats in the House. It was an odd time and place for Obama to deliver a Supreme Court
smackdown. The ceremony and courtesies that attend rare assemblies of all three branches of power call on everyone to act with respect for
tradition and a certain fellowship, however forced. Exhibit A: The robed justices only clap at the beginning, the end and the safest moments in
between. Their applause is invariably judicious, tipping no hand about their political leanings or whether they actually liked what they heard. No
fist bumps here. Still, this is not a nation of powdered wigs and genuflection. Authority is constantly, bluntly challenged, although not usually
during wedding toasts, funeral rites or State of the Union addresses. Looking down at the six justices seated in front of him as well as to the
wider masses, Obama departed from the scrolling text of his speech and added an unscripted preamble. With all due deference to the separation
of powers, he began delicately, then reverted to his prepared remarks, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for
special interests including foreign corporations to spend without limit in our elections. Alito, part of the 5-4 majority in the landmark
case, objected to the reference to a century of law upended, to the notion that floodgates have been opened, or both. In any event, after Obamas
line on those subjects, he shook his head and quietly mouthed words that included the phrase not true. He did not mean for lip-readers to go
viral with it. Still, the episode stirred memories of the decorum-shattering shout of You lie by Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., during Obamas health
care speech to Congress in September. Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah said Obama was kind of rude in his remark. Its one thing to say
that he differed with the court but another thing to demagogue the issue while the court is sitting there out of respect for his position, he told The
Salt Lake Tribune. Obama spokesman Bill Burton saw it differently: One of the great things about our democracy is that powerful members of
the government at high levels can disagree in public and in private. Vice President Joe Biden pointed out Obama did not question the integrity
of the justices in criticizing the decision. Instead, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, questioned the
integrity of the justices. He accused conservative activists on the court of making decisions on their whimsical
preferences and ideological agenda instead of the law. Not one for understatement, Leahy said the decision was even
worse than the Bush v. Gore case that settled a disputed election in the Republicans favor in 2000 because
conservative activist justices have now decided to intervene in all elections.
 Courts---A2: Announced In June---2NC

Fiat means done at the soonest opportunity

Thats best:

Key to ground---they allow indefinite delay, ruining time-sensitive Das

Key to education---politics is the core obstacle to change---they bypass a key question, robbing ground and
debates about a central issue

2AC specification is conditionality, making the Aff a moving target---its arbitrary and destroys clash

Its real world---they can act instantly

Herz 2 Michael Herz, Professor of Law at Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University, The Supreme Court in
Real Time: Haste, Waste, and Bush v. Gore, Akron Law Review, 35 Akron L. Rev. 185, Lexis
That day, President Bush sought a stay of the state Supreme Court's ruling from the United States Supreme Court. The
lawyers argued that the recounts mandated by the state supreme court would run past the December 12 "deadline," were inconsistent with the
state election statutes, and were arbitrary and standardless. Accordingly, they violated (1) the federal statutory provision governing congressional
counting of electoral votes, 9 (2) the constitutional allocation of authority to the state legislature to determine the manner in which the state
selects its electors, 10 and (3) the equal protection and due process clauses. 11 The Court granted the stay the next day, Saturday, December 9,
and, treating the petition for a stay as a petition for certiorari, granted certiorari as well. 12 Briefs were due by 4:00 p.m. on December 10, and
oral argument set for 10:00 a.m. Monday, December 11. 13 The Court handed down its decision at a little before 10:00 p.m. the
following evening. 14 Only four similar instances come to mind in which the modern Court considered cases
involving matters of great national importance on a highly expedited schedule. The steel seizure case, 15 the Nixon
tapes case, 16 the Iranian assets case, 17 and the Pentagon Papers case 18 were all [*189] litigated in a matter of
weeks or months and produced almost instant opinions from the Supreme Court (19, 16, 8, and 4 days after oral
argument, respectively). But these are rarities. And even by these standards Bush v. Gore set new records for speed--for the overall
litigation, for the briefing schedule, and for the period within which the Court reached its decision. The speed of Bush v. Gore is less striking
when compared to the standards of an earlier time. The Supreme Court once decided cases much more quickly than is the current norm. During
the period from 1815 to 1835, for example, the Court decided 66 constitutional cases with full opinion; 17 of those opinions were handed down
within five days of the argument, including several of the Court's most significant rulings. 19 "By contemporary standards, the Marshall Court
was breathtakingly swift to render decisions." 20 By the following century, the pace had slowed. Robert Post has calculated that during the 1912-
1920 Terms the Court averaged 63.7 days from the argument of a case to the announcement of a full opinion. 21 In contrast, during the 1993-
1998 Terms the Court took an average of 91.1 days after argument to hand down its decision. 22

Not real world or unlikely to happen links to aff and isnt offense against our interpretation EVERY
inherent aff is NECESSARILY unlikely in the real world

Ground necessarily outweighs real world for fiat interpretations the entire reason fiat exists is to bypass
real world for sake of ground and good debate anything else is indistinct from bottom of docket

Normal means is immediate announcement

Segal 5 (Jeffrey Allan, Professor of Political Science SUNY Stony Brook, The Supreme Court in the American
Legal System, p. 275-276)
CASE SELECTION
The procedure that the Court employs to select the cases that it wishes to decide is formally uncomplicated. But because the justices provide very
little information about this stage of their decision making, we do not know whether its operation is comparably simple. However, we can infer
that the procedure the Court uses to choose its cases does work efficiently. The justices manage to stay abreast of their docket,
unlike judges in the vast majority of courts, state and federal. Little time elapses between receipt of a case and its
disposition: A decision not to hear a case may be made within a week or two, but not for several months if the case reaches the Court during
the summer, when it is not in session. Cases that the Court agrees to review are almost always heard and decided within a year. Finally, lay and
professional criticism is notable by its absence, whereas assuredly if an affected or interested public considered the Court dilatory or thought it
was ducking important issues, criticism would be swift.
Internal Links---Key Groups/Lobbies
 Unions Key---Agenda
Teachers unions key to the agenda
Moe, 11 Terry M. Moe, Senior Fellow at Hoover and Political Science Professor at Stanford, 7-13-2011, The
Staggering Power of the Teachers' Unions, http://www.hoover.org/research/staggering-power-teachers-unions

UNION POWER AND AMERICAS SCHOOLS

It might seem that the teachers unions would play a limited role in public education: fighting for better pay and
working conditions for their members, but otherwise having little impact on the structure and performance of the
public schools more generally. Yet nothing could be further from the truth. The teachers unions have more
influence on the public schools than any other group in American society.
Their influence takes two forms. They shape the schools from the bottom up, through collective bargaining activities
so broad in scope that virtually every aspect of school organization bears the distinctive imprint of union design.
They also shape the schools from the top down, through political activities that give them unrivaled influence over
the laws and regulations imposed on public education by government, and that allow them to block or weaken
governmental reforms they find threatening. In combining bottom-up and top-down influence, and in combining
them as potently as they do, the teachers unions are unique among all actors in the educational arena.
Its difficult to overstate how extensive a role the unions play in making Americas schools what they areand in
preventing them from being something different.
Before the 1960s, the power holders in Americas public school system were the administrative professionals
charged with running it, as well as the local school boards who appointed them. Teachers had little power, and they
were unorganized aside from their widespread membership in the National Education Association (NEA), which
was a professional organization controlled by administrators. In the 1960s, however, states began to adopt laws that
for the first time promoted collective bargaining for public employees. When the American Federation of Teachers
(AFT) launched a campaign to organize the nations teachers into unions, the NEA turned itself into a labor union
(and eventually kicked out the administrators) to compete, and the battle was on in thousands of school districts. By
the time the dust settled in the early 1980s, virtually all districts of any size (outside the South) were successfully
organized, collective bargaining was the norm, and the teachers unions reigned supreme as the most powerful force
in American education.
This transformationthe rise of union powercreated what was essentially a new system of public education. This
new system has now been in equilibrium for roughly thirty years, and throughout this time it has been vigorously
protectedand stabilizedby the very union power that created it.
POLITICAL WEAPONS AND HOW TO BLUNT THEM
The trademark of this new system is not just that the teachers unions are pre-eminently powerful. It is also that they
use their power to promote their own special interestsand to make the organization of schooling a reflection of
those interests. They say, of course, that what is good for teachers is good for kids. But the simple fact is that they
are not in the business of representing kids. They are unions. They represent the job-related interests of their
members, and these interests are not the same as the interests of children.
Some things are obvious. It is not good for children that ineffective teachers cannot be removed from the classroom.
It is not good for children that teachers cannot be assigned to the classrooms where they are needed most. It is not
good for children that excellent young teachers get laid off before mediocre colleagues with more seniority. Yet the
unions fight to see that schools are organized in these ways.
And theres more. The organization of schooling goes beyond the personnel rules of collective-bargaining contracts
to include all the formal components of the school system: accountability, choice, funding, class size, special
education, and virtually anything else policymakers deem relevant. These matters are subject to the authority of
state and national governments, where they are fought out in the political processand decisions are heavily
determined by political power .
Here the unions great strength as political organizations comes into play. The NEA and the AFT, with more than
four million members between them, are by far the most powerful groups in the politics of education. They wield
astounding sums of money, year after year, for campaign contributions and lobbying. They have armies of well-
educated activists in every political district. They can orchestrate well-financed p ublic-r elations and media
campaigns any time they want, on any topic or candidate . And they have supremely well-developed organizational
apparatuses that blanket the country.
They dont always get their way on public policy, of course. The American system of checks and balances makes
that impossible. But these same checks and balances also ensure that blocking new laws is much easier than getting
them passed , and this is how the teachers unions have used their power to great effect: not by getting the policies
they want, but by stop ping or weaken ing the policies they dont wantand thus preventing true education reform.
 Unions Key---Agenda---Ext
Spills over to other policies---theyll fight the agenda nationally
Maloney, 14 Ray Maloney, WSJ Letter to the Editor, 7-23-2014, Teachers Unions and Political Power,
https://www.wsj.com/articles/teachers-unions-and-political-power-letters-to-the-editor-1406145848

Allysia Finley describes the N ational Education Association in "A Teachers Union With a Math Problem" (op-ed,
July 12) as a business-as-usual progressive advocacy group that is ignoring harsh financial realities related to
unfavorable client demographics (declining student enrollment), NEA teacher dropouts in right-to-work states and
grossly underfunded pension plans. As basic math adds up to trouble for the NEA, however, the union's mission
creep now has it considering the environmental effects of fracking, the outsourcing of post office functions to
Staples, the name of the Washington Redskins, U.S. reparations for slavery, promotion of LGBTQ themes in
classrooms and endorsement of a clean energy curriculum.
The NEA's mission has expanded and converged with the missions of most unions today (as well as many special-
interest groups hijacked by progressive social engineers) that lobby for pro-union policies. That broad political
agenda brings together a coalition that still can influence Washington, even as each component of the coalition is
struggling with math.
Over the years, the specific issues that are most important to teachers, health-care workers or retirees were
incorporated by their advocacy groups into a leftist package that compromised each organization's primary
responsibilities to its constituents. Broader social transformation (and in the case of AARP, potential insurance
revenues) trumped immediate interests of organization members.
One way for the NEA to buy a little time is, oddly enough, through strength in numbers. Align with as many other
math-challenged progressive groups as possible and keep control of Washington's top-down agenda and the media
message. If anyone can empathize with a math problem, it would have to be the Obama administration and
Democrats in Congress.
 Unions Key---PC
Alienating teachers unions wrecks political capital and focus
AP, 08 Associated Press, 12-8-2008, Obama education pick sparks conflict,
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28113748/ns/politics-white_house/t/obama-education-pick-sparks-conflict/

Teachers' unions, an influential segment of the party base, want an advocate for their members , someone like
Obama adviser Linda Darling-Hammond, a Stanford University professor, or Inez Tenenbaum, the former state
schools chief in South Carolina.
Reform advocates want someone like New York schools chancellor Joel Klein, who wants teachers and schools held
accountable for the performance of students.
Thus far Obama has avoided taking sides, saying things that reassure the competing factions. Obama has said, for
instance, that teacher pay should be tied to student achievement, which reformers like, but not solely based on test
scores, which teachers like.
Unions, by the way, dislike the "reformer" label, pointing out they want reform, too. And the reform group says it
cares about good teachers; it just wants bad ones out of the classroom.
"He's a wise man," said Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh, chuckling. "He left himself some room to maneuver."
Bayh, a Democratic centrist who backed the No Child Left Behind law, thinks Obama will find a way to straddle the
competing factions. "My strong impression of the president-elect is he is pragmatic. He won't pick an ideologue. He
won't pick a side in this fight."
Even so, Bayh expects Obama to choose someone the unions can live with to carry out his education goals.
"You probably don't get there by having an overt, in-your-face fight with classroom teachers," Bayh said. "That's
going to take a lot of political capital and divert energy from other things."
Can Obama make both sides happy? Not likely, said Republican Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina.
 Parents Key---Agenda
Backlash from parent groups shapes the agenda---outweighs other factors
Jochim, 16 Ashley Jochim, research analyst at the Center on Reinventing Public Education, and Patrick McGuinn,
Associate Professor of Political Science and Education at Drew University, The Politics of the Common Core
Assessments, Education Next 16.4, Fall 2016

Support from the Wrong Places

The Common Core standards and their aligned assessments drew many supporters from the federal and state
governments, from the philanthropic community, and from reform advocates, but most members of these groups do
not have a personal stakea vested interestin what happens in schools at the ground level. Therefore, their
support alone is not enough to sustain education reform over time. Federal and state policymakers sometimes
embrace high standards and quality assessments in principle, but when they experience intense pressure from
interest groups and the public , their support is likely to falter . Indeed, many former supporters of Common Core,
including Republican governors Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Chris Christie of New Jersey, and Mary Fallin of
Oklahoma, have withdrawn support of the standards in the face of political opposition from conservative interest
groups, teachers unions, and swarms of parents and other voters.
Advocacy organizations such as Achieve and the Collaborative for Student Success can help build political support,
but in the case of Common Core, efforts have largely focused on lobbying policymakers, not building the kind of
broad-based coalitions needed to reengineer the K12 system around high standards, quality assessments, and
accountability for results. Parents and other community members were often left to learn about the standards and
assessments via their social networks, where ill-informed but powerful negative interpretations of the reforms
circulated through social media and were passed along by teachers, or at the dinner table. And the standards won
few advocates among the parents and guardians who struggled to help their children navigate the new expectations
with little guidance to support their efforts.
Philanthropists who supported Common Core also underestimated what would be necessary to support the transition
to higher standards. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation invested $230 million in design, implementation
support, and advocacy. But, as Jay Greene of the University of Arkansas argues, foundations cant compel change,
because the resources they invest are so small relative to the budgets of the organizations they seek to affect, and any
effort to impose a solution will draw out opponents who are far more powerful and vested than the foundations
themselves. Greene finds that philanthropic investments have the greatest impact when they create constituencies
that advocate for change, but this didnt happen in the case of Common Core.
The lack of vested stakeholder support had particularly acute consequences for the assessments. Standards for
student learning are not likely to draw many opponents when they are just words on a page, because they threaten no
one. But when policymakers seek to hold students, teachers, and schools accountable for those standards using
aligned assessments, they are far more likely to stimulate opposition from those who have much to lose.
 Parents Key---Ext
Any encroachment on parents is politically unthinkable
Sawhill, 13 Isabel V. Sawhill and Richard V. Reeves, Senior Fellows in Economic Studies, and Kimberly
Howard, Senior Research Assistant, 9-8-2013, Parenting, Politics, and Social Mobility, Brookings
Currently, however, parenting policies are the Cinderella of early childhood initiatives, eclipsed by the focus on pre-
K education. In part, this is because interventions in parenting are politically unpalatable . Conservatives are
comfortable with the notion that parents and families matter, but too often simply blame the parents for whatever
goes wrong. They resist the notion that government has a role in promoting good parenting. Judging is fine. Acting
is not. Liberals have exactly the opposite problem. They have no qualms about deploying expensive public policies,
but are wary of any suggestion that parentsespecially poor and/or black parentsare in some way responsible for
the constrained life chances of their children. Many liberals instinctively believe that reducing financial poverty is
the only worthy social policy goaland the principal route to reducing other social problems. Poverty reduction is,
in and of itself, a vitally important ambition. But raising the abilities of parents is not just about raising their
incomes.
Neither the standard conservative nor liberal position will do. Public education, no matter how lavishly funded, can
never substitute for good parents. But it is absurd to cast the idea of taking broader responsibility for helping parents
as closet communism, as some on the right do . What is needed is a policy agenda and political platform that
recognizes the contribution of parenting to mobility and opportunity, and tackles the parenting gap.
 Parents Key---Ext---Spills Up
Grassroots opposition spills up
Oakes, 06 Jeannie Oakes, Presidential Professor in Educational Equity in the Graduate School of Education at
UCLA; John Rogers, UCLA Ed Prof; Gary Blasi, UCLA Emeritus Law Prof; and Martin Lipton, Grassroots
Organizing, Social Movements, and the Right to High-Quality Education, Rethinking Rodriguez Symposium at
The Warren Institute, 4-27-2006

What Role Can Grassroots Organizing Play?

In recent years, a number of grassroots and activist organizations have mobilized students, parents, and community
members in powerful actions aimed at exposing and disrupting schooling inequalities. These organizations include
neighborhood groups and national networks; religious congregations and secular organizations; and groups with a
narrow focus on educational justice as well as organizations that address a range of social justice issues. The very
diversity or these groups and alliancestheir histories, core missions, size, and so forthcharacterizes a central
dynamic of movement (or pre-movement) organizing. As in a Venn diagram, their individual commitments to
greater power for low-income communities of color overlap to define a joint agenda for providing high quality
schooling for all students.
Through the mass participation of their members, these groups demand attention and accountability from public
policymakers and public education officials. Importantly, these actions create new civic capacity and social capital
for the groups. By presenting an inclusive and efficacious public, the actions also prompt questions about the logic
of scarcity, merit, and deficits. Although such grassroots groups, in themselves, dont constitute a social movement,
they can be characterized appropriately as social movement organizations.23
The scholarly literature on grassroots organizing coheres with findings from the social movement literature. Stall
and Stocker define community organizing as the work that occurs in local settings to empower individuals, build
relationships, and create action for social change.24 Similarly, Marshall Ganz, former civil rights and farm worker
organizer and now lecturer at Harvards Kennedy School of Government, argues that organizing activities seek to
create networks that can sustain a new activist community, to frame a story about the networks identity and
purpose, and to develop a program of action that mobilizes and expends resources to advance the communitys
interests. Ganz argues that these three domains of activity (building relationships, developing common
understandings, and taking action), when combined into campaigns, enable ordinary people to develop the
knowledge, capacity, and power that social change requires.25
We see all of these dynamics at work in the Californias grassroots organizations we discuss below, and in
particular, the work of the Education Justice Collaborative (EJC), a loose coalition of approximately thirty
organizations from around California with which we are most directly involved. The EJC groups range from state-
wide youth groups like Californians for Justice, to civil rights organizations like MALDEF, to faith-based networks
such as California PICO. .

They have incredible political power and shape broader movements

Oakes, 06 Jeannie Oakes, Presidential Professor in Educational Equity in the Graduate School of Education at
UCLA; John Rogers, UCLA Ed Prof; Gary Blasi, UCLA Emeritus Law Prof; and Martin Lipton, Grassroots
Organizing, Social Movements, and the Right to High-Quality Education, Rethinking Rodriguez Symposium at
The Warren Institute, 4-27-2006

We have ample evidence that social movements have altered cultural logics, which in turn have brought new
policies, social practices, and laws.16 Over the past few decades, social movement activism has changed the vast
majority of Americans view about racial segregation and discrimination; womens social, political, and economic
positions; the environment; and more. As people construct new cultural meanings, new actions make sense, and new
political arrangements become congruent with the movements ideological framework. New rules, structures, and
practices follow, almost naturally, as the rules, structures and practices of the past no longer make sense. On the
other hand, the concept of ongoing struggle runs deep throughout movements, as can be seen by the unfinished
cultural work of the movements just mentioned.
Movement activism can expose through public discourse the cultural and political shifts required to establish a right
to education. This discourse will need to examine and unpack the prevailing logics we have put forth in order to
reveal how the logics serve or do not serve different groups. For example, elite parents may be the only group to
reap unambiguous benefits from the current distributions of school opportunity and services. Conversely, the middle
class is not well served by policies emerging from the logic of scarcity. Opposition to the universal provision of high
quality schooling, based on ideology or fears of the racial other, may not, in fact, be in the material interest of
middle class parents. Thus, an argument in favor of securing high quality education as a right may be persuasive to
middle class constituencies. This opening means that building a movement for high quality education need not
deceive middle class communities nor require them to adopt a moral position at odds with their own interests.
Build a Broad Base of Support . Notably, social movement participants include far more than those who stand to
benefit directly (or narrowly) from demanding and winning policy or institutional change. Some whites act to
achieve civil rights protections for blacks; some men advocate equal pay for women; some middle class people
engage in welfare rights campaigns, and more. Appeals to the general welfare can garner adherents who do not
necessarily benefit or are even personally disadvantaged; for example, smokers who support no-smoking facilities or
wealthy persons who support higher taxes. Social movements foster connections among individuals and groups
whose material positions are quite different from one another. Social movement scholars argue that these
connections and collective political action result from ideological shifts, the construction of new identities, and the
development of new commitments. In turn, the relationships and joint action foster deeper ideological commitment
and the construction of collective identities.17
Establishing a right to education could benefit enormously from these social movement dynamics. In addition to
engaging middle class parents, they could foster other alliances, including alliances with organized teachers and
others who work in schools. Currently, teacher unions are uncertain allies on matters of school equity, particularly
as regards forced reassignment of teachers to achieve greater equity in access to qualified teachers. A shift in
cultural norms, however, could not only bring significant changes to teachers perceptions of the desirability of
teaching in low-income communities of color, it could also lead teachers unions to marshal the commitment
necessary to improve the working conditions for teachers in those communities schools.
Shape the Law. Legal scholarship on the role of social movements in constructing constitutional concepts also
suggests that social movement activism is likely to be necessary to secure high-quality education as a fundamental
right. Over the past three decades, legal scholars have traced the impact that social movements have had on changes
in the interpretation of constitutional provisions, including rights. Handlers 1978 book, for example, shows the
connection between social movement activism and changes in laws related to the environment, consumer protection,
civil rights, and social welfare.18 Others have traced the origins of changes in federal and state constitutional
doctrine to social movements. Even when changes are enacted through the formal processes of legislation,
litigation, or referendum, far less legal change would have been accomplished, without the impact of social
movement activism19 Especially in California, provisions of the state constitution are born in the mass electoral
process of the initiative and referendum.
 Parents Key---Education
Parent coalitions shape education policy
Evans, 14 Michael Pier Evans, May 2014, Soccer Moms UNITE! Affluent Families and the Utilization of
Grassroots Strategies for Education Reform, Interchange 45.1

The research on family, school and community relationships suggest that affluent parents are major stakeholders in
educational policy (Henderson and Mapp 2002). This is true to the extent that they are provided with a number of
capital based advantages that can be applied effectively at the micro level; however, this study indicates that the
power of these families is primarily limited to the school. The findings suggest that efforts to extend beyond the
micro-level of involvement were foreign to many participants and that participation in SFC provided a sense of
personal empowerment, increased social networking capacity, and inspired new perceptions regarding self-interest.
Despite having more traditional forms of power than other less affluent community organizations the members of
SFC still encountered many of the same struggles. These findings indicate that there is a general need to reform the
way that education policy is shaped in our society to facilitate increased public participation.
Without these reforms, grassroots organizations provide an important alternative to traditional forms of family
engagement. For individuals whose potential to impact education policy is limited by low perceptions of self-
efficacy or a lack of opportunity these organizations provide a venue for more meaningful participation. Grassroots
work can have a substantial impact on both its participants and policy. A meta-case study analysis of 100 research
studies identified four primary outcomes stemming from citizen engagement: new constructions of citizenship,
increased civic participation, improved responsiveness among government entities, and the potential to create more
inclusive and cohesive communities (Gaventa and Barrett 2010). These outcomes were observed in the case study of
SFC, where initial involvement was framed by narrow conceptions of self-interest, but participation led to the
advocacy of social policies that benefitted all children. These types of revelations are in part developed through an
organizational learning process, common in grassroots work, which emphasizes relationship building and active
participation. As Polletta states, participatory decision making help(s) residents who had little prior experience in
routine politics take on roles in strategizing and in mobilizing fellow residents. Talking through issues and options
enabled people to connect local injustices to national policies, exposed them to diverse rationales for participation,
and helped them negotiate short and long-term goals (Polletta 2002, p. 204). This study hints at the possibility that
grassroots work could serve as a foundation for coalition building that crosses race and class lines despite research
indicating that these types of alliances are extremely difficult to maintain (Rose 2000; Schutz 2010).
 States Rights Lobby Key
States rights lobby is incredibly powerful and shapes Congressional action
Barone, 12 Charles Barone, director of federal policy in the Washington office of Democrats for Education
Reform, and Elizabeth DeBray, associate professor of education at the University of Georgia, 5-02-2012, The Role
of Congress in Education Policy, Education Week,
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/05/02/30barone.h31.html

Historically, many Republicans have supported robust and dynamic federal education reforms. However , after eight
years of Republican leadership under President George W. Bush, who believed in a strong federal role in education,
the pendulum of power in the Republican Party inside the Beltway has swung toward a much more limited federal
role. House Republicans owe this split in large part to their takeover in 2010 by Tea Party groups. The fact that Tea
Party activists were able to defeat Republican incumbents across the ideological spectrum in 2010 primaries is
likely to make those who believe in even a modest federal role cautious about voting accordingly.
Republicans outside Washington see things somewhat differently. More recent federal policies, such as the Obama
administrations Race to the Top intitiative, have been embraced by high-profile outside-the-Beltway Republicans
like former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida and Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana. They also have the support of Republican-
leaning groups at the federal level such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. So far in the 112th Congress, inside-the-
Beltway Republicans have prevailed, even though paradoxically they have ignored the views of state and local
leaders in the name of state rights and local control.
Traditionally, congressional Democrats took their cues from the two national teachers unions, the National
Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers, the single biggest source of donations to their
campaigns. There are now, however, two wings in the Democratic Party on education reform, and they differ on the
mechanisms by and pace at which reform should take place. During the 2008 election season, Rep. George Miller,
D-Calif., characterized this as a split between incrementalists and disrupters. Dianne Pich, a leading civil rights
attorney, described it as a fight for the heart and soul of the Democratic Party.
This intraparty split emerged in 2008 when congressional Democrats attempted to suspend the accountability
provisions of the ESEA. Democratic leaders in Congress assumed there was wide consensus within the party to do
so. But civil rights groups upended those assumptions. Virtually every major civil rights group in the country rose
up to oppose the amendment. We saw a similar effort vis--vis the ESEA markup by the Senate Democrats Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee last year and the ESEA markup by the House Republicans Education
and the Workforce Committee earlier this year.
The ESEA may, ultimately, present an opportunity for the next president to build a coalition of reformist Democrats
and those Republicans who are generally supportive of some federal role in education reform, particularly in areas
where Congress has shown the ability to be effective. But the other, increasingly more likely scenario is an alliance
of incrementalist Democrats and states-rights Republicans advocating for a substantial scaling-back of federal
requirements that have engendered positive change.
 States Rights Lobby Key---Ext
Theres a huge shift towards states rights post-ESSA---state forces have enormous power
Hess, 16 Dr. Frederick M. Hess, resident scholar and the director of Education Policy Studies at the American
Enterprise Institute, 9-9-2016, What to Do: Policy Recommendations for K-12 Education, an Agenda for K-12
School Reform, https://www.aei.org/publication/an-agenda-for-k-12-school-reform/

In 2015, responding to many of these concerns, Congress overhauled the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). In
adopting the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), Congress retained the requirements for annual testing in reading
and math but gave states much more leeway in deciding what to do with the results. ESSA retains NCLBs
requirement that states test once a year in reading and math (in grades 38 and once in high school) and science
(once in elementary, middle, and high school). At the same time, ESSA gets Washington mostly out of the business
of judging whether schools are failing and wholly out of the business of mandating school-improvement strategies.
The challenge is now to decide just what ESSA means in practice , as states explore their options and as the Obama
administration seeks to use regulation to impose federal mandates that it couldnt win in the legislation.
The goal for reformers today should be to build on whats been working, work on fixing what hasnt, and replace
bureaucratic excess with a spirit of decentralized problem-solving. The Left, with its taste for federal control and
grand policy solutions, is ill positioned to do that. Conservative reformers therefore have an enormous opportunity.
Internals
Internals---General
 PC Key---Theory True

PCs real and finite---best studies

Madonna, 16 Anthony J. Madonna, James E. Monogan III, and Richard L. Vining Jr, Associate Professors of
Political Science at University of Georgia, 2-09-2016, Confirmation Wars, Legislative Time, and Collateral
Damage: Assessing the Impact of Supreme Court Nominations on Presidential Success in the U.S. Senate,
http://spia.uga.edu/faculty_pages/mlynch/Monogan.pdf
Time Management and the Presidents Agenda
Presidents use a wide range of tactics to set policy, including their ability to influence the legislative agenda and
staff vacancies to lower level federal courts. In terms of influencing the legislative agenda, modern presidents
introduce legislation and define policy alternatives (Covington, Wrighton and Kinney 1995; Eshbaugh-Soha 2005,
2010). While not unconditional, presidents can use their time and effort to secure the passage of key policy
proposals (Edwards and Wood 1999; Light 1999; Neustadt 1960). Importantly, though, presidents ability to
persuade the public is limited . To be successful in enacting desired policies presidents have to time their proposals
to align with favorable conditions in public opinion and legislative makeup (Edwards 2009).

Consensus of poli sci research confirms

---True for several months after an election, especially post-surprises proves PC finite and its now or never
Azari, 11-2 citing political science professors Lawrence Grossback (WVU), David Peterson (Texas A&M), James
Stimson (UNC Chapel Hill), and David Peterson (Iowa State) Julia Azari, associate professor of political science
at Marquette, 11-2-2016, Presidential Mandates Arent Real, But Congress Sometimes Acts As If They Are,
FiveThirtyEight, http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/presidential-mandates-arent-real-but-congress-sometimes-acts-
as-if-they-are/
Despite all this subjectivity, Congresss behavior does seem to shift when theres lots of mandate talk in the air.
Political scientists Lawrence Grossback, David Peterson and James Stimson found that members of Congress
responded to media cues that a mandate election had occurred, deviating from their usual voting habits for a few
months at most. Surprise , these scholars argue, is the key element in the development of mandate narratives in the
media. The elections of 1964 (for the effect of the presidential race on Congress), 1980 and 1994, for example, took
observers by surprise and required explanation. The explanation offered by media observers was that voters had
been clear in their desire for partys agenda to be enacted . The media interpretations of the election after the fact
created a convincing story about the policy meaning of the election.
Can presidents themselves convince Congress that an election carried with it a mandate? Ive looked into this issue
with David Peterson, an Iowa State University professor and co-author of the research mentioned above, and we
found that when presidents identify the election as a mandate, members of Congress respond . Our study covered
presidents from J ohn F. Kennedy through Barack Obama, and drew on the research that I did on how presidents
interpret election results in their rhetoric. Looking at a wide range of presidential remarks,1 I assessed whether each
communication event used the election results to justify what the president was doing. I found that presidents
interpret elections in a variety of ways: sometimes as mandates for their own leadership and judgment, but more
often for the issues and governing philosophies they talked about during the campaign. Contrary to what we might
expect, the final vote shares dont seem to matter.

it tips the scales, through agenda-setting, signaling, and political cover

Gelman, 15 Jeremy Gelman, University of Michigan; Gilad Wilkenfeld and E. Scott Adler, University of
Colorado; The Opportunistic President: How US Presidents Determine Their Legislative Programs, August 2015,
Legislative Studies Quarterly, 40:3
The presidents legislative program,1 which is the set of proposals sent from the president to the legislative branch,
is viewed as pivotal in presidential-congressional relations. We see evidence of the privileged place these requests
have in three ways. First, they shape Congresss lawmaking agenda . Over 70% of the presidents issue priorities get
congressional consideration, and significant legislation sent by the administration is almost always debated
(Edwards and Barrett 2000; Peterson 1990). Second, these policy proposals are traditionally viewed as a tool the
president can use to open policy windows and create more accommodating lawmaking environments . Kingdon
reports that no other single actor in the political system has quite the capability of the president to set agendas in
given policy areas... (1984, 23). Third, these proposals provide cues to legislators about which issues they can
successfully politicize by opposing or supporting the presidents policy ideas (Lee 2009).
As the presidents program heavily influences legislative attention and the level of partisanship within Congress, it is
also crucial to understanding the broader policymaking process. To that end, we examine why presidents select
some issues to promote in their legislative agenda and not others.
 PC Key---Trump Specific
Trump PCs real and key to the agenda:

Empirics---especially the first year

---Key bridge to house leadership, solves gridlock, enables active lobbying strong ties with Congress key
---Neither gridlock nor easy majority inevitable
ONeill, 16 Kevin ONeill, co-chair of legislative practice, and L. Charles Landgraf, law partner, 11-9-2016, The
Policy Choices, Challenges, and Consequences of an Outsider in the White House: What You Need to Know After
the 2016 Election, Arnold & Porter LLP,
http://www.arnoldporter.com/en/~/media/files/perspectives/publications/2016/11/postelection-analysis-2016-
trump.pdf

The next two years will be a frenetic period in Washington but it remains to be seen if it will be one of legislative
accomplishment or logjam. One-party rule would normally suggest a peak period of legislative and regulatory
action, but the odd dynamic between the President-elect and his majority in Congress suggest we will see something
less than peak productivity in the next two years. While there is a pent-up demand for major legislative action on a
range of issues, the gulf between President-elect Trump and his partys leadership must be bridged to maximize
success in the next two years.
The first year of a new Presidency is typically a period of peak legislative activity, as the new President seeks to
implement a new agenda and to spend the p olitical capital built up in winning office . The majority of President
Obamas most significant legislative accomplishments - the economic stimulus package, Dodd-Frank, the
Affordable Care Act, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, Iran sanctions, sentencing reform, school nutrition policy -
were all notched in the first two years of his first term when his party had complete control of Congress (and a
stronger Senate majority). If President-elect Trump follows that model and forges strong congressional ties, he may
enjoy a similarly comprehensive set of accomplishments, most of which will be targeted at dismantling the
accomplishments of President Obama.
Whether one supports or opposes specific policy initiatives of the new administration, the next two years will belong
to the players who engage in the policy conversation instead of watching from the sidelines. The first two years of
the Trump Administration will see the federal government sailing in previously unchartered waters on many issues.
Public policy problems increasingly defy easy categorization as purely legislative or executive branch issues. More
and more, the business community confronts complex, multifaceted public policy challenges that encompass
Congress, multiple federal agencies, and even legal action in the courts.

It shapes agenda through public pressure and the news cycle

Catanese, 16 David Catanese, Senior Politics Writer for U.S. News & World Report, 12-8-2016, With Rallies
and Tweets, Trump Reshaping the Bully Pulpit, http://www.usnews.com/news/the-run-2016/articles/2016-12-
08/donald-trump-builds-a-new-bully-pulpit-with-rallies-tweets

Donald Trump is still six weeks from his Inauguration Day, and yet he's already signaling he'll expand the
presidential bully pulpit to bounds not seen before. This week alone, the president-elect is holding rallies in three
battleground states North Carolina, Iowa and Michigan as part of his "Thank you" tour.
But these rallies which look, sound and feel indistinguishable from his campaign events are about much more
than simply offering thanks. They appear purposefully designed to portray Trump as a perpetual victor. He's placed
squarely inside a reaffirming venue that's used as a vehicle to champion even the smallest of successes, and to push
and press forward his unconventional ideas before adoring fans.
To the members of Congress watching from their television screens and Twitter feeds on Capitol Hill, it's a
constant and powerful reminder that the masses are with him. And these events are more likely than not to remain a
permanent fixture of his presidency.
"What it does is assist him with communicating and laying out his agenda. It helps build momentum for that
agenda. People are just loving these. He didn't win and go into hiding," says Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee,
who serves on Trump's transition team. "It will help to put some pressure on Congress to move swiftly. 2017 is not
going to be a usual, standard-operating-procedure year in Washington, D.C."
Take Trump's Tuesday night event in Fayetteville, North Carolina, home of Fort Bragg, the largest military base in
the U.S. by population. Trump used it to formally unveil his selection for secretary of defense, retired Marine Gen.
James "Mad Dog" Mattis.
"Mad Dog plays no games, right?" Trump crowed.
Because he's only been retired for three years, Mattis will need a special waiver from Congress in order to bypass a
law that prohibits recent active officers from serving as secretary of defense.
Before thousands of supporters still waving campaign placards, Trump applied his case.
"If he didn't get that waiver, there'd be a lot of angry people," Trump said. "Such a popular choice."
It's just one example of how Trump is transferring the energy from his campaign to governance.
" He's a performance artist. That's what he does for a living. Performers must perform. He feeds off the crowds, he
gathers his strength and momentum from them. I doubt he'll suddenly switch that light off, because he may feel
unalive," says Douglas Brinkley, a presidential historian and professor at Rice University. "He won't make a
differentiation between campaigning and governing it's still all the Donald Trump show. He has a winning formula
right now.
"Why change courses in midstream because people say other presidents haven't done that?"
What may get in the way of Trump's perpetual roadshow is the responsibilities of governing. A foreign policy crisis.
A heightened national security threat. A budget battle. These are all nearly inevitable instances that require a
president to huddle and strategize in person with his advisers.
But this is where Trump's second specialized weapon comes into play: his Twitter account.
While Obama became the first president to tweet in 2015, his miniature missives generally have been formal, banal
and forgettable. Trump's tweets are the exact opposite, and there's no mistake about who's drafting them. They're
spontaneous, humorous and often substantive, though the veracity of their substance has been called into question on
multiple occasions.
Trump's tweets already are driving cable news coverage, molding policy and placing opponents on notice. For
instance, just this week he's used his account to attack China's currency devaluation and activity in the South China
Sea, propose canceling a plan for Boeing to produce a new Air Force One, and attack the head of a United
Steelworkers branch.
The ability to singularly drive a news cycle from the palm of his hand is going to be a new phenomenon that will
test the traditional roles of policymaking and journalism.
Yet there are some who believe the novelty of Trump's tweets eventually will wear off.
"He's got tremendous political capital now, but he's burning through it with tweets. You use these tweets too
frequently and they're going to lose all force. It becomes entertainment, not persuasion," says Paul Light, a professor
of public service at New York University.
That wasn't true of the campaign, however, when Trump's tweets were often the dominant topic of conversation, for
better or for worse.
With Trump reducing the number of interviews he grants and not having held a press conference in months, his
tweets have become the prime conduit to the president-elect's mind. News organizations have little choice but to
track them.
"The new reality is Donald Trump's tweets are going to be running the news cycle. It's not going to stop," Brinkley
says. "It's a new form of governing. Some people will find it tacky and crass. Others will say it's a clever way to go
over Washington, D.C., officialdom and speak directly to the American people. It's going to make the press
conference and pool reporters antiquated."
He adds, "It's almost like Confucius spreading strange wisdom. Every day he's pumping verbage into our news cycle
and he's able to control with the number of characters, using choice words to goad people, get under people's
skin, seek revenge and move policy forward in his direction."
Taken together, Trump's megarallies and tweetstorms are already ushering in a reimagined presidential pulpit, one
that plays to his strength of pithy performance art laced with dashes of suspense.

PC real and ensures passage---its key to both the left and right
---GOP reps can only buck Trump so many times, or theyll lose primaries
---Trump PC effective with red/purple state Dems
Cusack, 16 Bob Cusack, The Hill, 11-23-2016, Trumps new weapon? The bully pulpit,
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/307194-trumps-new-weapon-the-bully-pulpit

Its not just Democrats who have to worry.

Trump showed he isn't shy in going after members of his own party throughout the 2016 presidential cycle. And
that probably won't change in 2017 and 2018.
The conservative-leaning House Freedom Caucus and outside right-wing groups are wary of Trump's $1 trillion
infrastructure proposal and want the 45th president to focus on reducing the nation's record debt levels. The
Freedom Caucus was instrumental in pushing former Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) out the door, but picking a
fight with Trump is another thing entirely. Most Republicans in the House don't worry about their November
election they worry about their primaries. And crossing Trump could risk a challenge from the right in the 2018
cycle.
Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Trump feuded in 2016, but in the name of party unity and policy, they have put
aside their differences. And in a related development, Ryan's approval rating just hit an all-time high earlier this
month.
After the election, Ryan said it's time for the Republican Party to go big and bold. Trump wouldn't have it any
other way, though there are inherent risks with an aggressive strategy without a supermajority in the Senate.
Republicans who publicly ripped Trump are now getting in line, so muscling big-ticket items through the upper
chamber using budget reconciliation shouldn't be that challenging. Those bills, such as ObamaCare repeal, would
only need 51 Senate votes to pass. But replacing ObamaCare, building a wall along the southern border and clearing
a Supreme Court nominee will necessitate 60 votes.
Thats where Trump's bully pulpit will come in, calling out Democrats from both red and purple states that he won
on Election Day.
While Trump may not be up to speed on the nuances of the legislative process, those mechanics will be handled by
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Ryan.
Still, the fate of pending bills isn't decided by tactics. It comes down to marketing and political muscle, which play
to Trump's strengths.
Trump will surely have a slew of critics of anything he wants to do. They will throw everything they have to kill his
agenda.
Trump's likely response: This bill will help make America great again. It should be passed as soon as possible.
Democrats will need to step up their messaging game to thwart Trump's agenda. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.),
who will be minority leader next year, had pledged to work with Trump on areas of common ground. He has also
vowed to battle Trump when warranted, most notably on attempts to eradicate Obama's legacy laws.
 PC---Finite
Small depletions key---his mandate is historically small
---Public + GOP are skeptical, so theyll seize on small mis-steps and wont give him wins
Blake, 16 Aaron Blake, senior political reporter for The Fix, 11-27-2016, Donald Trumps political mandate is
historically small, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/28/donald-trumps-political-mandate-
is-historically-small/?utm_term=.17598a54d259
Its unusually petty and strange for a president-elect to do this, yes. But there is actually good reason for Trump to
be concerned about his share of the popular vote. After all, the current tabulation suggests that 53.5 percent of
Americans cast ballots for someone not named Donald Trump, and politicians are generally stronger when they have
demonstrated popular support . That translates to p olitical capital and an easier time pursuing your agenda. It makes
your opponents and perhaps even skeptical congressional Republicans, in Trumps case less likely to stand in
your way. (Witness President Obamas mandate in the wake of the 2008 election, for example.)
Trump, though, has a historically small mandate . And if you compare his election to the 57 previous presidential
votes, that reality begins to come into clearer focus.
As of now, Trumps deficit in the popular vote 1.7 points is the third-largest on record for an election winner
and the second-biggest for an electoral college winner. The only bigger deficits came in the 19th century, when
Rutherford B. Hayes won the 1876 election by one(!) electoral vote despite losing the popular vote by three points,
and when John Quincy Adams was declared the winner by the House of Representatives despite losing the electoral
vote and the popular vote to Andrew Jackson by more than 10 points. (It was a crowded race, and Jackson was shy
of a majority of electoral votes.)
Trump is also taking less of the popular vote 46.5 percent than all but seven previous winners. That number is
likely to creep down closer to 46 percent as the remaining votes get counted, but he is still likely to finish eighth
from the bottom (next lowest is Grover Cleveland in 1892 at 46.02 percent).
Among those seven winners who took less of the popular vote, though, six faced a third-party candidate who was
formidable enough to actually win a state, and the seventh was Bill Clinton, who also faced a formidable third-party
candidate Ross Perot who took 19 percent of the national vote but didn't quite carry a state. Clinton took just
43 percent of the vote but won the popular vote by six points over Bob Dole George H.W. Bush.
The strongest third-party showing in the 2016 election was from Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson, who is taking
slightly more than 3 percent of the vote right now. The worst third-party showing in any of the other races was 8.5
percent, which is what Populist Party candidate James B. Weaver took in 1892 as a regional candidate who won five
Western states. The leading third-party candidate in every other race won at least double digits.
In other words, there was far less splitting up of the vote in the 2016 election than in the seven elections that
produced a winner with a smaller share of the vote. While those seven candidacies can all credibly point to a third-
party candidate diluting the vote, Trump really cant. Yes, Johnson set a record for a Libertarian candidates share of
the vote, but he was ultimately a non-factor in the race.
Does that mean Trump is sunk as president? Of course no t. The vote is one thing. From here, its about how he
handles the presidency and builds his political capital. The best indicator of that will be his approval rating, which
hasnt been measured since he won the election. His favorable rating which is more about his personal appeal
than job performance bumped up after his election but still stood at just 42 percent, according to Gallup. Thats
lower than any president-elect on record and is notably less even than his 46.5 percent of the vote.
But for now, Trumps political mandate is very, very small. He will probably succeed in getting some of his
priorities through Congress thanks to the GOPs congressional majorities, but the American people are skeptical of
their president-elect, even as they elected him president.
The popular vote doesnt technically matter when it come to electing presidents, but popular appeal does matter
when it comes to how presidents can govern. And the idea that a majority of Americans still dont like our president-
elect is eating at Trump as it probably should.

He has limited sway with lawmakers---establishment treats PC as finite

McCaskill, 16 Nolan D. McCaskill, graduate of Florida A&M University, where he received legacy, vision and
student journalist of the year awards, 11-22-2016, Conservatives put Trump on notice, POLITICO,
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/donald-trump-conservatives-clinton-231768
If personnel is the beginning of policy, we believe that hes laying the groundwork to shake up a lot of the
Washington establishment and the bureaucracy of the federal government, Head said.
Vander Plaats expects Trump to follow through on his commitment to appoint conservative Supreme Court justices
and repeal the Johnson Amendment, which bars churches and other tax-exempt organizations from engaging in
political campaigns.
Once the President Trump versus President-elect Trump and the Congress is working and hes in
administrative mode, I think the people, his base, others, they will find ways to remind him of hey, this was a
promise, we expect you to deliver, he said. And theyre also gonna give him I think a little bit of leeway for his
own leadership right now. I think most of us know this country needs to be turned around, and were hoping and
praying that he can deliver on turning this country around.
Tyler, the former Cruz spokesman, used economic terms to convey his message to Trump and the fine line hes
walking.
He basically has a surplus of p olitical capital in his base. And what he seems to be doing is trading that political
currency for establishment currency, Tyler explained. And he can do that, as long as he keeps his accounts
balanced . But hes got to be careful that he doesnt bankrupt himself of political capital or hell have no mandate to
do anything.
 PC---A2: Polarization/Gridlock
PCs uniquely effective now---vulnerable dems and GOP control make compromise likely
Reston, 16 Laura Reston, 11-10-2016, Can Senate Democrats Stop Donald Trump?, New Republic,
https://newrepublic.com/article/138646/can-senate-democrats-stop-donald-trump

The dismal political landscape in 2018 threatens the opposition efforts against Trump . Endangered moderates up
for reelection will be hesitant to stand up to a congressional agenda handed down from the White House. Consider
the tax reforms or environmental policies that Trump is likely to introduce: A Democrat like Joe Manchin will have
every incentive to go along, because the Republicans would otherwise launch attack ad after attack ad against him
in West Virginia, a state where almost 70 percent of voters backed Trump.
Mitch McConnell, you can be sure, will be sketching out an agenda designed to force these endangered Democrats
to make excruciating votes over the next two years. It increases the likelihood that he can pick them off one after
the other , expanding his Senate majority two years from now. It also means we can expect few proposals designed
to attract bipartisan support. Dont expect Senator Pat Toomey to introduce measures to create new background
checks for gun buyers, or for Senator Marco Rubio to take another stab at immigration reform.
Can 48 Democrats in the Senate hold out long enough to ensure that at least some of Obamas legacy remains in
place? They can try, but it wont be pretty.
 PC---A2: Trump Wont Use Effectively

Trump knows how to use PC - hes got key leverage and effective bargaining skills
Delamaide, 17 --- Darrell, Politics Columnist @ MarketWatch, 1/3, http://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-will-
play-congress-like-a-fiddle-2017-01-03
Trump will play Congress like a fiddle New president will bargain, not rubber-stamp Republican agenda The full scope of
Hillary Clintons loss and Donald Trumps victory will become apparent this week as the newly elected Congress convenes. We all know the
Republicans swept the elections, winning the White House and retaining control of both houses of Congress. But it is where these
victories came from and how they were made that tells us what will happen in the two years this 115th Congress will have until midterm elections
in 2018. There is obviously a great deal of overlap between Trumps campaign pledges and the standing agenda of
congressional Republicans under House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. But there are also some
significant differences in the approach to trade issues and deficit spending, to name just two. Trumps pledge to maintain and defend Medicare
and Social Security is another important difference. Congressional Republicans may think they are about to reach the Promised Land, and
Washington Post reporter David Weigel this week neatly summed up the various bills they have vetted on issues from deregulation to repealing
Obamacare that are just waiting for a president to sign into law. But if Trump has proven anything in his idiosyncratic campaign, it is that he is
hardly just a Republican with enough working digits to handle a pen the ideal president once dreamed of by tax reform activist Grover
Norquist. In other words, its not likely Trump will simply rubber-stamp legislation that a Republican Congress churns out. Why would someone
who trumpets his expertise in negotiation simply give Congress what it wants? He
will hold back on those signatures as leverage to
get what he wants, especially when it runs counter to or simply beyond the lawmakers agenda. Salena Zito, a pro-Trump commentator who
catapulted to prominence for her insights into the Trump campaign, reminds us that the key to understanding the incoming president is his 1987
book, The Art of the Deal. Trump voters understood what mainstream media commentators still havent grasped many of his
statements are not ex cathedra pronouncements on policies but negotiating ploys . And, yes, many of them are not completely true.
Throughout the book, he is always negotiating, no matter if he was coming from a full truth or not, didnt matter, Zito writes of the 1987 book
in the Washington Examiner. It is always about the value of what is at stake. In that type of barter, truthfulness becomes irrelevant, it only has
actuality if the deal is struck and the facts come out. Which brings us back to Congress and how Trump will deal with it. Even though
Republicans retained control of both houses, Democrats trimmed those majorities even as Clinton won a commanding plurality in the popular
vote for president. The Republican majority in the Senate went to 52 from 54, out of 100, and to 241 from 247, out of 435 in the House. The
electoral upsets that enabled Republicans to maintain the Senate majority were the victories of Ron Johnson in Wisconsin and Pat Toomey in
Pennsylvania, two Republican incumbents most pollsters predicted would lose to Democratic challengers, Russ Feingold and Kathleen McGinty.
But Trumps surprising win in those swing states also lifted the two incumbents to an unexpected victory. Had Clintons campaign in those states
been slightly more effective she might be the president-elect with Democratic control of the Senate. Democrats were bound to recapture the
Senate seat in Illinois, but they also won a closely fought battle in New Hampshire, where the popular governor, Maggie Hassan, defeated
Republican incumbent Kelly Ayotte. It may well have been Ayottes disavowal of Trump that cost her the margin of victory. The lesson here, as
with unsuccessful Nevada Senate candidate Joe Heck, who lost ground after distancing himself from Trump, is that Republican lawmakers
need Trumps support to gain voter favor more than he needs them. The picture from the House results is a little less clear-cut.
Although every member is up for re-election every two years, the rate of incumbency victories is very high. In 2016, 380 of the 393 incumbents
seeking re-election won, for an incumbency rate of 96.7%. According to Ballotpedia, Democrats tend to gain seats in presidential election years
with their higher voter turnout, while Republicans tend to gain in the midterm elections. For instance, Democrats gained eight sets in 2012 and 24
in 2008, which make the net gain of six in 2016 seem relatively small. So Republicans are likely to make gains in the House in 2018. In the
Senate, Republicans will be defending only eight seats, while Democrats will be defending 25 10 of which are in states that Trump
won. Those 10 Democratic senators will be very careful about thwarting Trump , which makes his leverage in the
Senate considerably larger than the 52 Republicans. Trump may be a political novice, but if hes half as skillful at negotiation as he
claims to be, he will quickly grasp how to play the legislature like a fiddle.

Trump knows how to use PC effectively, but its finite and drained by major fights over external policies
Collinson, 17---Stephen, political columnist@CNN, 1/4, http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/03/politics/donald-trump-
republicans-congress/
Trump throws weight around Washington Donald Trump isn't even in Washington yet, but he's already throwing his weight around.
The President-elect prevailed Tuesday in the first exchange of what could turn out to be an awkward, sometimes turbulent relationship
with fellow Republicans on Capitol Hill. A full-blown PR disaster threatened to derail the first day of the new Congress as House
Republicans prepared to move forward with a measure that would have gutted an independent ethics office. As the scope of the controversy
became clear by mid-morning, Trump threw cold water on the plan , calling the ethics watchdog "unfair," but suggesting there were
bigger priorities for lawmakers to tackle. "With all that Congress has to work on, do they really have to make the weakening of the
Independent Ethics Watchdog, as unfair as it ... may be, their number one act and priority," Trump said in consecutive tweets. "Focus on tax
reform, healthcare and so many other things of far greater importance!" Within hours, House GOP lawmakers met in an emergency session and
decided unanimously to remove the ethics provisions from a broader package slated for a vote later in the day. The episode was the first
test of Trump's ability to exert influence over his party in Congress. It's unclear whether Trump's tweets were the sole deciding
factor in the GOP's flip or whether lawmakers were responding to intense pressure from constituents. A brief history of the House GOP's failed
ethics ploy Either way, it's certain the blowback intensified to a new level once Trump turned to Twitter. Rep. Steve King of Iowa, who backed
the attempt to gut the ethics panel that many lawmakers believe overreaches, said Trump's comment "animated the press" and created pressure on
GOP lawmakers to change course. "I'm concerned that now we have Republicans criticizing Republicans," King said. "We need to stay away
from that." Some lawmakers said they decided independently their move was unwise and didn't need Trump to tell them. Perception in
Washington But in a sense, it does not matter. The perception quickly jelled in Washington that Trump put himself at
the center of the storm and changed the weather. Such actions tend to enhance a President's perceived power,
especially in the crucial early months of his administration . The GOP wrangle was not Trump's only win on Tuesday. Ford
announced it would nix a plan to build a factory in Mexico and would spend $700 million to bring 700 jobs to Michigan, crediting Trump's
policies for the move. Democrats will argue that such interventions pale into comparison to the millions of jobs created by President Barack
Obama. But Trump faces the likely impossible challenge of returning US manufacturing jobs from low-wage economies abroad. So in the case of
Ford, as with the spat on Capitol Hill, the
symbolism and media coverage is far more important than context. In the meantime,
Tuesday's drama offered a preview of how Trump will govern . The Twitter president appears unlikely to be content with working
congressional back channels and using conventional levers of power to get his way. The day's events also showed that while Trump may be
a Washington newbie, he knows how to score an easy political win. Trump hotel lawsuit at impasse, headed to trial For much of
his transition, Trump has been hounded by ethics questions of his own, centering on potential huge conflicts of interests posed by his global
business interests. His wealthy cabinet picks -- such as Rex Tillerson for secretary of state and Steve Mnuchin for Treasury -- are being accused
by Democrats of failing to provide sufficient financial data and other information ahead of their confirmation hearings. But Trump can now
present himself as a champion of ethical standards on Capitol Hill and argue that he has already taken a step to honor his vow of draining
Washington's political swamp. The exchange also appeared to hint at the Republican hierarchy in Washington after the inauguration and the
incoming president's relationship with Speaker Paul Ryan. Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican, initially opposed the change to ethics rules. But once
he was defied by his troops, he fell into line, issuing a statement defending the move -- only for GOP lawmakers to reverse themselves later.
Sway with the GOP The way the confrontation ended left an impression that Trump, basking in the political capital
that new presidents enjoy, may have as much sway with the restive Republican caucus as Ryan himself, who was re-elected
speaker on Tuesday. Of course, life is going to get a lot tougher for the President-elect. Despite their common political aims --
repealing Obamacare, passing big tax cuts and beginning a new era of conservative rule -- Trump and the GOP will not always
see eye to eye. And Ryan's new GOP conference looks as likely to be as unruly as his last one.
 PC---A2: Edwards 16
He concedes its real at the margins---thats key to the DA
Edwards, 16 George C. Edwards III, Distinguished Professor of Political Science and Jordan Chair in Presidential
Studies at Texas A&M, 2016, The Potential of Presidential Leadership, Study Done for the White House
Transition Project

The best evidence is that presidential persuasion is effective only at the margins of congressional decision making.
Presidential legislative leadership operates in an environment largely beyond the presidents control and must
compete with other, more stable factors that affect voting in Congress in addition to party. These include ideology,
personal views and commitments on specific policies, and the interests of constituencies. By the time a president
tries to exercise influence on a vote, most members of Congress have made up their minds on the basis of these
other factors.
As a result, a presidents legislative leadership is likely to be critical only for those members of Congress who
remain open to conversion after other influences have had their impact. Although the size and composition of this
group varies from issue to issue, it will almost always be a small minority in each chamber. Whatever the
circumstances, the impact of persuasion on the outcome will usually be relatively modest. Therefore, conversion is
likely to be at the margins of coalition building in Congress rather than at the core of policy change.
The most effective presidents do not create opportunities by reshaping the political landscape. Instead, they exploit
opportunities already present in their environments to achieve significant changes in public policy. Three of the
most famous periods of presidential success in Congress illustrate the point.12
 IL---Base Key

only support of trumps Republican base matters --- if it starts to abandon him his approval rating will
plummet further decline below 40 is threshold for DA
Lauter, 2/13/17 (David, Trump has gotten even less popular while in office, http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-
na-pol-trump-polls-20170213-story.html, accessed on 2/14/17, JMP)
One of the enduring myths of President Trumps political career is the belief that nothing matters that the
controversies that surround him have no effect on his standing with the public.
The three weeks since Trumps inauguration have once again proven that untrue: Trump has lost significant ground
in public approval in the aftermath of a rough start.
Without question, Trump , who won the presidency with a minority of the votes cast, has retained a strong hold on
his core supporters, whose loyalty remains ardent. Republicans are more approving of his personal qualities than
they were in the fall, according to several ratings. And Trump has plenty of time to turn around the current negative
trend in his overall ratings.
But the pattern is consistent: After a brief increase in popularity early in his transition, almost all public polls show a
decline in Trumps support, though the exact amount varies.
In Gallups surveys, Trumps job approval has gone from an even split the week of his inauguration, with 45% of
Americans approving and 45% disapproving, to a 10-point deficit in the latest average, 42% to 52%.
Gallup has tracked every American president since Franklin D. Roosevelt, and before Trump, none hit 50%
disapproval for months, sometimes years. Trump has fallen below all but the lowest points for President Obama and
into territory plumbed by Harry Truman, Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter.
Asked about specific qualities of leadership, Americans in Gallups surveys give Trump strong marks for keeping
his promises and being a strong and decisive leader. But majorities rate him negatively on inspiring confidence,
managing the government effectively and being honest.
On each of those measures, a vast gulf separates the mostly positive views of Republicans from the negative views
of most Democrats.
In addition to Gallup, other polls showing a decline in Trumps job approval include a GOP favorite, Rasmussen,
which has shown Trump dropping from a 14-point net approval rating when he started to four points now; YouGov,
which has found a 13-point decline; and Quinnipiac, with a 17-point drop.
Among major nonpartisan surveys, the only one to depart from the pattern is the Reuters/Ipsos poll, which had
Trumps approval at a two-point deficit when he started and now has him barely in positive territory, with 48%
approving and 47% disapproving.
For now, what matters most to Trump is holding the support of his core voters. Thats key to his strength in
Congress, especially in the House , because his popularity remains high in most Republican-held congressional
districts.
But if his decline persists, it could weaken Trumps sway in the Senate, where members need to run statewide.
Whether Trumps approval rating will drop further depends largely on independents and Republicans he has
almost no support to lose among Democrats. If those voters do sour on him, that could pose a threat to Republicans
in the midterm election in 2018. The incumbent presidents approval rating historically serves as a good predictor of
how many seats his party will lose at midterm.
Most presidents lose ground during their first two years. The average decline since World War II is just short of
eight points, according to a compilation by Marquette University political scientist Charles Franklin. If Trump
follows that pattern, he could end up with an approval rating in the high 30s perilous territory for congressional
candidates running in swing districts.
 IL---Dems
plan disrupts party unity and dem sign-on that are key to legislation
Longman, 16 Martin Longman, web editor for the Washington Monthly and the main blogger at Booman
Tribune, 11-14-16, Democrats shouldn't cling to the filibuster, Washington Monthly,
http://washingtonmonthly.com/2016/11/14/the-democrats-shouldnt-cling-to-the-filibuster/

Theoretically, the Senates filibuster rule could serve as one of only two tools the Democrats have to limit the scope
of the complete Republican takeover of government. But it doesnt look like the filibuster will be worth a warm
bucket of spit, assuming it survives at all. It has already been substantially weakened by Harry Reid who got fed up
with the Republicans constant stonewalling of executive branch nominees and appointments to the lower federal
courts. He eliminated its use for those two purposes, which means that Trump can fill his cabinet with virtually
anyone he wants and make quick work of rolling back the partisan advantage President Obama built on the district
and appeals courts. However, Harry Reid left in place the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees and for regular
Senate legislative business. For this reason, there still could be some necessity for Trump to reach across the aisle to
fill Scalias seat on the Supreme Court and to enact his ambitious and radical policy agenda through Congress.
However, the Democrats know that the Republicans will only tolerate a limited amount of obstruction and that they
could easily eliminate the filibuster completely, making a simple 50 votes in the Senate all the Republicans need for
all Senate business.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell wouldnt comment on this possibility but he had a pretty straightforward
warning on Friday, saying that Democrats are going to want to be cooperative with us.
The Senate Democrats arent inclined to behave as obstructively as McConnells Republicans in any case:
What were not going to do is what Mitch McConnell stands for, which is obstructing things because of who
proposed it, said Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), a prominent liberal. But if Trump puts plans forward that arent
about working Americans, if its tax cuts for billionaires, well certainly fight that.
I suppose the Democrats shouldnt invite McConnell to take away their last remaining parliamentary tool for
resisting Trump, but if theyre afraid to use it because they believe it will be taken away, no one should expect it to
be used for anything of true priority and significance to the Trump administration. It will be useless for the big stuff.
But there is an effective way to resist, and thats by exploiting divisions within the Republican caucus. Those
divisions are substantial and its going to take a lot of creativity and horse trading to utilize them effectively. Trump
wants an infrastructure bill, and hell probably need Democratic votes to get it. Hes going to want to do tax reform,
and he may need Democratic votes to get that, too. Its unclear if he can avoid running afoul of the deficit hawks in
the Republican Party (in both the Senate and House) as he looks to explode the deficit in nearly every area from
increased defense spending, to lowering rates and repealing the Estate Tax, to eliminating the cost savings in
ObamaCare, to jacking up spending on immigration enforcement and wall building.
Instead of relying on a filibuster rule that will be taken away the moment it matters, the Democrats should stand on
their principles rather than pretending that they can keep a meaningful filibuster by playing nice. If theyre going to
be a successful minority party, theyre going to have to do it the old-fashioned way. And that means that theyll have
to use the amendment process to sow divisions and make Trump rely on them as much as possible.
It should become clear fairly quickly if Trump can govern his own caucus any better than Boehner and Ryan have
been able to do. The Republicans can barely legislate their way out of a paper bag on a good day, and now they have
a president coming in who, by all reports, has the attention span of a gnat and no knowledge whatsoever of how to
run the federal government or to move legislation through Congress.
If Trump wants to steamroll the Democrats with some hard right conservative agenda then they can refuse to help
ease the divisions in his party even on things like infrastructure and tax reform where they might otherwise be
willing to give him a win.
And those days of giving the votes to raise the debt ceiling? Well, thats a Sword of Damocles that shouldnt be
given up easily. The Republicans will have to pass their own appropriations bill with their own votes, and if they
cant do it any better under Trump than they did it under Obama, well then that will be another way for Democrats
to have influence and force moderation and compromise .
 IL---GOP Relations
Alienating the GOP wrecks the agenda---Trump will go scorched-earth
Reston, 16 Laura Reston, 11-10-2016, Can Senate Democrats Stop Donald Trump?, New Republic,
https://newrepublic.com/article/138646/can-senate-democrats-stop-donald-trump

Trump may also butt heads with congressional Republicans in other areas. He has said that on his first day in office
he would name China a currency manipulator, implementing a 45 percent tariff on Chinese imports. Most
Republicans in Congress, many of whom were elected with help from the Chamber of Commerce, support free trade
and would likely oppose this. Should he pick those battles, Trump will encounter a Congress far less willing to be a
rubber stamp on his agenda. That will be quite an adjustment for someone who spent his career as a CEO, without
the separation o f p owers, Galston says. We have no idea what his governing style is going to be. But we know
what happens when things go against him: He tends to lash out and pit himself against others.

Policy fights disrupt Trumps fragile relations with GOP---that ends the agenda
ONeill, 16 Kevin ONeill, co-chair of legislative practice, and L. Charles Landgraf, law partner, 11-9-2016, The
Policy Choices, Challenges, and Consequences of an Outsider in the White House: What You Need to Know After
the 2016 Election, Arnold & Porter LLP,
http://www.arnoldporter.com/en/~/media/files/perspectives/publications/2016/11/postelection-analysis-2016-
trump.pdf

A normal environment where the White House and Congress are controlled by the same party would be a period of
intense coordinated legislative and regulatory action by the majority party. Yet, the Trump Presidency will be
different for many reasons. First, President-elect Trump previously had a strained and distant relationship with
congressional leaders of his own party. Speaker Ryan has a frosty relationship with President-elect Trump, and
declined opportunities to campaign together and, in an effort to preserve his House majority, stopped defending the
Republican nominee weeks before the election. In turn, President-elect Trump regularly ridiculed the Speaker on the
campaign trail and, at key moments, appeared to be campaigning as much against his own congressional majority as
he was against his actual opponent, Secretary Clinton. This is an uneasy partnership where allies will have to be
very careful in working together if they are to achieve their common goals.
In the Senate, Majority Leader McConnell was on record early in 2016 saying that it was essentially every candidate
for themselves, and Republican Senators needed to do whatever it took to win reelection. It was a strategy that
worked. The President-elect knows how to hold a grudge, and now his success is going to be closely linked to his
ability to get along with his own party in Congress. We expect that the shared policy ambitions of President-elect
Trump, Speaker Ryan and Majority Leader McConnell, each eager to see big things accomplished in a unified
government, will be sufficient to work through the inevitable friction in their personal leadership styles.
There is one interesting constitutional upside to the strained relationship between the White House and Congress.
For the last several Presidencies, there has been a continuum of activity that tilts the federal governments balance of
power toward the White House and away from Congress. The deep, bipartisan skepticism and antipathy toward the
incoming President creates the conditions needed for Congress to begin to shift the balance of power between
coequal branches of government back to equilibrium.
President-elect Trumps relations with the Senate also will impact the speed with which his nominees move towards
confirmation. Congressional Republicans will be concerned about the level of vetting done by the transition team
and will be wary of being trapped supporting controversial nominees with issues that should have shaken out before
nominees are submitted. Senate Democrats will have every incentive to throw up procedural roadblocks and
coordinate with outside interest groups to attack the qualifications of President-elect Trump's nominees. To the
extent that the Trump Administration seems likely to appoint more political outsiders and business leaders, some of
the political attacks on nominees are sure to succeed, and those nominations will fail.
While President Obama suffered from a reputation of holding legislators at arms-length, President-elect Trump may
have troubles of his own on this front. He will need to be magnanimous in victory and embrace key Republicans
who were publicly skeptical or opposed to his campaign. In turn, congressional Republicans who opposed the
Trump candidacy will need to reconcile with the President-elect. President-elect Trump could excel at some of the
interpersonal elements of his job and may use golfing and other social events as a way to build goodwill he can use
to advance his agenda in Congress. If the President-elect's agenda stalls or fails in a Republican-controlled
Congress, the autopsy will show the failure was a combination of policy disagreements exacerbated by poor
relationships with individual senators and representatives essential to the policy issues involved .
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) are now the de
facto heads of the Democratic Party. While both are articulate spokespersons for their party, their age and
experience eliminate them as potential 2020 presidential nominees, limiting their control of the party to a short-term
proposition. Instead, we will soon see an open battle among key senators, representatives and governors to be
identified as heirs to the Bill Clinton-Barack Obama policy legacy. Hillary Clintons defeat will make it hard for her
to exert much control over the partys future. Indeed, the party bearer in fighting Trump in the next two years may
be former President Obama himself, as he plans to live in Washington, DC for a few years until his younger
daughter goes to college. With a leaderless party, former President Obama seems unlikely to stand by quietly as
Republicans seek to unravel his signature achievements.
Overall, President-elect Trump enters office knowing he has the potential to achieve sweeping transformation to a
smaller, more conservative federal government, but his success depends in large part on showing he can get along
with others in Washington. To the extent he can forge relationships with congressional Republicans, he will see
legislative success.
 IL---Flip Flops

Flip-flops kill the agenda - its the most destructive political label in America
Rainey, 8 (6/25/08 (James, Staff @ LA Times, "ON THE MEDIA: Candidates Show Lack of Leadership on Iraq," Daily
Herald, http://www.heraldextra.com/component/option,com_contentwire/task,view/id,61544/Itemid,53/)

The Iraq experts I interviewed agreed that one of the most problematic barriers to a real debate is -- as author and journalist George
Packer said -- a culture that has "made flip-flopper the most feared label in American politics." They could point to another
politician, fact averse but stalwart, who took too long to adapt once it became clear Iraq was going sideways. "It seems in America you are
stuck with the position you adopted, even when events change, in order to claim absolute consistency," Packer said.
"That can't be good."

Flip-flops are politically devastating

The Dallas Morning News, 1 (4/16/2001 (lexis))

A high number of flip-flops can bleed a president dry, they added, especially one who campaigned for a "responsibility era" in contrast
to the scandal-ridden Clinton era. "His stock-in-trade more than anything else is, 'This is a guy who keeps his
commitments, even when it's painful ,' " said Norman Ornstein, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
Democrats said the coal companies applied pressure to Bush, forcing a decision they say ignores the threat of global warming. In mocking Bush's prior campaign pledge, many cited the chemical
formula for carbon dioxide, CO2. "The president and his team have really made a 180-degree turn on their position here, suggesting now that CO2 is somehow A-OK," said Sen. Joe Lieberman,
D-Conn., who ran against Bush as the Democratic candidate for vice president. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., wife of Bush's predecessor, called it "a promise made and a promise
broken." "In less than eight weeks in office, President Bush has gone from CO2 to 'see you later,' " Hillary Clinton said. During a campaign speech in Saginaw, Mich., on Sept. 29, Bush outlined
a clean air strategy targeting four pollutants. "With the help of Congress, environmental groups and industry, we will require all power plants to meet clean air standards in order to reduce
emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury, and carbon dioxide within a reasonable period of time," Bush said. And since his inauguration, Bush's Environmental Protection Agency
chief, Christie Whitman, has publicly backed the carbon dioxide restrictions. But late Tuesday, he sent a letter to Republican senators saying he was still committed to new emission standards on
the first three items. "I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a 'pollutant' under the Clean
Air Act," Bush wrote. Critics said broken promises are especially troublesome for Bush, who promised a more straightforward approach than his predecessor. During an Oct. 26 speech titled
"Responsible Leadership," Bush told supporters in Pittsburgh that "in a responsibility era, government should trust the people." "And in a responsibility era, people should also be able to trust
their government," Bush said. Ornstein said it may be hard for Bush to make those kind of comments in the future. "Now his opponents are going to jump up and say, 'Oh yeah?' " Ornstein said.
"This is going to be used against him." White House aides said they believe most voters will understand the circumstances behind the decision. They cited a recent Energy Department study
saying that capping carbon dioxide emissions would escalate the shift from coal to natural gas for electricity generation, thus boosting prices. "It's better to protect the consumer and avoid
worsening the energy crisis," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said. If Bush has any doubt how much damage a broken promise can do, he needs only to ask his father , President George
Bush, who hurt himself by reversing his nationally televised "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge. The younger Bush's carbon dioxide pledge came in an energy policy speech, and most of the
attention at the time was devoted to his proposal to drill for oil in an Alaska wildlife refuge. Thomas E . Patterson, a professor of government and the press at
the Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government, said the damage done to Bush depends on what happens in the future. He
likened broken campaign promises to "razor cuts." "If you only have a few of them, they really can get lost in everything else that's
going on," Patterson said. " It's the accumulation of these razor cuts that starts the real bleeding."
 IL---Losers Lose

This would wreck him politically. Losers Lose and GOP is Key
Collender, 16 --- adjunct professor at the McCourt School of Public Policy at Georgetown University (Stan, The 3
Things That Could Stop Trump Cold Next Year (And It's Not The Democrats), 11/16,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stancollender/2016/11/16/the-3-things-that-could-stop-trump-cold-next-
year/#1031d47d1597, accessed on 12/10/16,)
That didn't take long.
Less than a full week after Donald Trump was elected president, Republican Senator Rand Paul (KY) publicly
announced that several of the senior people being considered for cabinet positions in the new
administration were unacceptable and that he will vote against them if they are nominated.
Senator Paul's statement may be sincere; he actually might not approve of the rumored cabinet choices.
Or he may be letting the Trump team know early on that his vote shouldn't be considered automatic and that he's
going to want something in return for it . After all, that's how Washington often -- or perhaps typically -- works.
But it's also a reminder that, for all the talk about Trump being able to get things done easy and quickly because the
the biggest and longest lasting threat to his
GOP will control the White House and Congress,
ability to accomplish anything will come from other Republicans .
Here are the top 3 Republican-caused legislative challenges the Trump agenda could face in the next Congress.
Any 3 Republican Senators
With a likely 52-48 Senate majority after the run-off in Louisiana is settled, Trump will only be able to lose
2 votes on any legislative initiative . At 50-50, Vice President Mike Pence, in his role as president of the Senate, will
vote to break a tie and give the president a victory.
But as Paul's announcement indicates, Republican unity won't be automatic . Although it's not always likely
to be the same 3 GOP senators on every issue, it's not hard to believe that there will always be a small group of
Republicans willing to oppose the Trump White House on the most controversial votes . It's even easier to
imagine GOP opposition will develop if the Trump administration is mired in controversy,
appears not to be in control, loses some early fights with Congress or gets stuck in a
foreign policy or military problem.

Losers lose uniquely for trump his power with congress comes from fear not love tanks his agenda
Newmyer, 17 --- Tory, author @ Fortune, 1/12, http://fortune.com/2017/01/12/trumps-known-unknowns/
As the newsletters title suggests, the form these changes take will depend in significant measure on something we dont yet know:
How Donald Trump will lead . He remains largely undefined on all but the most generalized policy preferences. Will he fill them in himself
or defer to the advisors hes still busy hiring? How far will that team, already heavy on Wall Street experience, go to sand the edges off the
populist platform that delivered Trump to power? And once the White House decides what it wants, will it seek to drive the agenda on
Capitol Hill, or hand the wheel over to Congressional Republicans, whose priorities diverge on some key questions? Well
begin to get some answers imminently, as this much is clear: Trump is itching to rack up early wins. At the same time, the ethics
questions shadowing the president-elect loom as a major distraction with the potential to kneecap his agenda. This newsletter will not be a daily
digest of, say, stories relating to ongoing concerns about his business holdings or so far unsubstantiated speculation about his Russian ties. But
both are dominating this mornings headlines. Trump faced an assembled press corps Wednesday for the first time since July, trashing reports
that intelligence officials briefed him and President Obama on allegations that Russian operatives compiled personal and financial material to
blackmail him. And in the same news conference, he outlined plans to hand control of the Trump Organization to his sons while maintaining his
stake an arrangement ethics experts denounced, including the director of the Office of Government Ethics, who called it wholly inadequate.
(Trump also sent pharma stocks tumbling by declaring the industry has been "getting away with murder" with drug pricing; said Republicans will
be repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act "essentially simultaneously;" and announced he'd name a Supreme Court pick within two
weeks.) Any presidents political capital has a precariously brief half-life that must be constantly renewed. That is
especially true for a newcomer taking office with a historically low approval rating one whos arguably more
feared than loved among his own party on Capitol Hill. And fissures with the Hill GOP were already evident Wednesday. As
Trump was preparing to take the stage at Trump Tower in New York, his nominee for Secretary of State, former ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson,
was in a Senate hearing room, absorbing a withering line of questioning from Florida Sen. Marco Rubio. Trumps former rival in the Republican
presidential primaries later sounded noncommittal about whether hed vote to move Tillersons nomination to the full Senate. Since Republicans
only enjoy a one-vote margin in the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, a defection by Rubio would stall the nod there. Senate Republican leaders
could then bypass the panel, but it would amount to a major black eye for the incoming administration. Rubio has a finely-tuned political antenna
and ambitions manifestly bigger than the Senate. Such an early stand against the president-elect would signal turbulence ahead
for the matters that matter to business .

Best Scholarship confirms the link---rallying against the plan and failing destroys political capital and blocks
compromise for future policy
---Empirics
Edwards, 16 George C. Edwards III, Distinguished Professor of Political Science and Jordan Chair in Presidential
Studies at Texas A&M, 2016, The Potential of Presidential Leadership, Study Done for the White House
Transition Project
Undermining the Potential for Compromise
Strategies for governing based on the premise of creating opportunities for change are prone to failure. Presidents
and the countryoften endure self-inflicted wounds when they fail to appreciate the limits of their influence . The
White House not only wastes the opportunities that do exist but sometimesas in Franklin D. Roosevelts Court-
packing bill, Bill Clintons health care reform proposal, and George W. Bushs effort to reform Social Security
presidents also create the conditions for political disaster and undermine their ability to govern in the long-term.23
The dangers of overreach and debilitating political losses alert us that it is critically important for presidents to
assess accurately the potential for obtaining public and congressional support.
There is an additional danger to failing to understand the limits of persuasion. Presidents and their opponents may
underestimate each other and eschew necessary compromises in the mistaken belief that they can persuade
members of the public and Congress to change their minds.

Loses tank trump agenda and cause GOP rebellions perception of strength is key
Collinson, 17---Stephen, political columnist@CNN, 1/4, http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/03/politics/donald-trump-
republicans-congress/
Trump throws weight around Washington Donald Trump isn't even in Washington yet, but he's already throwing his weight around.
The President-elect prevailed Tuesday in the first exchange of what could turn out to be an awkward, sometimes turbulent relationship
with fellow Republicans on Capitol Hill. A full-blown PR disaster threatened to derail the first day of the new Congress as House
Republicans prepared to move forward with a measure that would have gutted an independent ethics office. As the scope of the controversy
became clear by mid-morning, Trump threw cold water on the plan , calling the ethics watchdog "unfair," but suggesting there were
bigger priorities for lawmakers to tackle. "With all that Congress has to work on, do they really have to make the weakening of the
Independent Ethics Watchdog, as unfair as it ... may be, their number one act and priority," Trump said in consecutive tweets. "Focus on tax
reform, healthcare and so many other things of far greater importance!" Within hours, House GOP lawmakers met in an emergency session and
decided unanimously to remove the ethics provisions from a broader package slated for a vote later in the day. The episode was the first
test of Trump's ability to exert influence over his party in Congress. It's unclear whether Trump's tweets were the sole deciding
factor in the GOP's flip or whether lawmakers were responding to intense pressure from constituents. A brief history of the House GOP's failed
ethics ploy Either way, it's certain the blowback intensified to a new level once Trump turned to Twitter. Rep. Steve King of Iowa, who backed
the attempt to gut the ethics panel that many lawmakers believe overreaches, said Trump's comment "animated the press" and created pressure on
GOP lawmakers to change course. "I'm concerned that now we have Republicans criticizing Republicans," King said. "We need to stay away
from that." Some lawmakers said they decided independently their move was unwise and didn't need Trump to tell them. Perception in
Washington But in a sense, it does not matter. The perception quickly jelled in Washington that Trump put himself at
the center of the storm and changed the weather. Such actions tend to enhance a President's perceived power,
especially in the crucial early months of his administration . The GOP wrangle was not Trump's only win on Tuesday. Ford
announced it would nix a plan to build a factory in Mexico and would spend $700 million to bring 700 jobs to Michigan, crediting Trump's
policies for the move. Democrats will argue that such interventions pale into comparison to the millions of jobs created by President Barack
Obama. But Trump faces the likely impossible challenge of returning US manufacturing jobs from low-wage economies abroad. So in the case of
Ford, as with the spat on Capitol Hill, the
symbolism and media coverage is far more important than context. In the meantime,
Tuesday's drama offered a preview of how Trump will govern . The Twitter president appears unlikely to be content with working
congressional back channels and using conventional levers of power to get his way. The day's events also showed that while Trump may be
a Washington newbie, he knows how to score an easy political win. Trump hotel lawsuit at impasse, headed to trial For much of
his transition, Trump has been hounded by ethics questions of his own, centering on potential huge conflicts of interests posed by his global
business interests. His wealthy cabinet picks -- such as Rex Tillerson for secretary of state and Steve Mnuchin for Treasury -- are being accused
by Democrats of failing to provide sufficient financial data and other information ahead of their confirmation hearings. But Trump can now
present himself as a champion of ethical standards on Capitol Hill and argue that he has already taken a step to honor his vow of draining
Washington's political swamp. The exchange also appeared to hint at the Republican hierarchy in Washington after the inauguration and the
incoming president's relationship with Speaker Paul Ryan. Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican, initially opposed the change to ethics rules. But once
he was defied by his troops, he fell into line, issuing a statement defending the move -- only for GOP lawmakers to reverse themselves later.
Sway with the GOP The way the confrontation ended left an impression that Trump, basking in the political capital
that new presidents enjoy, may have as much sway with the restive Republican caucus as Ryan himself, who was re-elected
speaker on Tuesday. Of course, life is going to get a lot tougher for the President-elect. Despite their common political aims --
repealing Obamacare, passing big tax cuts and beginning a new era of conservative rule -- Trump and the GOP will not always
see eye to eye. And Ryan's new GOP conference looks as likely to be as unruly as his last one.

Early political losses deplete the foundation of polcap

*Careful it sounds like a winners win card if you dont understand the argument
Mann, 9 Thomas E. Mann, Senior Fellow in Governance Studies at Brookings, 4-21-2009, From Campaigning to
Governing: Politics and Policymaking in the New Obama Administration, Brookings,
https://www.brookings.edu/on-the-record/from-campaigning-to-governing-politics-and-policymaking-in-the-new-
obama-administration/
In reality, each presidency has its own political dynamic, shaped by the size of the initial election victory, the
contours of the economy, conditions of war or peace, public impressions, and legislative victories and defeats.
P olitical capital is not a finite commodity generated in the election and then quickly depleted in battles to enact a
policy agenda. It can be replenished through early legislative victories, reassuring leadership, and improving
conditions at home and abroad. Presidents have often garnered significant policy victories well after their first year
in office. The challenge is to begin ones presidency in a way that banks some initial achievable goals, avoids
personal missteps and legislative defeats, and lays the political groundwork for sustained leadership throughout the
life of his administration.

Losers lose perception of weakness undermines trump PC aff thumpers only make him look strong
Silver, 16 --- Nate, and Cohen, Micah, Five Thirty Eight, 12/14, http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/will-trump-take-
a-honey-badger-approach-to-congress/
micah: So that seems like one of the central takeaways with Tillerson: His nomination suggests that Trump might not GAF/ wont defer
much to political winds or Congressional considerations. clare.malone: You cant tell from one move with Trump. micah:
Normally, if a trial balloon is bombarded with crap, it isnt then cleaned off and re-released officially. clare.malone: Ew. micah: OK how
about: Normally, if a trial balloon is popped, it isnt then patched up and re-released officially. clare.malone: But yes, Trump must just like the
cut of Tillersons jib an awful lot, to go against the blowback. natesilver: Well, there are three or four interpretations. Interpretation No. 1:
The
honey badger dont give a shit. Trumps gonna Trump, even if its sort of a risky move where the downsides outweigh the upsides.
micah: But maybe this is partly why voters like Trump : He clearly thinks Tillerson will do a good job and doesnt give a damn
about what John McCain or Rubio thinks. Or any other D.C. naysayers. natesilver: Theres also interpretation No. 2: Trump thinks its
good power politics to make everyone subservient to his whims instead of compromising. Theyll confirm this guy, who
got some freakin medal from freakin Putin at the very moment that Putins suspected of meddling with/hacking the American election? Why,
proves how far Trump can go and how much power he has. Cont. natesilver: Trump
yes, they maybe/probably will! And that
gets a lot of mileage out of assuming that his opponents are weak-willed , in part because hes usually proven right .
Well see how much Rubio is willing to stand up for himself. He has a lot of leverage over Trump on Tillerson, and well see if hes willing to
use it.

Kills PC viewed as a huge loss

Toobin 12 {Jeffrey, B.A. and J.D. (Harvard University and Law School), senior analyst for CNN on legal issues,
The Real Stakes in the Health-Care Case: A Guide, The New Yorker, 6/5, http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-
comment/the-real-stakes-in-the-health-care-case-a-guide#THUR}
Its been said that Obama might somehow be better off politically if the Court were to strike down the unpopular parts of the law (or even all of it). According to this reasoning, he could then
avoid the problem of defending the law on the campaign trail and concentrate instead on issues on which the Democratic view is more popular. This is nonsense. In the first place, in
politics and the rest of life, its always better to win than lose . Winners win, and losers lose. Moreover, the
invalidation of such a central achievement of his Administration would taint Obamas Presidency forever . To casual followers of politics (and
In
the Supreme Court), which is to say most people, it would look like Obama overreached in the way that the stereotype suggests that liberals often doin expanding the size of government.

the event of a loss, Obama would blame the Court , perhaps for good reason, but for better or worse the Justices will have the
last word . In the famous words of Justice Robert Jackson, We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible
only because we are final.
 IL---Unpopular Policies---Congress

Forcing through areas of policy disagreement will disrupt Trumps fragile relations with Congress---that
ends the agenda
ONeill, 16 Kevin ONeill, co-chair of legislative practice, and L. Charles Landgraf, law partner, 11-9-2016, The
Policy Choices, Challenges, and Consequences of an Outsider in the White House: What You Need to Know After
the 2016 Election, Arnold & Porter LLP,
http://www.arnoldporter.com/en/~/media/files/perspectives/publications/2016/11/postelection-analysis-2016-
trump.pdf

A normal environment where the White House and Congress are controlled by the same party would be a period of
intense coordinated legislative and regulatory action by the majority party. Yet, the Trump Presidency will be
different for many reasons. First, President-elect Trump previously had a strained and distant relationship with
congressional leaders of his own party. Speaker Ryan has a frosty relationship with President-elect Trump, and
declined opportunities to campaign together and, in an effort to preserve his House majority, stopped defending the
Republican nominee weeks before the election. In turn, President-elect Trump regularly ridiculed the Speaker on the
campaign trail and, at key moments, appeared to be campaigning as much against his own congressional majority as
he was against his actual opponent, Secretary Clinton. This is an uneasy partnership where allies will have to be
very careful in working together if they are to achieve their common goals.
In the Senate, Majority Leader McConnell was on record early in 2016 saying that it was essentially every candidate
for themselves, and Republican Senators needed to do whatever it took to win reelection. It was a strategy that
worked. The President-elect knows how to hold a grudge, and now his success is going to be closely linked to his
ability to get along with his own party in Congress. We expect that the shared policy ambitions of President-elect
Trump, Speaker Ryan and Majority Leader McConnell, each eager to see big things accomplished in a unified
government, will be sufficient to work through the inevitable friction in their personal leadership styles.
There is one interesting constitutional upside to the strained relationship between the White House and Congress.
For the last several Presidencies, there has been a continuum of activity that tilts the federal governments balance of
power toward the White House and away from Congress. The deep, bipartisan skepticism and antipathy toward the
incoming President creates the conditions needed for Congress to begin to shift the balance of power between
coequal branches of government back to equilibrium.
President-elect Trumps relations with the Senate also will impact the speed with which his nominees move towards
confirmation. Congressional Republicans will be concerned about the level of vetting done by the transition team
and will be wary of being trapped supporting controversial nominees with issues that should have shaken out before
nominees are submitted. Senate Democrats will have every incentive to throw up procedural roadblocks and
coordinate with outside interest groups to attack the qualifications of President-elect Trump's nominees. To the
extent that the Trump Administration seems likely to appoint more political outsiders and business leaders, some of
the political attacks on nominees are sure to succeed, and those nominations will fail.
While President Obama suffered from a reputation of holding legislators at arms-length, President-elect Trump may
have troubles of his own on this front. He will need to be magnanimous in victory and embrace key Republicans
who were publicly skeptical or opposed to his campaign. In turn, congressional Republicans who opposed the
Trump candidacy will need to reconcile with the President-elect. President-elect Trump could excel at some of the
interpersonal elements of his job and may use golfing and other social events as a way to build goodwill he can use
to advance his agenda in Congress. If the President-elect's agenda stalls or fails in a Republican-controlled
Congress, the autopsy will show the failure was a combination of policy disagreements exacerbated by poor
relationships with individual senators and representatives essential to the policy issues involved .
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) are now the de
facto heads of the Democratic Party. While both are articulate spokespersons for their party, their age and
experience eliminate them as potential 2020 presidential nominees, limiting their control of the party to a short-term
proposition. Instead, we will soon see an open battle among key senators, representatives and governors to be
identified as heirs to the Bill Clinton-Barack Obama policy legacy. Hillary Clintons defeat will make it hard for her
to exert much control over the partys future. Indeed, the party bearer in fighting Trump in the next two years may
be former President Obama himself, as he plans to live in Washington, DC for a few years until his younger
daughter goes to college. With a leaderless party, former President Obama seems unlikely to stand by quietly as
Republicans seek to unravel his signature achievements.
Overall, President-elect Trump enters office knowing he has the potential to achieve sweeping transformation to a
smaller, more conservative federal government, but his success depends in large part on showing he can get along
with others in Washington. To the extent he can forge relationships with congressional Republicans, he will see
legislative success.
 IL---Unpopular Policies---Senate

Especially in the Senate---unpopular policies trade off

McLaughlin, 16 Dan McLaughlin, attorney practicing securities and commercial litigation, 11-16-2016, Does
Donald Trump Have a Mandate?, National Review, http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442227/donald-trump-
gop-congress-2016-election-mandates
Whether Trump needs a legislative mandate depends on what he tries to do. House Republicans have a commanding
majority, so if Trump tries to push policies most Republicans agree with, he will succeed in the House without
needing to expend much political capital. Senate Republicans have 52 votes, plus Vice President Pence in the case
of ties, so they too can win floor votes on anything that attracts Republican support, and on tax and budget bills
subject to 51-vote reconciliation rules. But the real action in the Senate always revolves around the additional eight
votes needed to get cloture on legislation and judges. For those votes, Trump may need to dip into the well of
eleven Democratic Senators from states he carried in 2016, ten of whom are up for reelection in 2018: Joe Manchin,
Claire McCaskill, Heidi Heitkamp, Jon Tester, Joe Donnelly, Bob Casey, Bill Nelson, Sherrod Brown, Debbie
Stabenow, and Tammy Baldwin. Some of those are senators from deep-red states who only survived 2012 due to
bad opponents and Obama turnout, so they ought to be nervous. Others, such as Sherrod Brown, are making
conciliatory noises already. But this will be a delicate dance for Democrats who depend on turnout from voters now
demanding a hard line against Trump.
A legislative mandate gets more complicated if Trump ( as expected ) pushes some legislation and nominees that
appeal more to Democrats than to Republicans; in those cases, he will need both Democrats willing to put policy
gains above partisanship and Republicans willing to do the opposite.
 IL---Popularity
Preventing popularity decline is key to Trumps agenda---hes at a crossroads now with the GOP
Enten, 16 Harry Enten, senior political writer and analyst for FiveThirtyEight, 11-22-2016, 11-22 Trump Won
Despite Being Unpopular, So Can He Govern That Way?, http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-won-despite-
being-unpopular-so-can-he-govern-that-way/

Once Trump becomes president, the main measure the press and American public will use to gauge his performance
will be his job-approval rating. And this is where his popularity could matter . As John Sides of The Monkey Cage
blog noted back in 2013, presidents have a better chance of getting Congress to pass favored legislation when they
are more popular . Political science research has found a relationship between a presidents approval rating and
whether the House approves high-profile bills that get a lot of news coverage (as opposed to run-of-the-mill, non-
controversial legislation). A Trump immigration plan would fall into that category. Another study also found that
Congress has been more willing to rubber-stamp a presidents agenda when his approval rating has been higher.
For now, though, Republican lawmakers seem united behind Trump despite his limited popularity. Although many
Democrats have criticized Trumps selections of Steve Bannon as chief strategist and Sen. Jeff Sessions as attorney
general, Republicans are mostly standing by the president-elect. It could be that in a highly partisan era, job-
approval ratings matter far less than party labels in terms of securing support from Congress. As Sides pointed out,
there is some support for that thesis in a paper from political scientists Jon Bond, Richard Fleisher, and B. Dan
Wood. If thats the case, Trump may be able to ride partisanship to legislative success, at least initially. Republicans
do, after all, have a large majority in the House and a small majority in the Senate.
Still, its probably not helpful for Trump if he remains unpopular. Every House member is up for re-election in
2018 and there are still some Republican senators from purple and blue states. These legislators may still be
influenced by Trumps standing with the American public. According to Gallup, Trumps net favorability this past
week was only minus-13 percentage points. Thats up from where it was before the election, but its still really low.
Indeed, Trumps net favorability is lower than any president-elect (or incumbent president after re-election) since at
least 1980.1
No previous winner had a negative net favorability rating. The closest was George W. Bush in 2004, who had a net
favorability rating of +9 percentage points. Bush went on to face major struggles in his second term. Trumps lack
of popularity stands in direct contrast to his soon-to-be predecessor, President Obama. Obama in 2008 was the most
popular incoming president since at least 1980. He was even more popular than Ronald Reagan was after the 1984
election, when he won 49 states. (Obamas occasional bursts of popularity, however, didnt seem to help him win
legislative victories once Republicans took control of the House in 2010.)
The good news for Trump is that his approval rating after his inauguration will probably be higher than his
favorability rating is now. Although were working with a small sample size just nine elections since 1980
you get a pretty good idea of what a presidents first net approval rating from Gallup will be by knowing his net
favorability rating after being elected, and whether he was an incumbent.
For re-elected presidents, there hasnt been a big difference between their favorability rating after election and
approval rating after taking the second oath. People know what they are getting when they re-elect a president.
There isnt much room to be surprised. Presidents sometimes get a popularity boost after being re-elected, but they
dont get another one after inauguration.
New presidents, however, tend to get a big bump from their post-election net favorability rating about 10 to 20
percentage points. That makes sense. Whether because of Americans rallying behind their leader or just giving the
new guy a chance, the honeymoon period is a clearly defined phenomenon in American politics. A 10 to 20
percentage point bump would land Trump in positive territory, or close to it, in terms of his first net approval rating
upon entering office.
But make no mistake: Trumps in a deep hole, and his atypical personality may make it difficult to climb out. Even a
20-point bump from Trumps current net favorability rating to his first net approval rating would leave him with an
opening net approval rating of +7 percentage points. Thats not only lower than any of the presidents studied here, it
would be the lowest first net job-approval rating for any president since at least 1941, when Franklin Roosevelt
entered his third term.
Trump will probably be hampered at least a little bit by his lack of popularity at the beginning of his term. He didnt
really defy his favorability rating during the presidential election, so theres no reason to think hell be able to
escape the normal effects of approval ratings. The more popular he is, the more likely hell be to have legislative
success. Without popular support, however, hell likely encounter more pushback.

Best studies confirm agenda-setting---but popularitys key

---Its true during times of unified party control (GOP controls house + senate + prez)
Lovett, 15 John Lovett, PhD in political science, Visiting Lecturer of Political Science at the University of
Richmond; Shaun Bevan, Lecturer in Quantitative Political Science at the University of Edinburgh; and Frank R.
Baumgartner, Distinguished Professor of Political Science at UNC Chapel Hill, Popular Presidents Can Affect
Congressional Attention, for a Little While, The Policy Studies Journal 43:1

In this paper we show that presidential power to set the congressional agenda is conditional on presidential
approval , shared party control of the White House and the houses of Congress, and timing. We test our argument
by modeling the effect of mentions of particular issue areas in the SoU on the number of congressional hearings in
those same areas in the subsequent period. Using time series cross-sectional analyses, we find that mentions by
popular presidents move congressional attention to the prioritized topics, but that the effect dissipates over time.
Further, the impact is greater in the House than in the Senate, and depends on divided versus unified control of the
presidency and each chamber of Congress. Popular presidents affect House attention in the short term for the House
during divided government, with a stronger and more lasting effect when the House is controlled by the party of the
president. In the Senate, a popular president can have a short-term impact under unified party control, but not under
divided control. Presidents without strong approval ratings in the public lose any agenda-setting influence in
Congress no matter which party controls a majority.
Our paper makes several important contributions to the literature on presidentialcongressional relations. Most
importantly, we reinforce findings from the literature that influence is highly conditional on popularity. Faced with
an initiative from a popular president , congressional leaders find it to be in their electoral interest to address the
same issues, even if they may not enact the legislation favored by the president. They may not rubber-stamp his
initiatives, but neither do they ignore them, on average. On the other hand, any powers of the president to influence
the congressional agenda disappear completely when presidents lose their popular luster. Faced with policy
initiatives by unpopular presidents, congressional leaders are free to follow completely unrelated initiatives of their
own. This affects allied party leaders as much as those from the rival party, as no congressional committee leader
has an electoral incentive to bind himself or herself to a president who has become an electoral liability.
Internals Tax Cuts Specific
 Tax Cut Internals---PC Key/Trump Push
Trumps pushing tax reform PC is key to tax cuts
Merica 6-6 [Dan Merica, CNN Politics Producer,6-6-23017 http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/06/politics/trump-agenda-
russia-congress/index.html]
To spur his legislative agenda, Trump will meet with House Speaker Paul Ryan, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, Majority Whip
Steve Scalise, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn Tuesday afternoon, according to a White House official.
The meeting will focus on health care, tax reform and next steps in the President's agenda, Short said.
Republicans, like Graham, are hopeful that the meeting will lead to more coordination between the White House and Capitol Hill.
GOP future on the line
These congressional leaders also have their futures on the line. Failing to get much done during Trump's first year in office, when Trump's power is at its highest,
could mean GOP disaster in the 2018 midterm election. Democrats, invigorated by a sputtering Trump, have already began laying out plans to target vulnerable
Republicans whose future relies on Trump's popularity and effectiveness.
Later Tuesday, Trump will have dinner with Sens. Marco Rubio, Tom Cotton, Cory Gardner and Todd Young and Reps. Lee Zeldin
and Francis Rooney, according to the same official. The focus of that meeting will be the President's recent foreign trip and foreign policy.
Trump's renewed focus on his legislative agenda comes days before one of the most consequential moments in Trump's presidency, when Comey
heads to Capitol Hill to testify about his conversations with Trump and memos he kept about requests the President made to him. The hearing before the Senate
intelligence committee could be the most watched moment of the year in Washington, largely thwarting any momentum Republicans had hoped for on tax reform or
infrastructure spending.
Short said that the White House believes Trump
"is often very effective in driving our message in Congress" despite the fact he
does "not have a conventional of style."
"Many of his efforts are extremely helpful to us in getting our legislation accomplished," Short said.

Finite PC key to tax cuts plan trades off

Kapur 17 --- Sahil, Bloomberg News, http://www.norwichbulletin.com/news/20170201/four-hurdles-that-could-
block-republicans-tax-cut-ambitions
If House Speaker Paul Ryan wants to achieve his goal of passing massive tax cuts for individuals and businesses before August, he'll have to
navigate around obstacles posed by his own party, members of Congress say.
Early hurdles include distractions posed by President Donald Trump as well as opposition to a key part of the plan among such conservative
stalwarts as Charles and David Koch, the billionaire industrialists.
While campaigning, Trump promised sweeping tax cuts -- including middle-class tax relief -- that analysts said would add trillions of dollars to the national debt. But
he gradually moved more in line with the less costly House GOP tax blueprint that was released in June, embracing shallower rate cuts for individuals and businesses.
Since his surprise victory, the
president and Republican leaders in both chambers have described a tax overhaul as a top
priority -- a once-in-a-generation opportunity for meaningful change . Here's a closer look at four of the hurdles they'll have to
overcome.
1. Trump's controversies.
Some GOP lawmakers worry that Trump's actions in the first two weeks of his administration -- including his allegations of voter fraud, his comments about the size
of his inauguration crowd and his executive order imposing immigration restrictions -- have "distracted" Congress from taxes and other issues, said Rep. Charlie Dent,
a Pennsylvania Republican.
"A lot of us want to work with this administration on important issues like tax reform , health care, infrastructure," Dent said. "But
it doesn't help when we get distracted by crowd size, recounts, and now this poorly thought-out and developed executive order on immigration."
Trump has to avoid squandering political capital , Dent said. "There are limits as to what can be accomplished and we
have to set priorities and be much more focused than has been the case up to this point," he said.

PC key to overcome fights with GOP on details plan trades off

McCuller, 17---Brian McCuller is shareholder in charge of the tax practice at LBMC, a Tennessee-based
professional services firm, The Tennessean, 1/17, http://www.tennessean.com/story/sponsor-
story/lbmc/2017/01/18/tax-cut-plans-let-games-begin/96713808/
Tax cut plans: Let the games begin As the Trump Administration begins, the rubber is meeting the road on tax
reform and the trip could be a little bumpy. During the election campaign, candidate Donald Trump supported a cut in
corporate tax rates, changes in individual income taxes, curtailment of incentives for U.S. companies to locate
operations and profits abroad, and a variety of other tax initiatives. House Republicans had their own plan, similar in
many ways but with some important differences. Now comes the hard part: Translating these platforms into a bill
that can pass Congress and secure the Presidents signature. Complicating that process are conflicting priorities for
powerful interest groups that would be affected by a tax bill and competition from other issues such as replacing the
Affordable Care Act that demand time and attention by the administration and Congress. (The ACA also has tax issues of its
own.) The issues are many, and the details and potential arguments are too numerous to lay out here, but here are some
highlights: Curtailing incentives for offshore business While the Trump plan and the House plan have the same
ultimate goal, they get there in very different ways. Under the Trump plan, U.S. companies that locate plants abroad would have to
pay a 35 percent fee (some would call it a tariff) on sales in the U.S. The House plan would significantly change the overall rationale behind
corporate taxes and would impose taxes based on where products are sold. Products sold in the U.S. would be taxed; those sold abroad would not.
That would have the impact of taxing imports but not exports. Business reaction to these ideas has been extremely divided. Retailers and oil
refiners, for example, have objected to the House plan because, as big importers, they would feel the brunt of a sales-based approach. Others say
this plan would greatly reduce the incentive for U.S. companies to move headquarters and plants abroad, since they would still have to pay taxes
on products sold in the U.S. Trumps plan has been criticized on a number of grounds, such as its potential for greatly upsetting international
trade and possibly running afoul of the numerous tax treaties to which the United States is a party. This will be a vigorous debate , to say
the least. Individual tax deductions Both the Trump plan and the House plan would raise the standard deduction,
although by different amounts. In addition, the Trump plan would cap total deductions at $100,000 for single filers and
$200,000 for married couples. This, too, brings powerful interests into conflict. Both the House plan and the Trump plan
would reduce the top tax rate, which could have powerful appeal to some. But among other things, the Trump plan could have
substantial impact on the housing market, since it would potentially limit the amount of mortgage interest some taxpayers could deduct, while
also greatly reducing the number of taxpayers who file itemized returns. That brings the housing industry, parts of the retail industry and other
influential stakeholders into the debate. Another
potential sticking point: the big political issues raised along class lines.
Some perceive the intent behind plans for individual tax cuts and cuts in the corporate tax rate as a way to benefit the very
rich. That could make the plans hard to sell. Wheres the money? Business and individual tax cuts, the cost of whatever
might replace the ACA, and Trumps plans for spending on infrastructure all raise questions about how this will be paid for. One
answer is that tax cuts could stimulate growth and the taxes on that growth will provide a big funding mechanism. Others say the numbers dont
add up and the result could be a big decline in federal tax revenues. Historically, Republicans havent wanted to add to the
national debt. So what are the politics of all this? Timing and the use of political capital During the first two years
of the Obama administration, there was a Democratic majority in both the House and Senate, and it still took two
years to pass the ACA. That was followed by mid-term elections in which the Democrats lost control of the House. As the Trump
administration begins, the ACA is back on the table, along with tax policy, highly significant foreign policy issues and a host of other big
domestic issues. A natural question to ask is how much can a President and a Congress tackle at one time , even when they
control both branches? How much political capital, not to mention time and energy, is available? These are interesting
times.

Tax cuts top priority and PC Key trump must avoid agenda losses and keep GOP in line
Russell, 17 --- David, Bryan Cave LLP, Lexology, 1/17, http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c4ab05e0-
fd50-4aab-ab25-18f17c9efc99
As the United States rings in a New Year, it also welcomes a new president. All eyes are trained on Washington in anticipation of what
President-elect Donald Trump will tackle in his first 100 days in office. Trumps initial success will depend on how well
he defines his own agenda and how he navigates the difference in details between his goals and the policy priorities
of Congressional Republicans. Trump will also need to divide his political capital between the things his
administration wants to do versus what it needs to do in the New Year. Confirmation of the Cabinet The consideration of a Cabinet
nomination, while nominally about the qualifications of a particular individual, also serves as a proxy for a broader policy debate. For example, a
significant portion of the debate over the next director of the Environmental Protection Agency will be about the Trump Administrations position
on climate change and whether the new regime intends to reverse Obama-era regulations implemented in the name of combating it. The Senate
confirmation process is time consuming and relies on building some amount of consensus to move quickly. However a recent change in Senate
rules allows Cabinet nominees to be confirmed with a simple majority vote, so unless a nominee loses Republican support, he or she will be
confirmed. For purposes of comparison, President Obama was first sworn-in to office in January of 2009 but his Cabinet was not fully in place
until late spring of that year. Supreme Court Nomination Confirming a Supreme Court nominee in the Senate is often a highly partisan battle. The
debate over the late Justice Scalias replacement has been fought for nearly a year already, the result of Senate Majority Leader Mitch
McConnells decision not to allow a vote on President Obamas nominee during an election year. President-Elect Trump will likely send a name
to the Senate very soon after he is inaugurated and Senate Republicans will act quickly on the nomination. Democrats can delay the vote but
unless the nominee is unusually polarizing, he or she is likely to be confirmed. Debt Ceiling Federal law limits how much money the government
can borrow. Congress suspended this debt ceiling as part of a budget deal negotiated in the fall of 2015. When the suspension expires on March
15, 2017, the debt ceiling will need to be raised or suspended again for the United States to avoid default. The Treasury Department often
implements extraordinary measures to extend the deadline by a few weeks, but it cannot be delayed indefinitely. Conservative deficit hawks
may seek to pair any increase in the debt ceiling with cuts in spending. Social Security and Medicare have become the primary drivers of the
nation's growing debt, but Trump signaled on the campaign trail his hesitancy to cut these popular programs. Deregulation Candidate Trump
spoke often about reducing the federal regulatory burden, which he described as an impediment to growth. Many of President-elect Trumps
Cabinet nominees have since expressed a commitment to deregulation. In December, a group of conservative House Republicans released a list of
228 rules and regulations that they believe should be tackled immediately. This list covers everything from trucking regulations to alternative-
energy mandates to new school lunch requirements. Two of the top targets on the list are the Overtime Rule, which determines if employees are
eligible or exempt for overtime pay; and the Fiduciary Rule, which expands the definition of "investment advice fiduciary, involving stricter
conflict-of-interest standards on a wide range of financial advisers. Repeal of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), i.e., Obamacare Enactment of the
Affordable Care Act is one of President Obamas most significant legislative accomplishments. Its repeal was one of Donald Trump's major
campaign platforms and is something Congressional Republicans have unsuccessfully attempted to do since its passage. However, now that
Republicans will control both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, they plan to make this goal a reality. Politically, the largest hurdle for Republicans is
not repealing Obamacare but replacing it. Many provisions in the ACA such as preventing denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions and
childrens access to their parents coverage have proven popular and will be hard to leave out of any new healthcare law. This puts the onus on
President-elect Trump to formulate an ACA alternative that not only preserves the ACAs most popular provisions for millions of Americans, but
also meets with the approval of Congressional Republicans. Immigration Reform Donald Trumps presidential campaign gained early notoriety
for his promise to secure the country's southern border and end illegal immigration. While advocates of stricter legal enforcement of existing
immigration laws have been heartened by the nomination of Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions for attorney general, President Trump will still face
political and fiscal constraints as he rolls out his early immigration policies. He will have to consider how to fiscally and logistically build a
wall along the southern border. Although the Senate passed an immigration bill in the last Congress, it proved unpopular with voters and did not
make it to President Obamas desk. President Trump can act in some limited ways without Congress. Notably, he can reverse President Obamas
executive orders shielding and granting work permits to millions of undocumented immigrants who otherwise could face deportation. But
funding any new significant measures would all require congressional action. Furthermore, Republicans will need to recruit at least eight Senate
Democrats to overcome a filibuster and pass any legislative bill. Infrastructure President-elect Trump has made clear his intention to pursue an
infrastructure investment package as one of his first orders of business, but it appears Congressional Republicans want to take up infrastructure
later this summer, after other must-pass fiscal matters have been addressed. An infrastructure package could garner bipartisan support, as Senate
Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has already indicated he would welcome the opportunity to work with the new President in this area. Major
issues to address include how large the investment will be, whether the price tag will scare off fiscal conservatives, and how to pay for the new
spending. For his part, Minority Leader Schumer has said he will oppose cuts to social programs to offset new infrastructure spending, and said
he favors $1 trillion of direct federal funding, instead of private equity tax credits. Expanding the use of public-private partnerships remains on
the table as a way to leverage private investment into public infrastructure. Tax
Reform Perhaps the most ambitious and impactful
agenda item for the new administration and Congress is a massive overhaul of the U.S. tax system, an endeavor that
could affect families of every income level and businesses of every size. It has been thirty years since Congress last
enacted comprehensive tax reform of this scope and size. Equally as ambitious is the timetable for passage of a tax
reform package. The Trump Transition Team and Congressional Republican Leadership have privately laid out a
schedule that puts tax reform legislation on President Trumps desk by the summer of 2017. Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have vowed to pass a tax package that is revenue-neutral, meaning the legislation will not add to
the budget deficit. To accomplish this goal, every reduction in the corporate or individual rates must be offset by reducing or eliminating a
deduction elsewhere, meaning negotiators will have to pick winners and losers. The House Republican tax plan of 2016 appears to be
a starting point. The plan would lower the top individual income tax rate from 39.6 percent to 33 percent and reduce the number of tax brackets
from seven to three. In a corresponding move, the plan would scale back exemptions, deductions, and credits. The plan maintains some of the
more popular tax breaks, including the mortgage deduction and the charitable contribution deduction. Small business owners would get a special
top tax rate of 25 percent. Investment income would be taxed like wages, but investors would only have to pay taxes on half of this income. Both
the President-elect and House Republicans have stated they want to lower the corporate tax rate and pay for it by scaling back tax breaks.
President-elect Trump has stated publicly he wants to lower the corporate tax rate to 15 percent while Speaker Ryan has said 20 percent is more
realistic. One of the more controversial issues that will need to be tackled is the border adjustment tax. The issue pits exporters against importers.
How tax reform legislation handles this open issue will be the subject of intense lobbying in the months to come.

PC finite and key to tax cuts plan trades off

DiStefano, 17 --- Joseph, Columnist @ Philadelphia Inquirer, 1/5,
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/inq-phillydeals/In-Washington-this-year-Which-tax-
and-spending-promises-will-pass.html
In Washington this year: Which tax and spending promises will pass? President-elect Trump and his fellow Republicans in
Congress have long lists of promises; some conflict. John Silvia, chief economist at Wells Fargo Securities, lists Congress's
likely top missions in this report. Highlights: Pass the late 2017-18 budget and a 2018-19 budget, including "a slight boost to defense
spending" "Repeal the Affordable Care Act," phasing it out over three years, so Republicans could delay any replacement plan until they (hope
to) beat vulnerable Democratic Senators up for re-election in 2018. Tax reform will look more like House Speaker Paul Ryan's plan
than Donald Trump's campaign promises: Cut top corporate rates to 20% of profits (from 35%); cut taxes on foreign profits sent back
to the U.S. below 10%. But plans to cut taxes on rich people will more likely "be scrapped," or at least delayed, as Republicans feel pressure to
balance the budget. Trade: Trump doesn't need Congress to impose five-month, 15% tariffs, or to give Canada and Mexico six months' notice
before pulling out of the North American Free Trade Agreement. He needs to show China meets Congressional standards before labeling that
giant rival a "currency manipulator" and tightening trade rules. Anti-trade moves are likely to "increase consumer and producer prices" which
could slow the economy -- unless Trump really does grow the economy a lot faster than it has expanded under Obama. Infrastructure: Trump's
promises to spend more than half a trillion dollars on roads and other public projects "remain in question." Congress shows "little desire for
another increase in infrastructure spending" after last year's highway bill, though road projects might still be handed to Democrats for support on
tax cuts. Immigration: Trump could block Obama's rule letting immigrants who arrived as children apply for labor permits. But he'd need
Congress to build his famous Mexico border wall or cut immigration visas, and Trump's proposals face 'stiff resistance" in both parties.
Restricting immigraiton is likely to create "labor shortages," with "the greatest risks" to farm, mine, construction, hotel and engineering jobs
Americans alone aren't filling, Silvia adds. Regulations: The Republican Congress could ease, but is unlikely to end, the Dodd-Frank bank-
lending limits. It will also likely weaken oil and gas development limits, and environmental and labor protection rules. It took Ronald Reagan
and a Democratic Congress five years to pass tax reforms, Silvia notes. With the GOP in control all around, can Trump
move a lot faster? "Political capital, like its financial cousin, is a finite resource."

Yes Spillover PC Key but major congressional fights derail

Stanion, 17 --- Percival Stanion is head of multi-asset at Pictet Asset Management, Pensions Expert, 1/25,
http://www.pensions-expert.com/Comment-Analysis/Investing-in-a-Trump-era-Calm-with-risk-of-storm?ct=true
Investing in a Trump era: Calm with risk of storm We are still in the early days, but so far markets have taken a fairly
optimistic stance toward the broad outlines of Donald Trumps policies. Investors have focused on plans for
generous tax cuts and infrastructure spending, conveniently overlooking the potentially negative slogans from the presidential campaign
tariff barriers, immigration control and a more isolationist foreign policy. For the time being until we see more evidence of the
Trump regime in action we are content to support the benign market view . This is partly because we recognise the
immense barriers to any radical policy shifts arising from the division of power within the US constitution. Given
the limited budget of political capital available to the Trump administration, there are probably only so many things
it can achieve. The switch towards more fiscal stimulus seems most likely, accompanied and counterbalanced by tighter
monetary policy. The main tenets of the Trump economic platform should add momentum to an already strong economy, lifting both the real
growth rate and inflationary pressures. Indeed, the possibility of a US economic boom, which would have been easily
dismissed just a few months ago, is now a non-trivial prospect. Markets are also now even more certain that the Fed will continue
to raise interest rates next year. But
we should remember that an awful lot can go wrong. Controversial or unpopular candidates for
positions could become bogged down in Congressional trench
the cabinet, Supreme Court, or even vacant Federal Reserve Board
warfare and undermine cohesion on the few areas where it exists.
 Tax Cut Internals---GOP Key/Dems Irrelevant

Only GOP matters dems cant block because Reconciliation procedures -

Pianin, 16 --- Eric, Fiscal Times, Business Insider, 12/13, http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-tax-cuts-gop-us-
congress-2016-12
How the GOP could ram Trump's tax cuts through Congress
President-elect Donald Trump and congressional Republican leaders are preparing to merge their proposals on tax reform
next year and then ramming them through Congress with a budget process that would defy Democratic resistance.

Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) have both devised detailed descriptions of what they want to achieve. And
while they are not identical, both approaches would provide massive tax cuts for individuals and businesses especially
for the wealthiest Americans -- and contribute substantially to the long-term debt absent real offsetting cuts and savings.

As a foretaste of what they have in mind, Republicans intend to use arcane budget reconciliation rules in the Senate and House to push through legislation dismantling
the Affordable Care Act next month. Their idea is to repeal Obamacare now wait for at least two years to come up with a suitable replacement.

And because of the special budget rules invoked, they will be able to pass the legislation with a simple majority vote
instead of the 60-vote super majority typically required to get anything passed in the Senate. They will essentially be hijacking
a fiscal 2018 budget bill and using it as the vehicle for the expedited process.

On Monday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) confirmed that the Republicans intend to use that same
expedited budget process to attempt to pass comprehensive tax reform legislation next spring.
The Congressional Budget Act permits lawmakers to use reconciliation for legislation that changes spending,
revenues, and the federal debt limit. However, reconciliation has traditionally been viewed as mostly a means of enacting deficit-reduction legislation, according
to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Congress has used it on occasion to expedite passage of tax cuts that have increased deficits as the Republicans did in
passing major tax cuts proposed by GOP President George W. Bush.
This time around, the reconciliation bill will include specific instructions to the House and Senate tax-writing
committees to technically change the tax code to reduce the deficit. They would do this, presumably, by projecting accelerated economic growth
from the tax cuts that would generate new revenues to offset the total cost of the plan.

I think using reconciliation for long-term tax cuts violates the spirit of reconciliation, although it does not violate the letter of the law,
William G. Gale, a senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution, said in an interview Monday.
While the Republicans technically can use reconciliation to adopt a major change in the federal tax code, he added, it might turn out to be a strategic mistake. Thats
because it would preclude the possibility of some Democrats joining with them to give the legislation a bipartisan sheen.
And if
they rely strictly on Republican support to push the bill through the Senate, they could be running the risk of a
small handful of GOP senators defecting and stopping the legislation in its tracks. The Republicans will hold a
narrow 52 to 48 seat majority beginning in January. While the GOP appears near unanimous on the need to make good on its pledge to repeal Obamacare,
there is far less unity on the issues of tax reform.

If they only get Republican support, theyre going to need near-unanimous Republican support , added Gale, the co-
director of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. So a [Trump-promoted] tax on imports and denial of interest deductions from the right makes it hard for me to
believe that the bill will pass on a party-line basis.

Whats more, incoming Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and other Democrats in the Senate and House have voiced interest in working on rewriting
the tax code on a bipartisan basis. McConnell and Ryan may have a tough time slamming the door on Democratic input considering the complexity and controversial
nature of reworking tax code.

McConnell said he prefers a revenue-neutral tax package meaning it would neither add to nor subtract from the deficit. But that would seem improbable in light of
independent analyses of the plans tentatively offered by Trump and Ryan.
The sheer magnitude of the proposed tax cuts and the highly optimistic economic assumption that accompany the plans have deficit hawks
uneasy. The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center says the House plan would cut taxes at every income level in 2017, but high-income taxpayers would receive the
biggest cuts, both in dollar terms and as a percentage of income.

The Trump proposal, by comparison, would cut the average tax bill in 2017 by $2,940, increasing after-tax income by 4.1 percent. Yet the wealthiest taxpayers with
incomes over $3.7 million in 2016 dollars would receive an average tax cut of nearly $1.1 million, or over 14 percent of after-tax income.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a prominent anti-deficit organization, has complained that Trumps overall policy agenda is far from fiscally
responsible. And on the subject of tax cuts in particular, our estimate shows his tax policies would cost about $4.5 trillion over a decade.
In his remarks to reporters at the Capitol, McConnell raised the possibility of using budget reconciliation for other GOP priorities as well -- such as undoing financial
regulations imposed by executive order of President Obama or under the Dodd-Frank law. Trump made tax cuts and the slashing of government red tape
high priorities throughout his campaign against Democrat Hillary Clinton.
The President-elect has made it very clear hes going to move on as many regulatory changes as he can make as soon as he takes office, McConnell said according
to the Morning Consult.

The two biggest impediments to growth in our country are overregulation and the tax structure, McConnell continued. And the
President-elect seems to be committed to addressing both of those. And the Republican majorities in the House and the Senate
are as well.

GOP Key - policy disagreement will disrupt Trumps fragile relations ---that ends the agenda
ONeill, 16 Kevin ONeill, co-chair of legislative practice, and L. Charles Landgraf, law partner, 11-9-2016, The
Policy Choices, Challenges, and Consequences of an Outsider in the White House: What You Need to Know After
the 2016 Election, Arnold & Porter LLP,
http://www.arnoldporter.com/en/~/media/files/perspectives/publications/2016/11/postelection-analysis-2016-
trump.pdf

A normal environment where the White House and Congress are controlled by the same party would be a period of
intense coordinated legislative and regulatory action by the majority party. Yet, the Trump Presidency will be
different for many reasons. First, President-elect Trump previously had a strained and distant relationship with
congressional leaders of his own party. Speaker Ryan has a frosty relationship with President-elect Trump, and
declined opportunities to campaign together and, in an effort to preserve his House majority, stopped defending the
Republican nominee weeks before the election. In turn, President-elect Trump regularly ridiculed the Speaker on the
campaign trail and, at key moments, appeared to be campaigning as much against his own congressional majority as
he was against his actual opponent, Secretary Clinton. This is an uneasy partnership where allies will have to be
very careful in working together if they are to achieve their common goals.
In the Senate, Majority Leader McConnell was on record early in 2016 saying that it was essentially every candidate
for themselves, and Republican Senators needed to do whatever it took to win reelection. It was a strategy that
worked. The President-elect knows how to hold a grudge, and now his success is going to be closely linked to his
ability to get along with his own party in Congress. We expect that the shared policy ambitions of President-elect
Trump, Speaker Ryan and Majority Leader McConnell, each eager to see big things accomplished in a unified
government, will be sufficient to work through the inevitable friction in their personal leadership styles.
There is one interesting constitutional upside to the strained relationship between the White House and Congress.
For the last several Presidencies, there has been a continuum of activity that tilts the federal governments balance of
power toward the White House and away from Congress. The deep, bipartisan skepticism and antipathy toward the
incoming President creates the conditions needed for Congress to begin to shift the balance of power between
coequal branches of government back to equilibrium.
President-elect Trumps relations with the Senate also will impact the speed with which his nominees move towards
confirmation. Congressional Republicans will be concerned about the level of vetting done by the transition team
and will be wary of being trapped supporting controversial nominees with issues that should have shaken out before
nominees are submitted. Senate Democrats will have every incentive to throw up procedural roadblocks and
coordinate with outside interest groups to attack the qualifications of President-elect Trump's nominees. To the
extent that the Trump Administration seems likely to appoint more political outsiders and business leaders, some of
the political attacks on nominees are sure to succeed, and those nominations will fail.
While President Obama suffered from a reputation of holding legislators at arms-length, President-elect Trump may
have troubles of his own on this front. He will need to be magnanimous in victory and embrace key Republicans
who were publicly skeptical or opposed to his campaign. In turn, congressional Republicans who opposed the
Trump candidacy will need to reconcile with the President-elect. President-elect Trump could excel at some of the
interpersonal elements of his job and may use golfing and other social events as a way to build goodwill he can use
to advance his agenda in Congress. If the President-elect's agenda stalls or fails in a Republican-controlled
Congress, the autopsy will show the failure was a combination of policy disagreements exacerbated by poor
relationships with individual senators and representatives essential to the policy issues involved .
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) are now the de
facto heads of the Democratic Party. While both are articulate spokespersons for their party, their age and
experience eliminate them as potential 2020 presidential nominees, limiting their control of the party to a short-term
proposition. Instead, we will soon see an open battle among key senators, representatives and governors to be
identified as heirs to the Bill Clinton-Barack Obama policy legacy. Hillary Clintons defeat will make it hard for her
to exert much control over the partys future. Indeed, the party bearer in fighting Trump in the next two years may
be former President Obama himself, as he plans to live in Washington, DC for a few years until his younger
daughter goes to college. With a leaderless party, former President Obama seems unlikely to stand by quietly as
Republicans seek to unravel his signature achievements.
Overall, President-elect Trump enters office knowing he has the potential to achieve sweeping transformation to a
smaller, more conservative federal government, but his success depends in large part on showing he can get along
with others in Washington. To the extent he can forge relationships with congressional Republicans, he will see
legislative success.
 Tax Cut Internals---Dems Key

Dems key to tax cuts vital to overcome deficit hawks and ease internal GOP divisions
Longman, 11-14 Martin Longman, web editor for the Washington Monthly and the main blogger at Booman
Tribune, 11-14-16, Democrats shouldn't cling to the filibuster, Washington Monthly,
http://washingtonmonthly.com/2016/11/14/the-democrats-shouldnt-cling-to-the-filibuster/

Theoretically, the Senates filibuster rule could serve as one of only two tools the Democrats have to limit the scope
of the complete Republican takeover of government. But it doesnt look like the filibuster will be worth a warm
bucket of spit, assuming it survives at all. It has already been substantially weakened by Harry Reid who got fed up
with the Republicans constant stonewalling of executive branch nominees and appointments to the lower federal
courts. He eliminated its use for those two purposes, which means that Trump can fill his cabinet with virtually
anyone he wants and make quick work of rolling back the partisan advantage President Obama built on the district
and appeals courts. However, Harry Reid left in place the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees and for regular
Senate legislative business. For this reason, there still could be some necessity for Trump to reach across the aisle to
fill Scalias seat on the Supreme Court and to enact his ambitious and radical policy agenda through Congress.
However, the Democrats know that the Republicans will only tolerate a limited amount of obstruction and that they
could easily eliminate the filibuster completely, making a simple 50 votes in the Senate all the Republicans need for
all Senate business.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell wouldnt comment on this possibility but he had a pretty straightforward
warning on Friday, saying that Democrats are going to want to be cooperative with us.
The Senate Democrats arent inclined to behave as obstructively as McConnells Republicans in any case:
What were not going to do is what Mitch McConnell stands for, which is obstructing things because of who
proposed it, said Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), a prominent liberal. But if Trump puts plans forward that arent
about working Americans, if its tax cuts for billionaires, well certainly fight that.
I suppose the Democrats shouldnt invite McConnell to take away their last remaining parliamentary tool for
resisting Trump, but if theyre afraid to use it because they believe it will be taken away, no one should expect it to
be used for anything of true priority and significance to the Trump administration. It will be useless for the big stuff.
But there is an effective way to resist, and thats by exploiting divisions within the Republican caucus. Those
divisions are substantial and its going to take a lot of creativity and horse trading to utilize them effectively. Trump
wants an infrastructure bill, and hell probably need Democratic votes to get it. Hes going to want to do tax reform,
and he may need Democratic votes to get that, too. Its unclear if he can avoid running afoul of the deficit hawks in
the Republican Party (in both the Senate and House) as he looks to explode the deficit in nearly every area from
increased defense spending, to lowering rates and repealing the Estate Tax, to eliminating the cost savings in
ObamaCare, to jacking up spending on immigration enforcement and wall building.
Instead of relying on a filibuster rule that will be taken away the moment it matters, the Democrats should stand on
their principles rather than pretending that they can keep a meaningful filibuster by playing nice. If theyre going to
be a successful minority party, theyre going to have to do it the old-fashioned way. And that means that theyll have
to use the amendment process to sow divisions and make Trump rely on them as much as possible.
It should become clear fairly quickly if Trump can govern his own caucus any better than Boehner and Ryan have
been able to do. The Republicans can barely legislate their way out of a paper bag on a good day, and now they have
a president coming in who, by all reports, has the attention span of a gnat and no knowledge whatsoever of how to
run the federal government or to move legislation through Congress.
If Trump wants to steamroll the Democrats with some hard right conservative agenda then they can refuse to help
ease the divisions in his party even on things like infrastructure and tax reform where they might otherwise be
willing to give him a win.
And those days of giving the votes to raise the debt ceiling? Well, thats a Sword of Damocles that shouldnt be
given up easily. The Republicans will have to pass their own appropriations bill with their own votes, and if they
cant do it any better under Trump than they did it under Obama, well then that will be another way for Democrats
to have influence and force moderation and compromise .
Impact
Impact - Growth
 Impact Growth 2NC
Disad outweighs the case---

Magnitude---economic collapse causes escalation in every global hotspot---China, Japan, India Pakistan, and
Middle East will implode, causing nuclear conflict that goes global and causes extinction---tsunami of global
instability turns every aff impact Kemp

Makes solving global problems impossible strong growth key

Lieberthal & O'Hanlon 12, Director of the China center and Director of research at Brookings, 12
(7/10, The Real National Security Threat: America's Debt, www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2012/07/10-
economy-foreign-policy-lieberthal-ohanlon)
Lastly, American economic weakness undercuts U.S. leadership abroad. Other countries sense our weakness
and wonder about our purported decline. If this perception becomes more widespread, and the case that we are in decline
becomes more persuasive, countries will begin to take actions that reflect their skepticism about America's future.
Allies and friends will doubt our commitment and may pursue nuclear weapons for their own security, for example; adversaries will
sense opportunity and be less restrained in throwing around their weight in their own neighborhoods. The crucial Persian
Gulf and Western Pacific regions will likely become less stable. Major war will become more likely. When running for
president last time, Obama eloquently articulated big foreign policy visions : healing America's breach with the Muslim world, controlling
global climate change, dramatically curbing global poverty through development aid, moving toward a world free of nuclear weapons. These were, and remain,
worthy if elusive goals. However,
for Obama or his successor, there is now a much more urgent big-picture issue: restoring
U.S. economic strength. Nothing else is really possible if that fundamental prerequisite to effective foreign
policy is not reestablished.

Strong growth solves their impacts---its a conflict dampener Prefer our impact robust statistics prove
Reghr 13 Senior Fellow in Arctic Security at The Simons Foundation Ernie, 2-4-13, Intrastate Conflict: Data,
Trends and Drivers http://www.isn.ethz.ch/Digital-Library/Articles/Special-
Feature/Detail/?lng=en&id=158597&tabid=1453496807&contextid774=158597&contextid775=158627
The most robustly significant predictor of [armed] conflict risk and its duration is some indicator of
economic prosperity. At a higher income people have more to lose from the destructiveness of conflict; and
higher per-capita income implies a better functioning social contract, institutions and state capacity.[3] This
correlation between underdevelopment and armed conflict is confirmed in a 2008 paper by Thania
Paffenholz[4] which notes that since 1990, more than 50% of all conflict-prone countries have been low
income states. Two thirds of all armed conflicts take place in African countries with the highest poverty rates.
Econometric research found a correlation between the poverty rate and likelihood of armed violence.[T]he lower
the GDP per capita in a country, the higher the likelihood of armed conflict. Of course, it is important to point out
that this is not a claim that there is a direct causal connection between poverty and armed conflict. To repeat, the
causes of conflict are complex and context specific, nevertheless, says Paffenholz, there is a clear correlation
between a low and declining per capita income and a countrys vulnerability to conflict. It is also true, on the
other hand, that there are low income countries that experience precipitous economic decline, like Zambia in the
1980s and 1990s, without suffering the kind of turmoil that has visited economically more successful countries like
Kenya and Cote dIvoire. Referring to both Zambia and Nigeria, Pafenholz says these are cases in which the social
compact has proven to be resilient. Both have formal and informal mechanisms that are able to address grievances
in ways that allowed them to be aired and resolved or managed without recourse to violence. A brief review of
literature on economics and armed conflict, published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, indicates the
complexity and imprecision behind the question, does poverty cause conflict? While many of the worlds poorest
countries are riven by armed conflict, and while poverty, conflict and under-development set up a cycle of
dysfunction in which each element of the cycle is exacerbated by the other, it is also the case that conflict obviously
does not just afflict the poorest countries as Northern Ireland and the former Yugoslavia demonstrate. Many
poor countries are not at war; shared poverty may not be a destabilizing influence. Indeed, economic growth can
destabilize, as the wars in countries afflicted by an abundance of particular natural resources appear to show.[5]
Another review of the literature makes the general point that the escalation of conflict during economic
downturns is more likely in countries recovering from conflict, or fragile states. That makes Africa especially
vulnerable on two counts: economic deprivation and recent armed conflict are present in a relatively high number of
states, making the continent especially vulnerable to economic shocks. As a general rule, weak economies often
translate into weak and fragile states and the presence of violent conflict, which in turn prevents economic
growth. One study argues that the risk of war in any given country is determined by the initial level of
income, the rate of economic growth and the level of dependency on primary commodity exports. Changes
in rates of economic growth thus lead to changes in threats of conflict. As unemployment rises in fragile states
this can exacerbate conflict due to comparatively better income opportunities for young men in rebel groups
as opposed to labour markets.[6] The concentration of armed conflict in lower income countries is also reflected
in the conflict tabulation by Project Ploughshares over the past quarter century. The 2009 Human Development
Index ranks 182 countries in four categories of Human Development Very High, High, Medium, Low. Of the 98
countries in the Medium and Low categories of human development in 2009, 55 per cent experienced war on their
territories in the previous 24 years. In the same period, only 24 per cent of countries in the High human development
category saw war within their borders, while just two (5 per cent) countries in the Very High human development
ranking had war on their territory (the UK re Northern Ireland and Israel). The wars of the recent past were
overwhelmingly fought on the territories of states at the low end of the human development scale. A countrys
income level is thus a strong indicator of its risk of being involved in sustained armed conflict. Low income
countries lack the capacity to create conditions conducive to serving the social, political, and economic
welfare of their people. And when economic inequality is linked to differences between identity groups, the
correlation to armed conflict is even stronger. In other words, group based inequalities are especially
destabilizing.[7] These failures in human security are of course heavily shaped by external factors, notably
international economic and security conditions and the interests of the major powers (in short,
globalization),[8] and these factors frequently combine with internal political/religious/ethnic circumstances
that create conditions especially conducive to conflict and armed conflict.
 Impact Growth IL 2NC
Tax reform vital to fast growth
Kudlow 16 Trump Must Spend His Political Capital on Tax Cuts Now Larry Kudlow is a senior contributor at
CNBC, and also co-author with Brian Domitrovic of the new book JFK and the Reagan Revolution: A Secret
History of American Prosperity, December 24, 2016,
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2016/12/24/trump_must_spend_his_political_capital_on_tax_cuts_now_1
02482.html
. Yet with less than a month until the inauguration, it is crucial that Mr. Trump embarks on immediate bipartisan efforts
to strengthen the economy. It was the number-one election-year issue. And despite strong post-election increases in business and
consumer-confidence -- along with the stock rally -- the economy is weakening yet again. Measured year-to-year, real GDP is rising only
1.7 percent. Business fixed investment continues to decline. Productivity is flat. Consumer spending has barely risen
in the last two months, while both auto production and sales are slumping. Non-financial domestic profits have
declined year-to-year for the last six quarters. Of all these factors the slump in business fixed investment is the most
harmful. If you go back in history, across the four long post-war recoveries of the '60s, '80s, and '90s, BFI averaged
nearly 7 percent. In the Obama recovery, BFI was only 4 percent. Over the past two years, it has been flat. Using a back-of-
the-envelope rule of thumb, if the JFK/Ronald Reagan/Bill Clinton investment performance were in place now, our economy would be growing at 3 rather than 2 percent. A big difference.
That's why pro-growth tax reform is so important. It is reported that Mr. Trump will immediately move to overturn costly Obama regulations, especially on
small business. This is good. It will add to growth. But the big decision will be whether to repeal and rewrite Obamacare or enact tax reform as the first order of legislative business. Replacing
tax reform -- with low
Obamacare is hugely important, both to improve our health-care system and remove the economic drag of its taxing, spending, and regulating. But business
marginal corporate rates for large and small companies, easy repatriation, and immediate expensing for new
investment -- will have an enormously positive impact on the weakest part of our economy, namely business
investment. That's where we'll see 3 or 4 percent growth, higher productivity, more and better paying jobs, and fatter
family pocketbooks. If there were a way to combine a two-year budget resolution with reconciliation instructions (51 Senate votes) to reform health care and taxes in one full sweep,
that would be ideal. However, if tax reform (be it business or individual) comes second, and the start dates are postponed until 2018, then

businesses and consumers will postpone economic activity. That could make 2017 a much weaker economic story
than confidence surveys and the recent stock market suggest. There's a great transition going on, but the economy needs immediate
attention . Tax reform is the key .

Tax cuts not key is non responsive even if cuts dont SOLVE growth - Delay imposes massive economic
uncertainty that wrecks economy decks financial markets, capital investments, equity markets, exports,
trade deficits
Smick, 17 --- David, financial market consultant He is the chairman and CEO of Johnson Smick International, an
advisory firm in Washington, D.C. where he is in partnership with Manuel H. Johnson, Fox News, 2/14,
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/02/14/tax-reform-flip-flop-trump-desperately-needs-to-make.html
For the GOP, the smarter strategy would be to immediately push tax reform under the first budget reconciliation vehicle.
No, tax reform wont be easy either. But the Democrats have far more emotional attachment to ObamaCare and the chances of outright
partisan warfare over tax reform are relatively small. True, there will be opposition to the border adjustment tax, particularly from retailers.
And those who suggest that the tax reform package not include individual tax reform are misreading the situation. Today 80 percent of businesses
are so-called pass-through entities that are exempt from the corporate tax system. Any tax reform would have to include these smaller
corporate entities -- i.e. it would have to include reform of the individual tax code in addition to the corporate tax code. Capitol Hill moves at a
snails pace. In the successful 1986 tax reform effort, legislators spent several years prior to enactment ironing out difficulties over thorny issues.
Todays tax reform will entail the same process of negotiations, albeit compressed timewise. The chances, nevertheless, that Congressional
Republicans, with some Senate Democratic help, come together with 51 votes by the August 2017 Congressional recess and
enact a package are hardly certain. But they are a lot better than the chances that Obamacare is passed through the Senate easily with 60
votes by that time. The
stakes for financial markets are high. If there is a chance tax reform and expensing are not be
enacted until some unspecified time in the future, how does a company make a decision on new capital investment?
Hold off investing this year in anticipation of much more favorable tax treatment in the future? But such delay
could come at a cost to the economy and equity market. Under a border adjustment tax, exports would not be taxed.
Should a corporation hold up on its exports until some unspecified future date to achieve tax savings? But such a
delay would increase the trade deficit and harm the economy . For Trump and the Republicans, the money play is to
build a more robust economy quickly . With the credibility of such an achievement, ObamaCare, by then hanging by a thread, will
become the responsibility of both parties in Congress. The program, even before enactment of a replacement, will likely have died its own death.
Growth is stagnant---reforms key
Uhler 16 Lewis K. Uhler and Peter J. Ferrara, National Tax Limitation Foundation, Trumps Tax Reform Is The
First Step To Booming Economic Recovery, The Daily Caller, 10-12, http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/12/trumps-
tax-reform-is-the-first-step-to-booming-economic-recovery/
Just as with the Reagan tax reforms, Trumps lower rates on everyone would promote new jobs, rising wages and
incomes, and long overdue booming recovery and growth. The Tax Foundation scores the plan dynamically over 10
years as creating over 2 million new jobs, increasing capital investment by 23.9% and wages by 6.3% over the
baseline, with higher economic growth increasing GDP by 8.2%.
Counting that growth, the plan would involve a tax cut of $3.9 trillion over the next 10 years. Trumps energy
deregulation and repeal and replacement of Obamacare would promote even faster growth. His trade policies can be
implemented in ways that would promote faster growth as well. With such growth, feasible spending restraint can
balance the budget within 10 years, as accomplished by the policies implemented under former House Speaker Newt
Gingrich.
Given the long term stagnation under President Obamas policies, such tax and spending cuts are sorely needed
now. But Hillary Clinton is promising just the opposite, $1.5 trillion in further tax increases, maintaining and even
increasing the worlds highest tax rates on American corporations and capital investment, and trillions more in
increased federal spending.

Tax cuts key to infrastructure spending that solves weaknesses of tax cuts alone and solves growth
LaVorgna, 17---Joseph LaVorgna is the chief U.S. economist for Deutsche Bank Securities. LaVorgna is a regular
guest on CNBC, The Hill, 1/5, http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/312920-trump-to-address-
dodd-frank-tax-reform-before-aca
Furthermore, individual tax reform can be separated from corporate tax reform, because this will make passage
easier and quicker . Then, the latter can be tied into infrastructure spending, but more on this later.
The focus on tax cuts does not mean the administration will not be working on its other initiatives; it certainly will.
The dismantling of Dodd-Frank is arguably easier than tackling the Affordable Care Act (ACA) because many of the rules in the former have yet to be codified.
After individual taxes have
Additionally, there remains significant leeway in terms of how the various regulatory bodies will interpret the current law.
been cut, and the slow, arduous process of watering down Dodd-Frank has begun, the administration will tackle the second half of tax reform
reducing corporate taxes.
At this point, the economy should already have seen a lift from the reduction in household marginal income tax
rates, giving the administration added political capital.
Corporate tax reform will include an initiative to address the roughly $1 to $2 trillion in profits held overseas by U.S.
companies. To be sure, these profits would be repatriated back to the U.S. at a reduced rate.
In turn, these funds, which could total anywhere between $100 to $200 billion, could be used by state and local governments for
infrastructure projects. Essentially, the proceeds from repatriation would be used as tax credits/federal subsidies to help
finance infrastructure spending, similar to what was done under President Obama with "Build America Bonds".
Since these would be municipal securities, they would not count against the federal debt.
Essentially, the first half of the year will likely see individual tax reform and some Dodd-Frank rollback, and the second half of the
year will likely see corporate tax reform and infrastructure spending.
The latter will help maintain the economy's glide path in 2018 as the demand-side stimulus of the tax cuts abates.

Best studies prove unique sensitivity to corporate tax rates cuts key
Edwards, 15 --- Chris, Director of Tax Policy, Cato Institute, White Paper,
https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/policy-priorities-white-paper-114th-congress-
update.pdf#page=49
Policymakers in both parties say that they favor corporate tax reform and cuts to the corporate tax rate. With Republican majorities in Congress
and new leadership on the House and Senate tax committees, now is a good time to take a fresh crack at reform. Corporate tax reform is
important because corporate investment is a major driver of investment and innovation in the U.S. economy. High
corporate tax rates reduce the incentive to build new factories and buy new business equipment. If investment is
suppressed , economic growth will slow, fewer jobs will be created, and wages will stagnate. Globalization has
increased the power of corporate taxes to drive investment. As industries have become more mobile, international
competition to attract investment has increased. Unfortunately, America has been sitting on its hands while other
nations have slashed their tax rates. America has the highest general corporate tax rate in the world at 40 percent,
which includes the federal rate plus the average state rate. The average global rate is now just 24 percent, according to KPMG. A large body
of academic research confirms that corporate investments and reported profits are sensitive to differences in
international tax rates. And frequent news stories highlight the movement of investment and profits to lower-tax countries such as Ireland.
By retaining a high tax rate, America is shooting itself in the foot. U.S. businesses and workers lose, but so does the
government, because the corporate tax base is being eroded by our high rate.

Its reverse causal failure of tax cuts deck investor confidence and fast growth PC key and trades off
Stanion, 1/25 --- Percival Stanion is head of multi-asset at Pictet Asset Management, Pensions Expert,
http://www.pensions-expert.com/Comment-Analysis/Investing-in-a-Trump-era-Calm-with-risk-of-storm?ct=true
Investing in a Trump era: Calm with risk of storm We are still in the early days, but so far markets have taken a fairly
optimistic stance toward the broad outlines of Donald Trumps policies. Investors have focused on plans for
generous tax cuts and infrastructure spending, conveniently overlooking the potentially negative slogans from the presidential campaign
tariff barriers, immigration control and a more isolationist foreign policy. For the time being until we see more evidence of the
Trump regime in action we are content to support the benign market view . This is partly because we recognise the
immense barriers to any radical policy shifts arising from the division of power within the US constitution . Given
the limited budget of political capital available to the Trump administration, there are probably only so many things
it can achieve. The switch towards more fiscal stimulus seems most likely, accompanied and counterbalanced by tighter
monetary policy. The main tenets of the Trump economic platform should add momentum to an already strong economy,
lifting both the real growth rate and inflationary pressures. Indeed, the possibility of a US economic boom, which would
have been easily dismissed just a few months ago, is now a non-trivial prospect . Markets are also now even more certain that
the Fed will continue to raise interest rates next year. But we should remember that an awful lot can go wrong. Controversial or
unpopular candidates for the cabinet, Supreme Court, or even vacant Federal Reserve Board positions could become bogged down in
Congressional trench warfare and undermine cohesion on the few areas where it exists.

Recession coming nowthis time is different only tax cuts solve and create resilience from shocks
Horowitz 12/1 (Evan, staff economist for the Boston Globe, A recession is coming, and were not prepared to deal with it
https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2016/12/01/recession-coming-and-not-prepared-deal-with/JYzEFc24DFBAunwMdTctRJ/story.html )
The U nited S tates is due for a recession . But if it arrives too soon, we may not have the tools to fight back. Not once in the full sweep
Were seven years into our slow but steady recovery, which means one of these two
of history has the United States gone more than 10 years without a recession.

things must be true: Either were on track to break the record for the longest period of sustained economic growth, or there

will be a recession under President Donald Trump. Even if you lean toward optimism, its still best to steady yourself
for the unexpected . And right now, the U nited States is unusually unprepared bereft of the resources
governments traditionally use to limit the crippling effects recessions can have on workers, businesses, and
struggling families. In general, there are two time-tested strategies for beating back a recession: cut interest rates or give people more
money. Right now, both approaches are compromised. Start with the rate cuts, which would be overseen by the Federal Reserve. For two generations,
the Fed has taken the lead in the fight against recessions, acting more quickly than Congress and aided by a tool as powerful as it is
reliable: the federal funds rate. By lowering that one target, the Fed eral Reserve can spur investment, encourage spending,
and turn the economy around. But to have a big impact, you need big rate reductions. Ideally, when a recession hits,
the Federal Reserve would be able to cut the federal funds rate by 4 to 5 percentage points. Thats what it did during the slowdown
in 2001 and again in 2007-2008. But cuts of that size are impossible today, because the federal funds rate is already close to zero , at
around half a percent. And while theres still time for that to change including at the Feds December meeting, where its expected to raise rates a quarter point (the first increase since last December) there isnt a single member

When the next recession hits, the Fed is likely to be stuck unable to cut rates as
of the Federal Reserve board who expects the rate to breach 4 percent in coming years.

much as it would need to combat the economic contraction. Now, its true that there are alternatives, other approaches the Fed could take to help mitigate
the impact of a recession. For instance, it could try a larger version of the bond-purchase program that was used after the Great Recession, or perhaps experiment with negative interest rates charging banks a small fee
whenever they want to store money. Trouble is, the further you move from the established playbook, the greater the uncertainty.

When the Fed reaches for exotic instruments, their precise impact will be harder to predict and potentially more difficult to
control. This is where, theoretically, Congress could ride to the rescue with its own plan to stoke a recession-plagued
economy by giving people money to spend. Maybe in the form of tax cuts, maybe via a jobs program, maybe by mailing out checks. Its not unprecedented.
Congress played a vital role in the fight to end the Great Recession, with a roughly $800 billion package of tax cuts and
spending initiatives bundled together as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Next time around, however, it may be harder to mobilize
congressional support. Partly thats because Republicans now control both branches of Congress, and they tend to be more
skeptical of the virtues of deficit spending. Even now, many Republicans deny that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act produced any benefits, despite a fairly broad consensus
among economists that it helped. Whats more, Trump seems ready to use up his recession-fighting ammunition before the enemy even
comes into view. Among the top priorities of the incoming Trump administration are large tax cuts and a burst of infrastructure
spending, both of them costly endeavors that are likely to increase the federal deficit. Pursuing this kind of deficit spending now, when were already near full employment, could push the US economy

into overdrive which isnt necessarily bad. Among other things, it could help push wages up, speed the Federal Reserves efforts to raise interest rates, and give the
economy enough resilience to shake off otherwise dangerous shocks.

Corporate tax reform key to solve inversions thats vital to foreign markets key to econ
Edwards, 15 --- Chris, Director of Tax Policy, Cato Institute, White Paper,
https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/policy-priorities-white-paper-114th-congress-
update.pdf#page=49

These issues are highlighted by the trend toward inversions, which occur when U.S. companies merge into foreign
parent companies. Inversions are designed not only to reduce the harm of our high corporate tax rate, but also to
avoid the punitive U.S. treatment of corporate foreign earnings. While we tax the global profits of U.S. companies,
most countries have territorial tax systems that tax their firms domestic profits but do not tax foreign active
business income. Suppose that a U.S. company is competing in the Chinese market against a firm based in Britain. Britain has a 21 percent
corporate tax rate and a territorial system, so the U.S. company will be at a disadvantage and may lose sales . That is
important for the U.S. economy because domestic jobs depend on U.S. corporations succeeding in foreign markets.
As U.S. firms expand abroad, they tend to boost exports from their U.S. operations, and they tend to employ more high-
paid people in headquarters-related activities, such as management, marketing, and research. By adopting a territorial tax system and a
lower tax rate, policymakers would make the United States a better place for corporations to locate their headquarters, to
build factories, and to hire high-skilled workers. All this points to the need for Congress to slash the corporate tax
rate. The first step should be a simple rate cut from 35 to 25 percent. That step would probably not lose the federal government any revenue over
the long run, as discussed below. The second step should be to cut the rate further to 15 percent. This second step should be matched with
reductions to unjustified tax breaks and with spending cuts.

High corporate taxes ensure slow growth and hinders competitiveness in the long term
Tori Whiting 16, Research Assistant in the Center for Trade and Economics at The Heritage Foundation, August 4 th,
Soaring Business Taxes Hurt Americas Ability to Compete, The Daily Signal,
http://dailysignal.com/2016/08/04/soaring-business-taxes-hurt-americas-ability-to-compete/, Date Accessed: 8-29-
16

As a result, the U.S. now has the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world, exceeding the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development average
by nearly 15 percentage points. By
maintaining such a high corporate tax rate, the U nited S tates hinders its
competitiveness in the global economy . In 1993, the U.S. corporate tax rate was increased from 34 to 35 percent, where it has remained since.
Corporations in the U.S. also are subject to state and local taxes, resulting in a combined average corporate tax rate of 39 percent. In contrast, Estonia, for example,
has decreased its corporate tax rate by 6 percentage points since 2005. Hong Kong has a simple and efficient tax system, and a top corporate tax rate of only 16.5
percent. According to Curtis S. Dubay and David R. Burton, research fellow and senior fellow at The Heritage Foundation, respectively, the
current business
tax system is slowing investment , which depresses economic growth , slows job creation , and suppresses
wages . These problems are reflected in Heritages 2016 Index of Economic Freedom, where the U.S. is ranked 154th out of 178 countries
in fiscal freedom . In June, House Republicans released a blueprint for tax reform, which included proposals to change the way the government taxes
corporations and other businesses. Reforms clearly are needed. In the end, reforming the corporate tax rate is about making
America a place where domestic and foreign businesses can invest , grow , and prosper while supporting jobs
right here at home.

Corporate rate reduction solvesglobalization magnifies the impact

Robert Carroll 11, National Director at the Quantitative Economics and Statistics at Ernst & Young LLP,
September, The Economic Benefits of Reducing the US Corporate Income Tax Rate, Ernst and Young LLP,
http://ratecoalition.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/ey-report-economic-benefits-of-a-lower-corporate-tax-rate-
2011-09-17.pdf, Date Accessed: 8-30-16
Increased competitiveness of the United States in the global economy Most other developed nations have lowered their corporate
tax rates over the past decade while the U.S. corporate tax rate has remained unchanged. At the same time, increasing
 In a global economy capital flows more freely
globalization amplifies the importance of differences in corporate tax rates across countries.
across borders. Increased capital mobility makes it more sensitive to differential in its tax treatment. In addition, other
advantages the U nited States once held such as a highly educated work force, large open markets, and infrastructure
are less significant as former ly developing countries mature in the global economy. Rates have fallen in other nations, while the
US corporate tax rate has remained unchanged As shown in Figure 2, the US statutory corporate income tax rate has remained largely unchanged for over two
decades. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 lowered the top federal corporate income tax rate from 46% to 34%, which was followed by a 1% increase in 1993, bringing
the rate to its current level of 35%. At the beginning of the 1980s, the US statutory corporate income tax rate was slightly above the OECD average, but since the late
1980s most other developed nations have reduced their statutory corporate income tax rates to levels often significantly below those of the United States. Today, the
United States has a 39.2% combined federal-state statutory corporate income tax rate, which is significantly above the average 25.5% rate within the OECD (or 29.9%
when weighted by GDP). Countries continue to lower their corporate tax rates. Of the 34 OECD nations, 30 have lowered their statutory corporate income tax rates
since 2000. The United Kingdom is scheduled to lower its corporate tax rate to 23% by 2015. Canada has lowered its federal corporate tax rate to 16.5% in 2011, with
a reduction to 15% in 2013. 8 The Japanese government earlier proposed lowering their corporate tax rate by five percentage point, but has been deferred due to the
tsunami. Some policy analysts argue the US statutory corporate income tax rate is not the right measure for comparing
the United States to other nations because it does not reflect differences in the tax base. The same trends, however, are
reflected in other metrics for comparing effective corporate income tax rates. In several recent studies the effective
marginal tax rates on new investment were found to be higher in the U nited States than the average for member
nations of the OECD.9 In another study on effective tax rates based on financial statement data, the United States had an effective tax rate that was the
second highest among the 15 countries analyzed, exceeded only by Japan.10 Furthermore, statutory tax rates do matter, and have significant economic effects as
described below. Globalization
amplifies the economic effects from differences in corporate tax rates Changes in the
corporate income tax rate are much more important in the current global economy than in the past. Capital flows more
freely across borders, and other countries economies have grown rapidly as they have adopted more market-economy policies. Nearly one-third of the US economy is
now integrated with the rest of the world through international trade. US imports and exports increased dramatically over the past half century, growing 311%
between 1962 and 2007, and now representing 29% of US gross domestic product (GDP). The total stock of foreign direct investment by US companies grew to
30.3% of GDP in 2009, up from just 7.7% in 1980.11 For
many US companies, foreign operations account for more than half of all
sales. Foreign investments by US companies are expected to accelerate , as the International Monetary Fund projects 69% of the worlds
growth through 2014 will occur in developing countries. Table 1 shows the rapidly changing global economy from the perspective of the locations of headquarters of
the Fortune Global 500 companies. The number of Fortune Global 500 headquarters in the United States and Japan, the two major economies with the highest
corporate income tax rates, has fallen 30 percent in just the past eleven years. The
United States is the only country in the top ten that has
not reduced its corporate tax rate in the past eleven years. The US corporate rate is eight percent age points above
the average for the other top ten countries and almost ten percentage points above all of the other major global companies. This globalization makes it
easier for businesses and investors to reallocate or move their capital across borders in response to differences in
countries tax policies, which amplifies the detrimental effects of a high US corporate income tax rate. Research has found that the corporate income tax can
have a large impact on where multinational companies choose to place their production facilities and on the size of these investments.12 A lower US corporate tax rate
The Economic Benefits of Reducing the US Corporate Income Tax Rate would reduce the tax on repatriated
earnings of US-headquartered multinational corporations, and reduce the competitive disadvantage US
multinationals currently have in bidding against foreign competitors for acquisition targets. Additional US investment is important
because it can spur additional local employment, increases in productivity that spill over to other segments of the
local economy, and other benefits commonly associated with foreign direct investment. Research generally finds that foreign direct investment is
highly sensitive to cross-country differences in after-tax returns. One study summarizing research in this area found that a 1 percentage point reduction in a host
countrys tax rate increased foreign direct investment by 2.9% and also found that the responsiveness of foreign direct investment has risen over time.13 Foreign
direct investment in the US supported 5 million US jobs in 201014; additional foreign investment would result in additional US employment.
 Impact Growth A2: No Impact Growth Now
Growth now not responsive - Delay imposes massive economic uncertainty that wrecks economy decks
financial markets, capital investments, equity markets, exports, trade deficits
Smick, 2/14 --- David, financial market consultant He is the chairman and CEO of Johnson Smick International, an
advisory firm in Washington, D.C. where he is in partnership with Manuel H. Johnson, Fox News,
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/02/14/tax-reform-flip-flop-trump-desperately-needs-to-make.html
For the GOP, the smarter strategy would be to immediately push tax reform under the first budget reconciliation vehicle.
No, tax reform wont be easy either. But the Democrats have far more emotional attachment to ObamaCare and the chances of outright
partisan warfare over tax reform are relatively small. True, there will be opposition to the border adjustment tax, particularly from retailers.
And those who suggest that the tax reform package not include individual tax reform are misreading the situation. Today 80 percent of businesses
are so-called pass-through entities that are exempt from the corporate tax system. Any tax reform would have to include these smaller
corporate entities -- i.e. it would have to include reform of the individual tax code in addition to the corporate tax code. Capitol Hill moves at a
snails pace. In the successful 1986 tax reform effort, legislators spent several years prior to enactment ironing out difficulties over thorny issues.
Todays tax reform will entail the same process of negotiations, albeit compressed timewise. The chances, nevertheless, that Congressional
Republicans, with some Senate Democratic help, come together with 51 votes by the August 2017 Congressional recess and
enact a package are hardly certain. But they are a lot better than the chances that Obamacare is passed through the Senate easily with 60
votes by that time. The
stakes for financial markets are high. If there is a chance tax reform and expensing are not be
enacted until some unspecified time in the future, how does a company make a decision on new capital investment?
Hold off investing this year in anticipation of much more favorable tax treatment in the future? But such delay
could come at a cost to the economy and equity market. Under a border adjustment tax, exports would not be taxed.
Should a corporation hold up on its exports until some unspecified future date to achieve tax savings? But such a
delay would increase the trade deficit and harm the economy . For Trump and the Republicans, the money play is to
build a more robust economy quickly . With the credibility of such an achievement, ObamaCare, by then hanging by a thread, will
become the responsibility of both parties in Congress. The program, even before enactment of a replacement, will likely have died its own death.

Growth is stagnant---reforms key

Uhler 16 Lewis K. Uhler and Peter J. Ferrara, National Tax Limitation Foundation, Trumps Tax Reform Is The
First Step To Booming Economic Recovery, The Daily Caller, 10-12, http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/12/trumps-
tax-reform-is-the-first-step-to-booming-economic-recovery/
Just as with the Reagan tax reforms, Trumps lower rates on everyone would promote new jobs, rising wages and
incomes, and long overdue booming recovery and growth. The Tax Foundation scores the plan dynamically over 10
years as creating over 2 million new jobs, increasing capital investment by 23.9% and wages by 6.3% over the
baseline, with higher economic growth increasing GDP by 8.2%.
Counting that growth, the plan would involve a tax cut of $3.9 trillion over the next 10 years. Trumps energy
deregulation and repeal and replacement of Obamacare would promote even faster growth. His trade policies can be
implemented in ways that would promote faster growth as well. With such growth, feasible spending restraint can
balance the budget within 10 years, as accomplished by the policies implemented under former House Speaker Newt
Gingrich.
Given the long term stagnation under President Obamas policies, such tax and spending cuts are sorely needed
now. But Hillary Clinton is promising just the opposite, $1.5 trillion in further tax increases, maintaining and even
increasing the worlds highest tax rates on American corporations and capital investment, and trillions more in
increased federal spending.
Impact Growth A2: No Impact US Not Key to Global Economy
Goes global---no resiliency
Irwin 16 Neil Irwin, Senior Economic Correspondent at The New York Times, Formerly a Washington Post
Columnist and the Economics Editor of Wonkblog, Foreign Crises Test America's Resilience, International New
York Times, 1-6, Lexis
Seven days in, 2016 is shaping up to be a chaotic year in global economics and geopolitics, with profound challenges nearly everywhere. Except, for now at least, in the world's largest economy.
The American economy is acting as a steadying force in a volatile world.
A giant question for 2016 - not just for Americans but for people across the globe who benefit from having one of the world's major
economic engines revving while others sputter - is how resilient the U nited S tates will prove to be.
On one hand, in an interconnected global economy, troubles in one place can spread easily , whether through financial

markets, the banking system or trade linkages. Just Thursday the World Bank downgraded its forecast of 2016 global growth, which implies less demand for American
products around the world - and fewer jobs for American workers.
On the other hand, in the past, the United States has shown an uncanny tendency to benefit economically from tumult abroad.
''The United States may not have incredibly robust economic growth and has plenty of problems you can point to,'' said Ian Bremmer, president of the Eurasia Group, a geopolitical consultancy.
''But from a stability perspective, when things are more unstable, the United States in some ways gets stronger,'' as both people and investment dollars gravitate to the nation's relative stability.
The truth is, not one of the problems that have flared across financial news tickers so far in 2016 is completely new or surprising. Rather, they are continuations of trends that were well
established in 2015.
And as disturbing as it may be to see tensions rise, conflict in the Middle East is not exactly new. Usually the way those tensions ripple through the global economy is by driving the cost of oil
up; instead, the opposite is happening.
Oil prices fell to $37 a barrel from around $53 a barrel over the course of last year and are now under $34. The Shanghai composite index fell sharply, starting in June of last year, and even after
steep declines in the opening days of 2016 is above its late-August level (though it is anybody's guess how much it would have fallen, absent a string of government interventions to try to stanch
the declines).
Economic growth has been slowing not just in China but across many emerging markets, including Brazil and Nigeria, for two years
now. Europe and Japan are growing only barely, and even formerly hot advanced economies like Canada are suffering from the commodity glut.

Against that gloomy backdrop, the consensus economic forecasts for the U nited S tates - the International Monetary Fund forecasts 2.8 percent
growth in 2016 - look pretty terrific . The American stock market indexes, despite the global sell-off and major hits to oil companies' earnings, remain above
their September levels.
But there are two basic questions about the notion that the U nited S tates can serve as an island of economic and political stability in a messy
world.
First, what happens if that changes? Second, what happens if it doesn't?
The ''things change'' situation is the risk that these global headwinds become too powerful for the United States to overcome.
Already, oil producers and their suppliers are suffering. The American industrial sector is groaning under the weight of a strong dollar, which drives up the price of exported goods. That's a
consequence of the mismatch between growth in the United States and the rest of the world.
The strength in the service sector and the broader consumer economy in the U nited S tates has offset any damage so far. But the 2008
crisis showed how the global economy is intertwined in ways that are hard to predict - and that's before accounting for the geopolitical dangers from the Middle East and
the Korean Peninsula that could cause major economic disruptions if they take a dark turn.
If something does go wrong, the usual buffers in the global economy look to be weakened or nonexistent right now.
Government deficits are high in much of the world, and even where they aren't, political leaders have shown no
desire to open the spending floodgates in an effort to bolster economies.

Stall out goes global

Larsen 15 Peter Thal Larsen, Asia Editor for Reuters, Degree from the London School of Economics, No Chance
for India to Rescue the World Economy Next Year, The Nation (Thailand), 12-25, Lexis
India will not rescue the global economy in 2016. The subcontinent's expanding GDP is one of next year's few economic bright spots. But
Indian output is still too small. Any negative shocks from the sluggish United States and decelerating China will
reverberate more widely.
India is finally emerging from China's shadow in the global growth stakes. Helped by a controversial overhaul of its GDP statistics, the Indian economy probably
expanded by 7.5 per cent in 2015 and is set to swell by a further 7.8 per cent in 2016. Contrast that with the People's Republic, which is struggling to maintain the
near-7 per cent pace promised by its leaders.
The prospect of sustained rapid growth has drawn the attention of prominent central bankers. India's economy has "enormous potential" to recharge Asia's growth
engine, Stanley Fischer, the US Federal Reserve's vice chairman, declared in a recent speech.
For now, however, the country's economic progress has relatively little impact on the rest of the world although it is
enormously important to India's 1.3 billion citizens. The economy accounts for little more than 3 percent of global output, according
to Reuters calculations based on World Bank forecasts. China is almost four times as large, while the United States is still responsible for more
than a fifth of all economic activity.
On current projections, India will produce about 7 per cent of global growth in 2016 while the United States and China will together be responsible for about 45 per
cent of GDP expansion. Put another way, India's growth rate would need to rise by about 3 percentage points in order to add 0.1 percentage point to next year's
expected global growth rate of 3.3 per cent. China could have the same impact with a 1-point increase in the pace of expansion. For the United States, an extra half
point would suffice.
With Europe stuck in the doldrums and Japan struggling to recover, the world economy still depends heavily on its
two largest growth engines, both of which are sputtering. A severe slowdown in China or a stalled recovery in the United States would
be felt around the world . By comparison, India's economic performance, no matter how impressive, will barely register .
 Impact Growth A2: No Impact Econ Resilient
Recession coming nowthis time is different only tax cuts solve and create resilience from shocks
Horowitz 12/1 (Evan, staff economist for the Boston Globe, A recession is coming, and were not prepared to deal with it
https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2016/12/01/recession-coming-and-not-prepared-deal-with/JYzEFc24DFBAunwMdTctRJ/story.html )
The U nited States is due for a recession . But if it arrives too soon, we may not have the tools to fight back. Not once in the full
Were seven years into our slow but steady recovery, which
sweep of history has the United States gone more than 10 years without a recession.
means one of these two things must be true: Either were on track to break the record for the longest period of sustained economic
growth, or there will be a recession under President Donald Trump. Even if you lean toward optimism, its still best to
steady yourself for the unexpected . And right now, the U nited States is unusually unprepared bereft of the
resources governments traditionally use to limit the crippling effects recessions can have on workers, businesses,
and struggling families. In general, there are two time-tested strategies for beating back a recession: cut interest rates or give people
more money. Right now, both approaches are compromised. Start with the rate cuts, which would be overseen by the Federal Reserve. For two
generations, the Fed has taken the lead in the fight against recessions, acting more quickly than Congress and aided by a tool as
powerful as it is reliable: the federal funds rate. By lowering that one target, the Fed eral Reserve can spur investment,
encourage spending, and turn the economy around. But to have a big impact, you need big rate reductions. Ideally,
when a recession hits, the Federal Reserve would be able to cut the federal funds rate by 4 to 5 percentage points.
Thats what it did during the slowdown in 2001 and again in 2007-2008. But cuts of that size are impossible today, because the federal
funds rate is already close to zero, at around half a percent. And while theres still time for that to change including at the Feds December meeting, where its expected
to raise rates a quarter point (the first increase since last December) there isnt a single member of the Federal Reserve board who expects the rate to breach 4 percent in coming years.
When the next recession hits, the Fed is likely to be stuck unable to cut rates as much as it would need to combat the economic contraction. Now, its
true that there are alternatives, other approaches the Fed could take to help mitigate the impact of a recession. For instance, it could try a
larger version of the bond-purchase program that was used after the Great Recession, or perhaps experiment with negative interest rates charging banks a small fee whenever they want to store
money. Trouble is, the further you move from the established playbook, the greater the uncertainty. When the Fed
reaches for exotic instruments, their precise impact will be harder to predict and potentially more difficult to control.
This is where, theoretically, Congress could ride to the rescue with its own plan to stoke a recession-plagued economy by
giving people money to spend. Maybe in the form of tax cuts, maybe via a jobs program, maybe by mailing out checks. Its not unprecedented.
Congress played a vital role in the fight to end the Great Recession, with a roughly $800 billion package of tax cuts and
spending initiatives bundled together as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Next time around, however, it may be harder to
mobilize congressional support. Partly thats because Republicans now control both branches of Congress, and they tend to
be more skeptical of the virtues of deficit spending. Even now, many Republicans deny that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act produced any
benefits, despite a fairly broad consensus among economists that it helped. Whats more, Trump seems ready to use up his recession-fighting
ammunition before the enemy even comes into view. Among the top priorities of the incoming Trump
administration are large tax cuts and a burst of infrastructure spending, both of them costly endeavors that are likely
to increase the federal deficit. Pursuing this kind of deficit spending now, when were already near full employment, could push the US economy into
overdrive which isnt necessarily bad. Among other things, it could help push wages up, speed the Federal Reserves efforts to raise interest rates, and give
the economy enough resilience to shake off otherwise dangerous shocks.

Goes global---no resiliency

Irwin 16 Neil Irwin, Senior Economic Correspondent at The New York Times, Formerly a Washington Post
Columnist and the Economics Editor of Wonkblog, Foreign Crises Test America's Resilience, International New
York Times, 1-6, Lexis
Seven days in, 2016 is shaping up to be a chaotic year in global economics and geopolitics, with profound challenges nearly everywhere. Except, for now at least, in the world's largest economy.
The American economy is acting as a steadying force in a volatile world.
A giant question for 2016 - not just for Americans but for people across the globe who benefit from having one of the world's major
economic engines revving while others sputter - is how resilient the U nited S tates will prove to be.
On one hand, in an interconnected global economy, troubles in one place can spread easily , whether through financial

markets, the banking system or trade linkages. Just Thursday the World Bank downgraded its forecast of 2016 global growth, which implies less demand for American
products around the world - and fewer jobs for American workers.
On the other hand, in the past, the United States has shown an uncanny tendency to benefit economically from tumult abroad.
''The United States may not have incredibly robust economic growth and has plenty of problems you can point to,'' said Ian Bremmer, president of the Eurasia Group, a geopolitical consultancy.
''But from a stability perspective, when things are more unstable, the United States in some ways gets stronger,'' as both people and investment dollars gravitate to the nation's relative stability.
The truth is, not one of the problems that have flared across financial news tickers so far in 2016 is completely new or surprising. Rather, they are continuations of trends that were well
established in 2015.
And as disturbing as it may be to see tensions rise, conflict in the Middle East is not exactly new. Usually the way those tensions ripple through the global economy is by driving the cost of oil
up; instead, the opposite is happening.
Oil prices fell to $37 a barrel from around $53 a barrel over the course of last year and are now under $34. The Shanghai composite index fell sharply, starting in June of last year, and even after
steep declines in the opening days of 2016 is above its late-August level (though it is anybody's guess how much it would have fallen, absent a string of government interventions to try to stanch
the declines).
Economic growth has been slowing not just in China but across many emerging markets, including Brazil and Nigeria, for two years
now. Europe and Japan are growing only barely, and even formerly hot advanced economies like Canada are suffering from the commodity glut.

Against that gloomy backdrop, the consensus economic forecasts for the U nited S tates - the International Monetary Fund forecasts 2.8 percent
growth in 2016 - look pretty terrific . The American stock market indexes, despite the global sell-off and major hits to oil companies' earnings, remain above
their September levels.
But there are two basic questions about the notion that the U nited S tates can serve as an island of economic and political stability in a messy
world.
First, what happens if that changes? Second, what happens if it doesn't?
The ''things change'' situation is the risk that these global headwinds become too powerful for the United States to overcome.
Already, oil producers and their suppliers are suffering. The American industrial sector is groaning under the weight of a strong dollar, which drives up the price of exported goods. That's a
consequence of the mismatch between growth in the United States and the rest of the world.
The strength in the service sector and the broader consumer economy in the U nited S tates has offset any damage so far. But the 2008
crisis showed how the global economy is intertwined in ways that are hard to predict - and that's before accounting for the geopolitical dangers from the Middle East and
the Korean Peninsula that could cause major economic disruptions if they take a dark turn.
If something does go wrong, the usual buffers in the global economy look to be weakened or nonexistent right now.
Government deficits are high in much of the world, and even where they aren't, political leaders have shown no
desire to open the spending floodgates in an effort to bolster economies.

Econs fragile
Hansen, 16 Steven Hansen, international business and industrial consultant, 3-26-2016, The Economy Keeps
Stumbling Along, Seeking Alpha, http://seekingalpha.com/article/3961069-economy-keeps-stumbling-along
Once a month, I assemble an economic forecast based on analysis of various data points which have led the economy. Historically, most of the
time the economy trends up or trends down - but recently the
economy simply has been frozen with little change in the rate of
growth. My view of the economy is at Main Street level - not necessarily GDP. My position is that GDP has disconnected
from the real economy. A thinking person might say that GDP never projected the real economy - and it was never more obvious with the
current situation where rate of change of growth slowed to a crawl. The jumping around of GDP in a flat economy is noticeable. We will be
releasing our economic forecast next week - and conditions have been flat (near the zero growth line) for three months .
All indicators I view outside the elements of our forecast are mixed and confused. Nothing is strong . One of my favorite
indicators to understand if the rate of economic growth is accelerating or decelerating is the relationship between the year-over-
year growth rate of non-farm private employment and the year-over-year real growth rate of retail sales. This index is currently
showing no growth differential . When retail sales grow faster than the rate of employment gains (above zero on the below
graph) - the rate of growth of the economy is usually accelerating.
 Impact Growth A2: No Impact No Conflict Trump Specific

Economic decline under Trump is particularly likely to trigger diversionary war---their defense only applies
to normal, non-awful Presidents---we have better stats
Dennis M. Foster 12-19, professor of international studies and political science at the Virginia Military Institute,
12/19/16, Would President Trump go to war to divert attention from problems at home?,
http://inhomelandsecurity.com/would-president-trump-go-to-war-to-divert-attention-from-problems-at-home/
If the U.S. economy tanks, should we expect Donald Trump to engage in a diversionary war? Since the age of Machiavelli,
analysts have expected world leaders to launch international conflicts to deflect popular attention away from problems at home. By stirring up
feelings of patriotism, leaders might escape the political costs of scandal, unpopularity or a poorly performing economy.
One often-cited example of diversionary war in modern times is Argentinas 1982 invasion of the Falklands, which several (though not all)
political scientists attribute to the juntas desire to divert the peoples attention from a disastrous economy.
In a 2014 article, Jonathan Keller and I argued that whether U.S. presidents engage in diversionary conflicts depends in part on
their psychological traits how they frame the world, process information and develop plans of action. Certain traits predispose
leaders to more belligerent behavior.
Do words translate into foreign policy action?
One way to identify these traits is content analyses of leaders rhetoric. The more leaders use certain types of verbal constructs, the more likely
they are to possess traits that lead them to use military force.
For one, conceptually simplistic leaders view the world in black and white terms; they develop unsophisticated
solutions to problems and are largely insensitive to risks . Similarly, distrustful leaders tend to exaggerate threats and rely
on aggression to deal with threats. Distrustful leaders typically favor military action and are confident in their ability to wield it
effectively.
Thus, when faced with politically damaging problems that are hard to solve such as a faltering economy leaders
who are both distrustful and simplistic are less likely to put together complex, direct responses . Instead, they develop
simplistic but risky solutions that divert popular attention from the problem, utilizing the tools with which they are most
comfortable and confident ( military force ).
Based on our analysis of the rhetoric of previous U.S. presidents, we found that presidents whose language appeared more simplistic and
distrustful, such as Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower and George W. Bush, were more likely to use force abroad in times of rising inflation and
unemployment. By contrast, John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton, whose rhetoric pegged them as more complex and trusting, were less likely to do
so.
What about Donald Trump?
Since Donald Trumps election, many commentators have expressed concern about how he will react to new challenges and whether he might
make quick recourse to military action. For example, the Guardians George Monbiot has argued that political realities will stymie Trumps
agenda, especially his promises regarding the economy. Then, rather than risk disappointing his base, Trump might try to rally public opinion to
his side via military action.
I sampled Trumps campaign rhetoric, analyzing 71,446 words across 24 events from January 2015 to December 2016. Using a program for
measuring leadership traits in rhetoric, I estimated what Trumps words may tell us about his level of distrust and conceptual complexity. The
graph below shows Trumps level of distrust compared to previous presidents.
As a candidate, Trump also scored second-lowest among presidents in conceptual complexity. Compared to earlier presidents, he used more
words and phrases that indicate less willingness to see multiple dimensions or ambiguities in the decision-making environment. These include
words and phrases like absolutely, greatest and without a doubt.
A possible implication for military action
I took these data on Trump and plugged them into the statistical model that we developed to predict major uses of
force by the United States from 1953 to 2000. For a president of average distrust and conceptual complexity, an
economic downturn only weakly predicts an increase in the use of force .
But the model would predict that a president with Trumps numbers would respond to even a minor economic
downturn with an increase in the use of force . For example, were the misery index (aggregate inflation and
unemployment) equal to 12 about where it stood in October 2011 the model predicts a president with Trumps psychological traits would
initiate more than one major conflict per quarter.
Of course, predictions from such a model come with a lot of uncertainty. By necessity, any measures of a presidents traits are imperfect. And we
do not know whether there will be an economic downturn. Moreover, campaigning is not governing, and the responsibilities of the Oval Office
might moderate Donald Trump. The psychologist Philip Tetlock has found that presidents often become more conceptually complex once they
enter office.
Nevertheless, this analysis suggests some cause for concern about the international ramifications of an economic
downturn with a President Trump in the White House.
Nuclear war
Street 16 Tim Street, Fellow of the Sustainable Security Programme at the Oxford Research Group, Previously
Researcher with the British American Security Information Council, Ph.D. from Warwick University, President
Trump: Successor to the Nuclear Throne, Oxford Research Group Briefing Paper, 11-30,
http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/briefing_papers_and_reports/president_trump_successor_nucle
ar_throne
Donald Trumps arrival in the White House as US President has deeply unnerved people from across the political spectrum, both inside the US and around the world.
The fact that many regard Trump as an indecent individual and his government as potentially the number one threat to their dignity, liberty and life means that the
of Trumps election to the most powerful office on
civil strife already raging in the US is unlikely to fade away soon. The wide-ranging implications
Earthforthe peace and stability of both that nation and the worldcannot be emphasised enough. In this regard, of the many
uncertainties and worries brought on by a Trump presidency, the two existential questions of climate change and nuclear war
stand out.
With the former, Trumps recent comment that he now has an open mind about the importance of the Paris climate agreementhaving previously said climate
change is a hoaxis unlikely to assuage fears that he will seek to dramatically expand the USs extraction and reliance on fossil fuels. With the latter, strong doubts
have been raised over whether the new President is capable of responsibly handling the incredible power that will be at his fingertips. Moreover, several commentators
are already raising concerns that a Trump administration will pursue policies that will aggravate and disappoint his supporters,
a situation that could increase the possibility of the US engaging in a diversionary war .
In order to consider what we can expect from a Trump presidency, as well as noting whom Trump empowers as members of his cabinet and those whom he draws on
for advice, it is vital to study the track record of recent administrations and appreciate the powers Trump will inherit. In doing so this briefing focuses on the question
of what a Trump presidency might mean for international relations with a focus on nuclear arms, including doctrine and disarmament. This means reviewing policies
relevant to the USs nuclear arsenal and pressing international challenges such as non-proliferation, including in East Asia and the Middle East, as well as the USs
relationship with Russia and its role in NATO.
The power and responsibilities of the nuclear monarch
The US President is solely responsible for the decision to use the near-unimaginably destructive power of the nations
nuclear arsenal. Thus, as Bruce Blaira former intercontinental ballistic missile launch control officermakes clear, Trump will have the sole
authority to launch nuclear weapons whenever he chooses with a single phone call. The wider political meaning of the bomb for the world is
aptly summarised by Daniel Deudney, who describes nuclear weapons as intrinsically despotic so that they have created nuclear monarchies in all nuclear-armed
states. Deudney identifies three related reasons for this development: the speed of nuclear use decisions; the concentration of nuclear use decision into the hands of
one individual; and the lack of accountability stemming from the inability of affected groups to have their interests represented at the moment of nuclear use.
Similarly, Elaine Scarry has explained in stark terms in her 2014 book Thermonuclear Monarchy: Choosing between Democracy and Doom, how the possession of
nuclear weapons has converted the US government into a monarchic form of rule that places all defense in the executive branch of government leaving the
population incapacitated. In response to this situation, Scarry argues that the American people must use the Constitution as a tool to dismantle the US nuclear
with
weapons system, thereby revitalising democratic participation and control over decision-making. Scarry also outlines the incredible might the president wields,
each of the USs fourteen nuclear-armed submarines alone carrying enough power to destroy the people of an entire
continent, equivalent to eight times the full-blast power expended by Allied and Axis countries in World War II.
Nuclear specialist Hans Kristensen has described how the USs strategic nuclear war plan if unleashed in its full
capacity could kill hundreds of millions of people, devastate entire nations, and cause climatic effects on a global
scale.
This war plan consists of a family of plans that is aimed at six potential adversaries whose identities are kept secret. Kristensen understands that they include potentially hostile countries with nuclear, chemical, and biological
weapons (WMD), meaning China, North Korea, Iran, Russia and Syria as well as a terrorist group backed by a state that has conducted a catastrophic WMD attack. The dominant mission for US nuclear weapons within these plans
is termed counterforce, meaning strikes on military, mostly nuclear, targets and the enemys leadership.
Despite these plans, the USs nuclear arsenal is often described by mainstream commentators as being solely intended to ensure mutual assured destruction (MAD), i.e. as part of the balance of terror with Russia, in order to prevent
armed conflict between the two nations and to ensure a response in kind to a surprise nuclear attack. However, as Joseph Gerson and John Feffer explain, rather than deterrence just being about enough nuclear forces surviving a
surprise first strike attack to ensure MAD, US military planners have also understood it to mean preventing other nations from taking courses of action that are inimical to US interests.
David McDonough thus describes the long-standing goal of American nuclear war-planners as being the achievement of the ability to launch a disarming first-strike against an opponent- otherwise known as nuclear superiority. This
has been magnified in recent years as the US seeks to prevent or rollback the ability of weaker statesboth nuclear and non-nuclear powersto establish or maintain a deterrence relationship. Taking all this into account, the new
commander-in-chiefs apparently volatile temperament thus raises deep concerns since his finger will be on the nuclear trigger as soon as he assumes office on 20th January 2017. Given his past experience, Bruce Blairs statement
that he is scared to death by the idea of a Trump presidency is but one further reason why urgent discussion and action, both in the US and globally, on lessening nuclear dangersand reviving disarmamentis vital. A recent report
by the Ploughshares Fund on how the US can reduce its nuclear spending, reform its nuclear posture and restrain its nuclear war plans should thus be required reading in Washington.
However, as the Economist has rightly noted, It is not Mr Trumps fault that the system, in which the vulnerable land-based missile force is kept on hair-trigger alert, is widely held to be inherently dangerous since, as they point out,
no former president, including Barack Obama, has done anything to change it. Over sixty years after the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nuclearism thus remains very much embedded in the nations strategic thinking.
Yet the election of Obama, and the rhetoric of his 2009 Prague speech, in which he stated America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons led many to think that a real change was on the
cards.
Obamas visit to Hiroshima earlier this year to commemorate the bombings was thus a painful reminder of how wide the gap is between the rearmament programmes that the US and other nuclear weapon states are engaged in and the
disarmament action that they are legally obliged to pursue under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT). Obama himself said in Japan that, technological progress without an equivalent progress in human institutions can doom us.
The scientific revolution that led to the splitting of an atom requires a moral revolution as well. For this statement to be meaningful it is necessary to identify who is responsible for the existing, highly dangerous state of affairs. In
short, the US governments recent record supports Scarrys suggestion that a democratic revolution is what, in reality, is most needed if the US is to make substantial progress on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. Short-term
reforms towards the democratic control and ultimate dismantlement of the USs nuclear arsenal have been outlined by Kennette Benedict, who writes that the next administration should:
place our nuclear weapons on a much lower level of launch readiness, release to the public more information about the nuclear weapons in our own arsenals, include legislators and outside experts in its nuclear posture review and
recognize Congress authority to declare war as a prerequisite to any use of nuclear weapons.
Assessing Obamas nuclear legacy
In order to properly appreciate what a Trump presidency may bring, we need to revisit the range and types of powers bequeathed to the commander-in-chief by previous administrations. Despite the military advances made by China
and Russia in recent years, it is important to recognise that the US remains far and away the biggest global spender on conventional and nuclear weapons and plans to consolidate this position by maintaining significant technological
superiority over its adversaries, which will, as is well appreciated, push Beijing, Moscowand thus other regional powersto respond. Yet spending on nuclear weapons alone is set to pose significant budgeting difficulties for future
US governments.
According to a 2014 report by the James Martin Center, the Departments of Defense and Energy plan to spend approximately $1 trillion over the next 30 years to maintain its current nuclear arsenal and procure a new generation of
nuclear-armed or nuclear capable bombers and submarines as well as new submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) and inter-continental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). Arms Control Today has found that total Defense
Department nuclear spending is projected to average more than $40 billion in constant fiscal year 2016 dollars between 2025 and 2035, when modernization costs are expected to peak. Including costs for the Department of Energys
National Nuclear Security Administrations projected weapons-related spending during this period would push average spending during this period to more than $50 billion per year. If anywhere near these sums are spent, then the
modest reductions to the USs nuclear stockpile achieved during the Obama presidency will be entirely overshadowed. Moreover, as analyst Andrew Lichterman notes, the USs continued modernisation of its nuclear forces is
inherently incompatible with the unequivocal undertaking given at the 2000 NPT Review Conference to eliminate its nuclear arsenal and apply the principle of irreversibility to this and related actions.
For Lichterman, the huge outlays committed to the nuclear weapons complex were part of a political bargain made by the Obama administration with Republicans. This ensured that the New START nuclear arms control treaty
would pass in the Senate whilst also not disturbing the development of missile defense and other advanced conventional weapons programmes. New START is a bilateral agreement between Russia and the US, which Steven Pifer
describes as one of the few bright spots that exists in these nations relationship. Under the treaty Moscow and Washington must, by 2018, reduce their stockpile of operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads to 1,550.
Furthermore, both must keep to a limit of 700 deployed strategic launchers (missiles) and heavy bombers, and to a combined limit of 800 deployed and non-deployed strategic launchers and heavy bombers.
Despite New START proceeding smoothly according to Pifer, Hans Kristensen recently produced a report comparing Obamas record with that of the previous presidents holding office during the nuclear age, which found that,
hitherto, Obama has cut fewer warheadsin terms of numbers rather than percentagesthan any administration ever and that the biggest nuclear disarmers in recent decades have been Republicans, not Democrats. Kristensen thus
drily observes of this situation that,
a conservative Congress does not complain when Republican presidents reduce the stockpile, only when Democratic president try to do so. As a result of the opposition, the United States is now stuck with a larger and more expensive
nuclear arsenal than had Congress agreed to significant reductions.
As his presidency draws to a close, presumably as a means of securing some sort of meaningful legacy in this area, it has been reported that Obama considered adopting a no first use (NFU) policy for nuclear weapons, something
which, whilst reversible, could act as a restraint on future presidents. Yet this was apparently abandoned, according to the New York Times, after top national security advisers argued that it could undermine allies and embolden
Russia and China. Furthermore, according to Josh Rogin of the Washington Post, the governments of Japan, South Korea, France and Britain all privately communicated their concerns about Washington adopting NFU. Defense
Secretary Ashton Carter is also said to have argued that such a move would be unwise because if North Korea used biological weapons against the South the United States might need the option of threatening a nuclear response.
However, as Daryll Kimball explains, the USs overwhelming conventional military advantage means that there is no plausible circumstance that could justifylegally, morally, or militarilythe use of nuclear weapons to deal
with a non-nuclear threat. Such resistance to NFU is thus deeply disappointing given that, as Kimball goes on to note, this move would go some way to reassuring China and Russia about the USs strategic intentions. It would also be
an important confidence-building measure for the wider community of non-nuclear weapon states, showing that the US is willing to act in 'good faith' towards its disarmament obligations under the NPT.
Thinking about the causes of proliferation more widely requires us to understand what drives weaker states to seek deterrents, if their reliance on them is to be reduced. For example, as Dr Alan J. Kuperman observes, NATOs
bombing and overthrow of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in 2011 greatly complicated the task of persuading other states such as Iran and North Korea to halt or reverse their nuclear programs. The lesson Tehran and Pyongyang
took is thus that because Gaddafi had voluntarily ended his nuclear and chemical weapons programmes, the West now felt free to pursue regime change. When assessing the importance of the Iran nuclear deal, which is often hailed as
one of Obamas landmark achievements, and which the next President must not be allowed to derail, it is thus important also to consider carefully what behaviour by the most powerful states will enable existing or potential nuclear
possessors to embrace disarmament and reduce their interest in seeking non-conventional deterrents.
The inability of Washington to make substantial progress towards reducing the salience of nuclear weapons at home and abroad is all the more noteworthy when one considers the state of US and Russian public opinion on nuclear
arms control and disarmament. As John Steinbrunner and Nancy Gallagher observe, responses to detailed questions reveal a striking disparity between what U.S. and Russian leaders are doing and what their publics desire. For
example, their polling found that:
At the most fundamental level, the vast majority of Americans and Russians think that nuclear weapons have a very limited role in current security circumstances and believe that their only legitimate purpose is to deter nuclear attack.
It is highly consistent, then, that the publics in both countries would favor eliminating all nuclear weapons if this action could be taken under effective international verification.
Another important measure which the US has failed to hitherto ratify is the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). This is despite President Obama stating in 2009 that he intended to pursue Senate ratification of the treaty
immediately and aggressively. Once more, there is notably strong public support82% according to a 2010 poll by the Chicago Council on Global Affairsfor the US joining the CTBT but, again, the Republican-controlled Senate
has blocked the treaty at every opportunity.
Overall, the gap between the publics will and the governments inaction on nuclear issues is alarming and redolent of the wider democratic deficit in the US. On a more positive note, the fact that the citizenry supports such measures
suggests that groups advocating arms control and disarmament initiatives should continue to engage with and understand the publics positions in order to effectively harness their support.
Stepping back from the brink
In terms of priorities for the incoming administration in the US, stepping back from military confrontation with Russia and pushing the threat of nuclear war to the margins must be at the top of the list. Whilst much has been made of a
potential rapprochement between Trump and Putin, the two have, reportedly, only just spoken for the first time on the phone and still need to actually meet in person to discuss strategic issues and deal with inevitable international
events and crises, including in relation to Ukraine and Syria. As of now, whilst the mood music from both sides might suggest a warming of relations, as has been seen with previous administrations, unless cooperation is rooted in a
real willingness to resolve problems (which for Russia includes US ballistic missile defense deployments in Eastern Europe and NATO expansion) then tensions can quickly re-emerge. Another related question concerns how Trump
will conduct himself during any potential crisis or conflict with Russia or another major power, given the stakes and risks involved, as highlighted above.
Whilst we must wait to find out precisely what the new administrations approach to international affairs will be, in the past week, NATOs Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg told the BBC that he had been personally informed by
Donald Trump, following the election, that the US remains strongly committed to NATO, and that the security guarantees to Europe stand. Trump had previously shaken sections of the defence and foreign policy establishment by
suggesting that NATO was obsolete and that countries such as Japan (and by extension others such as South Korea and Saudi Arabia) have to pay us or we have to let them protect themselves, which could include them acquiring
the bomb. One reason why some in Washington have, in the past, not wanted their regional allies to develop their own nuclear weapons is because the US might then become dragged into an escalating conflict. Moreover, if an ally in
one region seeks the bomb, this may cause others elsewhere to pursue their own capabilities- an act of strategic independence that might make these states harder to influence and control.
The USs key relationships in East Asia and the Middle East illustrate why, if a future US President wishes to take meaningful moves towards a world free of nuclear weapons, then developing alternative regional political agreements,
including strategic cooperation with China and Russia, will be necessary. As Nancy Gallagher rightly notes, the weaknesses of existing international organizations thus requires more inclusive, cooperative security institutions to be
constructed regionally to complement and someday, perhaps, to replace exclusive military alliances, alongside progressive demilitarisation. Such confidence-building measures would also support efforts to halt missile and nuclear
tests by states such as North Korea, which may soon be capable of striking the US mainland.
Imagining the next enemy

As well as mapping out the USs current nuclear weapons policies and its regional relationships, it is important to reflect upon how domestic
political
dynamics under a Trump presidency might drive Washingtons behaviour internationally, particularly given the
nuclear shadow that always hangs over conflicts involving the US.
For example, in the near-term, Trumps economic plan and the great expectations amongst the American working class that have been generated,
may have particularly dangerous consequences if, as seems likely, the primary beneficiaries are the very wealthy. Reviewing Trumps
economic plans, Martin Wolf of the Financial Times concludes that the longer-term consequences are likely to be grim, not least for his
angry, but fooled, supporters. Next time, they might be even angrier. Where that might lead is terrifying. Gillian Tett has also
highlighted the real risks that Trumps policies could spark US social unrest or geopolitical uncertainty. Elsewhere, George
Monbiot in the Guardian, makes the stark assertion that the inability of the US and other governments to respond effectively to public anger
means he now believes that we will see war between the major powers within my lifetime.
If these warnings werent troubling enough, no less a figure than Henry Kissinger argued on BBCs Newsnight that the more likely reaction to a Trump presidency
from terror groups will be to do something that evokes a reaction from Washington in order to widen the split between it and Europe and damage the USs image
around the world. Given that Trump has already vowed to bomb the shit out of ISIS and refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons against the group, it goes
without saying that such a scenario could have the gravest consequences and must be avoided so that the US does not play into the terrorists hands.
Looking more widely, President-elect Trumps existing and potential cabinet appointments, which Glenn Greenwald has summarised as empoweringby and
largethe traditional, hard, hawkish right-wing members of the Republican Party also point to the US engaging in future overseas conflicts, rather than the
isolationism which many in the foreign policy establishment criticised Trump for proposing during the presidential campaign. William Hartung and Todd Harrison
have drawn attention to the fact that defence spending under Trump could be almost $1trillion (spread over ten years) more than Obamas most recent budget request.
Such projections, alongside Trumps election rhetoric, suggest that the new nuclear monarch will try to push wide open the door to more spending on nuclear weapons
and missile defense, a situation made possible, as we have seen, by Obamas inability to implement progressive change in this area at a time of persistent Republican
obstruction.
Conclusion
The problem now, for the US and the world, is that if
Trump does make good on his campaign promises then this will have several
damaging consequences for international peace and security and that if Trump does not sufficiently satisfy his
supporters then this will likely pour fuel on the flames at home , which may then quickly spread abroad. The people of
the US and the world thus now have a huge responsibility to act as a restraining influence and ensure that the US retains
an accountable, transparent and democratic government. This responsibility will only grow if crises or shocks take place
in or outside the US which ambitious and extremist figures take advantage of, framing them as threats to national security in order to protect their interests and
power. If such scenarios emerge the next administration and its untried and untested President will find themselves
with a range of extremely powerful tools and institutional experience at their disposal, including nuclear weapons, which
may prove too tempting to resist when figuring out how to respond to widespread anger, confusion and unrest, both
at home and abroad.

Trump lashes-out
Foster 16 Dennis M. Foster, Professor of International Studies and Political Science at the Virginia Military
Institute, 12/19/16, Would President Trump go to War to Divert Attention from Problems at Home?, Washington
Post, http://inhomelandsecurity.com/would-president-trump-go-to-war-to-divert-attention-from-problems-at-home/
If the U.S. economy tanks, should we expect Donald Trump to engage in a diversionary war? Since the age of Machiavelli,
analysts have expected world leaders to launch international conflicts to deflect popular attention away from problems at home. By stirring up
feelings of patriotism, leaders might escape the political costs of scandal, unpopularity or a poorly performing economy.
One often-cited example of diversionary war in modern times is Argentinas 1982 invasion of the Falklands, which several (though not all)
political scientists attribute to the juntas desire to divert the peoples attention from a disastrous economy.
In a 2014 article, Jonathan Keller and I argued that whether U.S. presidents engage in diversionary conflicts depends in part on
their psychological traits how they frame the world, process information and develop plans of action. Certain traits predispose
leaders to more belligerent behavior.
Do words translate into foreign policy action?
One way to identify these traits is content analyses of leaders rhetoric. The more leaders use certain types of verbal constructs, the more likely
they are to possess traits that lead them to use military force.
For one, conceptually simplistic leaders view the world in black and white terms; they develop unsophisticated
solutions to problems and are largely insensitive to risks . Similarly, distrustful leaders tend to exaggerate threats and rely
on aggression to deal with threats. Distrustful leaders typically favor military action and are confident in their ability to wield it
effectively.
Thus, when faced with politically damaging problems that are hard to solve such as a faltering economy leaders
who are both distrustful and simplistic are less likely to put together complex, direct responses . Instead, they develop
simplistic but risky solutions that divert popular attention from the problem, utilizing the tools with which they are most
comfortable and confident ( military force ).
Based on our analysis of the rhetoric of previous U.S. presidents, we found that presidents whose language appeared more simplistic and
distrustful, such as Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower and George W. Bush, were more likely to use force abroad in times of rising inflation and
unemployment. By contrast, John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton, whose rhetoric pegged them as more complex and trusting, were less likely to do
so.
What about Donald Trump?
Since Donald Trumps election, many commentators have expressed concern about how he will react to new challenges and whether he might
make quick recourse to military action. For example, the Guardians George Monbiot has argued that political realities will stymie Trumps
agenda, especially his promises regarding the economy. Then, rather than risk disappointing his base, Trump might try to rally public opinion to
his side via military action.
I sampled Trumps campaign rhetoric, analyzing 71,446 words across 24 events from January 2015 to December 2016. Using a program for
measuring leadership traits in rhetoric, I estimated what Trumps words may tell us about his level of distrust and conceptual complexity. The
graph below shows Trumps level of distrust compared to previous presidents.
As a candidate, Trump also scored second-lowest among presidents in conceptual complexity. Compared to earlier presidents, he used more
words and phrases that indicate less willingness to see multiple dimensions or ambiguities in the decision-making environment. These include
words and phrases like absolutely, greatest and without a doubt.
A possible implication for military action
I took these data on Trump and plugged them into the statistical model that we developed to predict major uses of
force by the United States from 1953 to 2000. For a president of average distrust and conceptual complexity, an
economic downturn only weakly predicts an increase in the use of force .
But the model would predict that a president with Trumps numbers would respond to even a minor economic
downturn with an increase in the use of force . For example, were the misery index (aggregate inflation and
unemployment) equal to 12 about where it stood in October 2011 the model predicts a president with Trumps psychological traits would
initiate more than one major conflict per quarter.
Of course, predictions from such a model come with a lot of uncertainty. By necessity, any measures of a presidents traits are imperfect. And we
do not know whether there will be an economic downturn. Moreover, campaigning is not governing, and the responsibilities of the Oval Office
might moderate Donald Trump. The psychologist Philip Tetlock has found that presidents often become more conceptually complex once they
enter office.
Nevertheless, this
analysis suggests some cause for concern about the international ramifications of an economic
downturn with a President Trump in the White House.
 Impact Growth A2: No Impact No Conflict - Studies
Stats go neg --- growth solves war
- GPI = global peace index
- GCI = global competitive index
Dinov and Ho 13 Associate Professor of Statistics at UCLA, PhD, Mathematics, Florida State University MS,
Statistics, Florida State University; MA in finance and statistics from USC
(Ivo, An Empirical Study on Economic Prosperity and Peace, Spring 2013,
http://www.socr.ucla.edu/docs/KaManHo_UCLA_USJ_paper_2013_text.pdf, UCLA)
Moreover, the data of GPI was expanded to additional new countries in a more rapid pace than the data of GCI each year.

As a result, the number of missing values for GCI increased every year. In 20 11, there were 25 "new" countries that had their GPI score available, but not

the corresponding GCI scores. The median of GPI scores (154 countries) was 1.92 while within the 25 "new"
countries, 22 had their GPI scores larger than the overall median of 1.92. The average GPI score indicated that these missing values of GCI might not be at
random. The newly investigated countries tended to be less peaceful and had missing values on GCI. A missing value on

GCI reflected that the country was paid less attention to in terms of competiveness. With these missing values on
GCI, the Discrimination Analysis between GCI and GPI could not be performed and the positive relationship
between economic prosperity and peacefulness was underestimated : if there were less missing values on GCI, the
statistical evidences of the finding of the significant positive association between economic prosperity and peace
would be even stronger . THE INTEGRATION OF THE DISCRIMINATION ANALYSIS AND THE LOG-LINEAR REGRESSION MODEL CONNECTED THE TWO APPROACHES In Table 5, the first
column displayed the colored labels produced by the Discrimination Analysis while the second column displayed the residuals produced by the Log-Linear Regression Model of all the observations (without missing values in any
variables) in the year 2010. In the second column, the residuals were ranked in descending order in terms of absolute values. Interesting patterns can be discovered in the observation of the two columns of 92 observations: since the
residuals were ranked in the table, the "location" of a country (top or bottom in Table 5) indicated some information about the group that the particular country belonged to. Let observation No.23 (Syria) be the 25th percentile,
observation No.46 (Austria) be the 50th percentile, and observation No.69 (Belgium) be the 75th percentile. All the "red" countries located at the bottom of the table above 7th percentile. Twelve out of thirteen (92.31 %) The
Discrimination Analysis was presented to complement the Log-Linear Model because of the limitation of the regression function. Inserting a regression to the data means that the connection between a particular explanatory variable
and the response variable is represented by one single coefficient. However, that coefficient represents the overall trend of the data but is not necessarily representative of an individual country's data. This limitation of a regression in
investigating the relationship between the explanatory variables and the response variable of an individual country gives incentives to further examine correlations for individual countries. For instance, for the 2010 data of North
America, the range of the correlation between the variable GPI and GCI was -0.94 to 0.96, while the range of the correlation between GPI and exports was -0.59 to 0.95. Suppose the coefficient of GCI were 0.01 (the average of -0.94
and 0.96), then the coefficient 0.01 would be representative of the overall trend, i.e. when the coefficient for individual countries between GPI and GCI was close to 0.01. However, for countries with extreme values of coefficient
(close to either -0.94 or 0.96), the value 0.01 could not be considered representative in helping to explain the relationship between GPI and GCI. Many more inconsistent relationships between variables could be found and these details
given by the study of correlations suggested that a different model other than the Log-Linear Regression Model is necessary. Robert Solow's article "A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth" is known as the cornerstone of
the modem Neoclassical Growth Model in which economic growth is separated into technical progress, capital, and labor (Solow, 1956). In his calculation, four-fifths of the growth in the United States output was derived by technical
progress (Solow, 1956). Understanding that labor, capital, and technical process are the ingredients that generate economic growth helps to explain why the between economic prosperity and peace in the Log-Linear Model was 0.55.
Under the assumption of the Neoclassical Growth Model, economic growth is driven by technology, capital, and labor, but not exogenous factors such as history, policy, and social structure that could ultimately shape the condition of
peacefulness (Harberger, 2005). However, the purpose of the present study is not to argue that peace should be a new variable to be added to the Neoclassical Growth Model. Instead, it is to enhance the understanding about the
interaction between economic prosperity and peace and to state a challenge to the assumptions of the Neoclassical Growth Model. In addition, the original Neoclassical Growth Theory assumed that capital was subject to diminishing
returns in a closed economy. Diminishing returns implies that marginal or per-unit output of production decreases as the amount of production increases. A closed economy is a self-sufficient system without international trade or
external assistance. A model capturing economic growth in a closed economy may not be sufficient for discussion of the present empirical study because in real life international trade is a significant component in the world economy.
Therefore, it was necessary to take Lucas (1988) and Romer's (1991) expansion with international trade into consideration. Economic prosperity in this study was captured by the variables trade, GCI, and exportslimports as a
percentage of GDP. The selection of these variables in the two approaches was justified by Lucas's finding of the positive association between exports and economic development (Lucas, 1988). The variables in the LogLinear Model
were representative of the endogenous factors including labor, wage rate of labor, capital, technology, and international trade in an open economy. The underlying justification was that large amounts of exports and imports entailed
correspondingly large amounts of labor, capital, and technology as long as international trade, an indicator that the Log-Linear Model was a good candidate to represent elementary components of the Neoclassical Growth Model, was

The Log-Linear Model

present. The interaction between the explanatory variables and the response variable GPI provided helpful insights into the interaction between economic prosperity and peace.

presented an overall statistically significant trend between economic prosperity and peace . The Discrimination Analysis presented a further
investigation between economic prosperity and peace by dividing countries into four types. The results of the "yellow" and the "green" countries complemented the finding in the Log-Linear Model such that economic prosperity and
peacefulness have a positive association, or alternatively a negative correlation between GPI and GCI. In addition, the discussions of the "red" and the "blue" countries revealed that each set of countries shared some characteristics, for
instance the "red" countries tended to involve in certain armed conflicts. In this approach, the classification method, without intentionally maximizing the success rate in the analysis, fitted the evidence of similar characteristics
between countries that fell into the same group. Shared characteristics, such as engagements in conflicts, could be found by further investigation among different groups of countries implied that these countries truly belonged to the
same group. For example, based on the numerical values of GCI and GPI, France and the United States in 2011 were classified to be "red" countries, both of which were simultaneously involved in the armed conflict in Afghanistan.
Furthermore, this classification exposed that the overall trend of the Log-Linear Model could be interpreted as four distinct groups. The four groups, i.e. four performance groups distinguished by colors, demonstrated how economic

In the integration part, the "red" and the "green" countries had a
prosperity and peace interacted with each other at a certain level of competitiveness and peacefulness.

tendency to have smaller values of residuals compared to other countries, which implied that the statistically
significant variables GCI, military, and trade explained a larger proportion of peace within the "red" and the "green"
countries. A small residual in a regression indicated that the geometric distance between the point of the observation and the fitting straight line of the linear model. One common characteristic of the "red" and the "green"
countries was that they were more competitive relative to other countries with a GCI > 4.72, meaning that these economies are prosperous or would potentially become prosperous. These more competitive

economies were equipped with sufficient labor, capital, technology, population, and other endogenous elements that
determined economic growth according to the mechanisms of the Neoclassical Modem Growth Model. In the present study, these endogenous elements were represented by the variables GCI, exports,
imports, and population. To compare, correlating with larger residuals within the "blue" countries, the endogenous forces of the growth theory explained the smaller proportion of peacefulness. In other words, the exogenous forces

When the endogenous

such as history, policy, and other factors beyond the endogenous mechanisms of economic development played a larger role in explaining peacefulness for the "blue" countries.

forces (for example trading and competitiveness) of the growth mechanism were more active, they contributed more
in terms of explaining economic prosperity ; when they were less active, the exogenous forces entered the fray and played a more important role in explaining economic prosperity. If the
exogenous forces serve as criteria that enable growth, then there should not be any discernible differences of residuals among different types of countries. Table 5 compared the color labels produced by the Discrimination Analysis
and the residuals produced by the Log-Linear Model. The four colors were classified according to GCI and GPI, which reflected both endogenous and exogenous forces. On the other hand, the residuals overwhelmingly reflected

exogenous forces. The result of the integration of the two approaches showed that less competitive countries were usually
attached to larger residuals. The difference in magnitude of the residuals implied that the exogenous forces '
potentially present a mechanical impact on economic prosperity. The integration result stated a fair challenge to the
model Neoclassical Growth Theory's assumption that the exogenous forces do not have any mechanical impact on
growth. The different residuals among various types of countries were not produced by luck because observations were classified according to the variables GCI and GPI in magnitude instead of any random classification
rules. In conclusion, this study explored the relationship that peacefulness, as a condition shaped by exogenous factors, interacted with economic
growth or prosperity-there was a clear association between economic prosperity and peacefulness . Peaceful
countries participated more in trading activities and achieved greater economic prosperity. The endogenous forces including trading and
competitiveness explained the larger proportion of peace in more competitive economies, while the proportion became smaller in less competitive economies. This result challenges the Neoclassical Modern Growth Theory's
assumption that exogenous forces do not have any mechanical impact on growth. Moreover, this study paved the way for future research on the interactions between economic prosperity and peace and the interplay between the
endogenous and exogenous factors of economic growth.

Best studies
Royal 10 (Jedediah, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction U.S. Department of Defense, Economic
Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises, Economics of War and Peace: Economic,
Legal and Political Perspectives, Ed. Goldsmith and Brauer, p. 213-215)
Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict . Political science literature has contributed a
moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defence behaviour of interdependent states. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and
national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Tho mpson's (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that
rhythms in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre-eminent power and the often bloody
transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As such, exogenous shocks such as economic crises could usher in a
redistribution of relative power (see also Gilpin. 1981) that leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation (Feaver,
1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict as a
rising power may seek to challenge a declining power (Werner. 1999). Separately, Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the
likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain
unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copeland's (1996, 2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that ' future expectation of trade' is a significant variable in
understanding economic conditions and security behaviour of states. He argues that interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from trade
so long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations. However, if the expectations of future trade decline, particularly for difficult to replace items such as

energy resources, the likelihood for conflict increases, as states will be inclined to use force to gain access to those

resources. Crises could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by
interdependent states.4 Third, others have considered the link between economic decline and external armed conflict at a

national level. Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a strong correlat ion between internal conflict and external conflict,
particularly during periods of economic downturn . They write: The linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing.
Economic conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favour. Moreover, the presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to

which international and external conflicts self-reinforce each other. (Blomberg & Hess, 2002. p. 89) Economic decline has also been
linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg, Hess, & Weerapana, 2004), which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external
tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. "Diversionary theory" suggests that, when facing unpopularity

arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increased incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to
create a 'rally around the flag' effect. Wang (1996), DeRouen (1995). and Blomberg, Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline
and use of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that the tendency towards diversionary
tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to
lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of weak economic performance in the U nited S tates, and thus weak

Presidential popularity, are statistically linked to an increase in the use of force. In summary, recent economic scholarship positively correlates economic

integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science scholarship links economic decline with external

conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels.5 This implied connection between integration, crises and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the
economic-security debate and deserves more attention.

Collapse causes nationalism and wrecks multilat---goes nuclear

Merlini 11 Cesare Merlini 11, nonresident senior fellow at the Center on the United States and Europe and
chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Italian Institute for International Affairs, May 2011, A Post-Secular
World?, Survival, Vol. 53, No. 2
Two neatly opposed scenarios for the future of the world order illustrate the range of possibilities, albeit at the
risk of oversimplification. The first scenario entails the premature crumbling of the post-Westphalian system.
One or more of the acute tensions apparent today evolves into an open and traditional conflict between states,
perhaps even involving the use of nuclear weapons. The crisis might be triggered by a collapse of the global
economic and financial system, the vulnerability of which we have just experienced, and the prospect of a
second Great Depression, with consequences for peace and democracy similar to those of the first. Whatever the
trigger, the unlimited exercise of national sovereignty, exclusive self-interest and rejection of outside
interference would self-interest and rejection of outside interference would likely be amplified, emptying,
perhaps entirely, the half-full glass of multilateralism, including the UN and the European Union. Many of the
more likely conflicts, such as between Israel and Iran or India and Pakistan, have potential religious dimensions.
Short of war, tensions such as those related to immigration might become unbearable. Familiar issues of creed
and identity could be exacerbated. One way or another, the secular rational approach would be sidestepped by a
return to theocratic absolutes, competing or converging with secular absolutes such as unbridled nationalism.
 Impact Growth A2: Doesnt Solve Too Small
Corporate reform likely even if other components get stalled it avoids most difficult budget issues
Silvia, 17 --- John, Chief Economist @ Wells Fargo Securities, 1/3,
http://image.mail1.wf.com/lib/fe8d13727664027a7c/m/1/115th-Congress-
20160103.pdf?utm_source=SFMC&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=&utm_content=&utm_term=7230679&si
d=44116
This week marks the beginning of the 115th Congress which, according to President-elect Donald Trump and senior Congressional leaders, is set to be an extremely busy two years. The list of
policy proposals from the new administration includes a repeal of the Affordable Care Act, corporate and individual tax reform/cuts, additional infrastructure spending, immigration reform, trade
This laundry list of potential policy changes raises two overarching questions: how
policy reconfiguration and regulatory changes.
politically feasible are each of these ideas, and what potential impacts could they have on different sectors of the economy? In this report, we will explore each of
these key issues and provide a general overview of what we think is most likely to become law over the next couple of years. In general, our
view is that there is a path by which Congress can quickly enact some of these policies, while others will take time to work through budgetary
and procedural processes. The most likely policy changes to occur relatively quickly are a federal budget for the rest of federal fiscal year
2017 and the upcoming 2018 fiscal year, a repeal of the Affordable Care Act, some form of corporate and individual tax reform and changes to trade policy.
Other policy areas, such as infrastructure spending, immigration reform and regulatory changes, are likely to play out over time and may take
longer than markets and some commentators currently anticipate. Our baseline economic forecast includes a slight boost to defense spending for fiscal years 2017 and 2018 but does not
include any other policy changes at this time. It is clear that there are a wide range of possible fiscal policy outcomes, which has made forecasting such economic outcomes challenging. We will
make changes to our baseline forecast when the policy debates unfold to a point where we can evaluate the aggregate economic impact of specific, concrete pieces of legislation. Cont
he United States top statutory corporate income tax rate is the highest among its
Corporate Tax Reform: A Potomac Two Step? T

OECD peers (Figure 5), which has led corporate tax reform to be a popular topic for several years, in some cases with bipartisan
support . Corporate income taxes comprise a much smaller share of federal revenues than the individual side of the tax system, which
makes the fiscal realities of a tax cut a bit easier on the corporate side (Figure 6). As a result, we believe that at least
some form of a corporate tax cut is likely to get done during the next 12 months. Other key changes may take more time. There are
some differences between President-elect Trumps tax plan and the plan developed in the House of Representatives led by Speaker Paul Ryan known as A Better Way. While it is difficult to
we expect the tax rates and policy changes to look more like the A
pin down exactly what the final corporate tax reform package will look like,
Better Way plan. So what are the key corporate tax provisions of the House GOP plan? First, the plan would reduce the corporate tax rate from 35
percent to 20 percent and cap taxes on pass-through businesses, or firms taxed under the individual tax code, at a maximum rate of 25 percent. In
addition, the plan would institute a repatriation rate of deferred foreign income of 8.75 percent on cash and cashequivalent profits and 3.5
percent on other profits. The other reforms proposed include allowing for full expensing of capital investments in equipment, structures and inventories and eliminating the tax deduction for
interest on new borrowing. 3 The plan would also setup a border adjustability tax that would allow businesses to exclude receipts from exports but disallow any deductions for imports. Another
key provision would shift the corporate tax code to a destination-based tax system where U.S. multinational corporations would be exempt from tax on both domestic and foreign income
generated overseas but still taxed on any production for U.S. consumption. Of all these tax policy proposals, we see the lower tax rates on
corporate and pass-through entities as well as the lower repatriation rate as the most likely to be enacted quickly . The
other elements of the plan are likely to face uphill battles given the number of firms that rely on interest deductibility and those firms that rely heavily on imports, such as
retailers. In addition, the proposal to move to a border adjustment tax may face some challenges by the World Trade Organization. 4 Just as the budget reconciliation

process could be employed for an ACA repeal, it could also be used to push through corporate and/or individual tax cuts/reforms. It is
expected that at least some of these reforms/cuts will be passed in 2017 in one of the two reconciliation processes. There is, however, one other option to ram
through tax policy (or other policy) changes: invoking what is known on Capitol Hill as the nuclear option. Essentially the rules of the Senate could be modified to remove the 60-vote
threshold for legislation thus allowing for the passage of tax cuts/reforms or even health care reform. This would clearly be a last resort and would be a dramatic departure from Senate tradition
we
but could happen if the Senate Parliamentarian interpreting the rules of the chamber does not allow many of the proposed policy changes through the budget reconciliation process. In short,

see corporate tax cuts as the most likely immediate policy change and, in fact, early indications from the Trump transition team suggest that corporate
tax policy changes are likely to occur in two steps.5 The remaining tax policy proposals will likely take more time and face tougher political battles .
 Impact Growth A2: Doesnt Solve BTA Key
Tax cuts solve without border adjustment
McIntosh, 1/31 --- David, Club For Growth President, Quoted in Newsmax, http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-
Tv/david-mcintosh-club-for-growth-border-adjustment-tax-tax-breaks/2017/01/31/id/771346/
Yes to Tax Breaks, No to Border Adjustment Tax Congress has to move quickly to give Americans the tax breaks
President Donald Trump has promised and should "just skip" the GOP's proposed border adjustment tax, Club for
Growth president David McIntosh told Newsmax TV. In an interview Tuesday on "America Talks Live" with host J.D. Hayworth, McIntosh, a
former Indiana lawmaker, argued "Republicans aren't the party of raising taxes." "We're not used to the [border adjustment tax] or any of these
hidden taxes," he said, urging Congress to "just go straight for the tax cuts that Trump won the election with." See J.D.
Hayworth on Newsmax TV: Tune in beginning at 1 PM ET to see "America Talks Live" on FiOS 615, YouTube Livestream, Newsmax TV
App from any smartphone, NewsmaxTV.com, Roku, Amazon Fire More Systems Here The border adjustment tax is included in "A Better
Way" package proposed by House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady and House Speaker Paul Ryan, along with a call for a
reduction of the federal corporate rate from 35 percent to 20 percent. "My concern is that this is a brand new tax that is a hidden tax,
but eventually the people that pay for it are middle Americans who go shopping anywhere," McIntosh said. "Because essentially what this tax
would say is anything that comes into the country that is sold, you pay roughly a 20 percent sales tax on it." "Almost everything we buy, the
prices will go up," he added. "So, it's not a tax on our trading partners or on foreign countries, it's a tax that Americans pay." McIntosh
said the new Congress cannot wait too long to cut taxes. "They've got to pick up and be serious about these tax cuts
and get them done in the first six, eight months of this new Congress," he said. "Otherwise it gets bogged down in Washington
business as usual and politics . . . That's another reason why I think they should just skip this new tax."
 Impact Growth A2: Plan Key Econ

Our internal link is bigger

1. Impacts LITERALLY EVERY SINGLE SECTOR in short term massively outweighs

Terrell, 16 --- Dalton, Bureau Labor and Statistics, former Economist, in the Division of Occupational
Employment Projections, Office of Employment and Unemployment Statistics, US Bureau Labor and
statistics, may, https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-5/pdf/the-high-tech-industry-what-is-it-and-why-it-
matters-to-our-economic-future.pdf
The high-tech industry, what is it and why it matters to our economic future cont High-tech industries
accounted for 16.9 million jobs in 2014, or 12.0 percent of total employment . (See chart 1.) From 1994 to 2024, the share
of employment in high-tech industries has stayed within a narrow range of 11.3 percent to 12.1 percent. Notable during this period
was the impact of the two recessions, the dot-com bubble recession of 2001, and the Great Recession of 200709.4 High-tech
employment fell from 12.1 percent of all jobs in 2001 to 11.3 percent in 2004, a decline of 1.1 million jobs, as the high-tech sector was
harder hit by the bursting of the dot-com bubble and its aftermath than other sectors of the economy. Non-high-tech industries lost
689,000 jobs between 2001 and 2002, but recovered the lost jobs by 2004. During the Great Recession, however, the opposite trends
played out: the high-tech sector share of total employment grew from 11.4 percent In terms of output, high-tech industries contributed
$7.1 trillion in 2014, accounting for 22.8 percent of total output, down slightly from an all-time high of 23.3 percent in 2011. The
high-tech share of output remained relatively constant between 20 percent and 21 percent from 19942006, aside from a slight
increase right before the dot-com recession of 2001. However, the high-tech share of output has been at a higher level
since the Great Recession, remaining close to 23 percent since 2010. From 2014 to 2024, the high-tech sector is projected to
gain 691,000 jobs as it grows at a slightly lower than average rate, resulting in an 11.7-percent share of total employment in 2024.
Output is projected to grow by $2.4 trillion, in line with the overall economy, as the high-tech sector maintains its share of output at
22.9 percent. High-tech subsectors In 2014, high-tech
services industries accounted for 52.6 percent of high-tech
employment, compared with just 17.0 percent in high-tech manufacturing industries . (See chart 2.)5 The
dominance of high-tech services industries is a relatively recent phenomenon: in 1994, high-tech services were only slightly larger
than high-tech manufacturing industries. However, over the past 20 years, high-tech services industries grew by 3.4
million jobs, while high tech manufacturing industries declined by 1.0 million jobs. In projections to 2024, this
trend is expected to continue , with high-tech services industries adding 1.0 million jobs and high-tech
manufacturing losing 212,000. This growth will take the high-tech services share of all high-tech
employment up to 56.4 percent. High-tech industries are an essential part of the U.S. economy , providing
about 12 percent of all jobs but producing almost 23 percent of output . Although they were hit harder by the 2000
01 recession, they were largely insulated from the effects of the 200709 recession. While overall high-tech employment has remained
relatively stable as a share of total employment, the high-tech sector has seen dramatic shifts from manufacturing to
services, which now account for 52.6 percent of all high-tech employment, and is projected to increase to
56.4 percent by 2024.

2. Best studies prove unique sensitivity to corporate tax rates causes investment and jobs to stagnate
cuts key
Edwards, 15 --- Chris, Director of Tax Policy, Cato Institute, White Paper,
https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/policy-priorities-white-paper-114th-congress-
update.pdf#page=49
Policymakers in both parties say that they favor corporate tax reform and cuts to the corporate tax rate. With Republican majorities in Congress
and new leadership on the House and Senate tax committees, now is a good time to take a fresh crack at reform. Corporate tax reform is
important because corporate investment is a major driver of investment and innovation in the U.S. economy. High
corporate tax rates reduce the incentive to build new factories and buy new business equipment. If investment is
suppressed , economic growth will slow, fewer jobs will be created, and wages will stagnate. Globalization has
increased the power of corporate taxes to drive investment. As industries have become more mobile , international
competition to attract investment has increased. Unfortunately, America has been sitting on its hands while other
nations have slashed their tax rates. America has the highest general corporate tax rate in the world at 40 percent,
which includes the federal rate plus the average state rate. The average global rate is now just 24 percent, according to KPMG. A large body
of academic research confirms that corporate investments and reported profits are sensitive to differences in
international tax rates. And frequent news stories highlight the movement of investment and profits to lower-tax countries such as Ireland.
By retaining a high tax rate, America is shooting itself in the foot. U.S. businesses and workers lose, but so does the
government, because the corporate tax base is being eroded by our high rate.

3. That means any jobs and investment created by the aff are offshored causes inversions denying
benefit to US corporate tax cuts are prerequisite to access foreign markets thats vital
Edwards, 15 --- Chris, Director of Tax Policy, Cato Institute, White Paper,
https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/policy-priorities-white-paper-114th-congress-
update.pdf#page=49

These issues are highlighted by the trend toward inversions, which occur when U.S. companies merge into foreign
parent companies. Inversions are designed not only to reduce the harm of our high corporate tax rate, but also to
avoid the punitive U.S. treatment of corporate foreign earnings. While we tax the global profits of U.S. companies,
most countries have territorial tax systems that tax their firms domestic profits but do not tax foreign active
business income. Suppose that a U.S. company is competing in the Chinese market against a firm based in Britain. Britain has a 21 percent
corporate tax rate and a territorial system, so the U.S. company will be at a disadvantage and may lose sales . That is
important for the U.S. economy because domestic jobs depend on U.S. corporations succeeding in foreign markets.
As U.S. firms expand abroad, they tend to boost exports from their U.S. operations, and they tend to employ more high-
paid people in headquarters-related activities, such as management, marketing, and research. By adopting a territorial tax system and a
lower tax rate, policymakers would make the United States a better place for corporations to locate their headquarters, to
build factories, and to hire high-skilled workers. All this points to the need for Congress to slash the corporate tax
rate. The first step should be a simple rate cut from 35 to 25 percent. That step would probably not lose the federal government any revenue over
the long run, as discussed below. The second step should be to cut the rate further to 15 percent. This second step should be matched with
reductions to unjustified tax breaks and with spending cuts.

4. Otherwise decline in competitiveness is structurally inevitable

Engler, 13 --- John, Governor of Michigan, et al, Business Roundtable, Corporate Tax ReformThe Time Is
Now, Submission to the House Committee on Ways and Means, Tax Reform Working Groups, 41513, p. 11-
15.

Global trade and investment is increasingly important to world economies The growing global interconnections of the worlds
economies are evident in our daily life. Global trade has increased from 19 percent of world output in 1980 to 29 percent in 2011. Global cross-border investment has
increased even more rapidly, rising from 5 percent of world output in 1980 to 31 percent in 2011 (Exhibit 5). The United States also has increased participation in
global markets over this period, expanding both trade and foreign direct investment relative to U.S. GDP (Exhibit 6): Exports of goods and services have increased
to an average of 13.3 percent of GDP in 201012, up from an average of 8.4 percent of GDP in the 1980s.20 The share of total corporate earnings from abroad has
increased to an average of 34.3 percent in 201012, up from an average of 16.7 percent in the 1980s.21 Foreign direct investment by American companies has
increased to an average of 31.3 percent of GDP in 201011 (the two most recent years for which data are available), up from an average of 9.9 percent of GDP in the
1980s.22 U.S. share of world exports and foreign investment is in decline Despite the increased importance of foreign markets to the U.S. economy, American
companies have not kept pace with expanding global markets. In 2011, exports from the United States accounted for about 9.4 percent of
world exports, down from 17 percent in 1960. U.S. outward investment as a share of worldwide crossborder investment has declined even more significantly. In 2011,
outward foreign direct investment from the United States accounted for about 21 percent of global cross-border investment, down from 39 percent in 1980 (Exhibit 7).
With American companies responsible for a smaller share of world exports and cross-border investment, the U.S.
economy is losing its share of the global marketplace to foreign competitors. American companies account for a
declining share of the Global Fortune 500. The declining relative importance of American companies in the world economy
also is reflected in the rankings of the largest companies in the world. In 1960, American companies comprised 17 of the top 20 global
companies ranked by sales. In 2012, the latest data show just five American companies in the top 20.23 Among the companies listed in the Global Fortune 500, the
number of U.S.-headquartered companies declined 26 percent between 2000 and 2012, from 179 to 132. The countries with the largest number of additions to the top
500 global companies over this period were the socalled BRICs: China added 63, India added seven, and Brazil and Russia each added five (Exhibit 8). In 2012, China
was second to the United States in the number of companies in the top 500, up from 14th in 1995. Growth of the emerging market economies will continue to offer
new markets for Americanproduced goods and services 95 percent of the worlds population growth is forecast to be in emerging markets, with increasing
spending by their middle-class populations relative to developed countries. 24 Goldman Sachs estimates that within the next 10 years emerging market economies in
aggregate will be as large as industrialized economies.25 American companies compete in these emerging markets with both locally headquartered companies as well
as multinational companies headquartered in other developed countries. Within the OECD, 93 percent of the non-U.S. companies in the Global Fortune 500 in 2012
are headquartered in countries that use more favorable territorial tax systems, and all have a lower home-country corporate tax rate. 26 Reflecting the increasing use of
territorial systems around the world, in 1995 only 27 percent of the non-U.S. OECD companies in the Global Fortune 500 were headquartered in territorial countries.
This heightened world competition makes U.S. corporate tax policy more important than ever. American companies
require an internationally competitive tax system to compete on a level playing field with their most advanced
competitors from around the world in markets at home and abroad. Wherever American companies compete abroad,
they are virtually certain to be competing against foreign companies with more favorable tax rules. Corporate tax
rules that hinder the competitiveness of American companies disadvantage American workers and impede the
strength of the U.S. economy.
 Impact---Growth---A2: Tax Cuts Bad Deficits

Tax cuts lower the deficit through massive growth---short term revenue neutrality is irrelevant
Giovanetti 17 Tom Giovanetti, President of the Institute for Policy Innovation, Big Credible Tax Reform, 1-26,
http://www.texasinsider.org/big-credible-tax-reform/
Tax reform is at the top of the Trump administrations agenda, and Republicans in Congress have long awaited an
opportunity to present growth-oriented tax reform to a president willing to sign it. Throughout the campaign, Donald
Trump claimed that his tax reform bill would get the economy growing at a faster rate, which would create jobs and
improve Americans economic situations.
Trump is right that economic growth should be the goal of tax reform, and thats the lens through which we should
evaluate the current controversy over whether tax reform should be revenue-neutral, or whether we should accept a
tax reform plan that actually cuts taxes overall and thus loses federal revenue.
The budgetary and fiscal rules of the last couple of decades put an emphasis on revenue neutrality. In other words,
tax reform can rearrange the pieces of the tax code so long as the overall reform is scored as providing the same
amount of revenue as the pre-reform tax code. These rules have been driven by entirely reasonable concerns about
budget deficits and perpetually adding to the national debt.
Heres the problem: If economic growth is our standard of success, revenue neutral tax reforms dont have a history
of stimulating much economic growth. The last major US tax reform, the tax reform of 1986, frankly didnt do much
in terms of stimulating additional economic growth. Neither did the two Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003.
On the other hand, significant tax cuts have a history of stimulating significant economic growth. Neither the 1962
Kennedy tax cuts nor the 1981 Reagan tax cuts were revenue neutral. And yet the Kennedy tax cuts succeeded in
stimulating eight years of 5 percent average economic growth.
The 1981 Reagan tax cuts more than paid for themselves over seven years. They did so by creating 92 months of
economic growth without a recession, with a sustained period averaging 4.4 percent economic growth from 1983 to
1989. By contrast, the Obama years never cracked 3 percent economic growth.
Recent notable tax reform efforts in the UK and Sweden have also not been hobbled by a requirement to be revenue
neutral. Instead, reformers fully intended to reduce the tax burden on the economy, with the understanding that
increased economic growth would, over time, more than compensate for lost revenue .
So if economic growth is the goal, tax reform need not be revenue neutralin fact, if it is, it probably wont
stimulate much economic growth.
Republicans should not trap themselves within the strait jacket of revenue neutrality, and when the criticisms come,
they should clearly explain that the goal is economic growth, not revenue neutrality. But, in order for such large tax
cuts to be credible to the American people and consistent with Trumps campaign rhetoric and Republican fiscal
discipline, they must be paired with serious, structural spending restraints designed to ensure that we take full
advantage of increased economic growth to reduce budget deficits and at least stop adding to the national debt.

Super high deficit now

IBD, 8/24 --- (Investors Business Daily, 8/24/16, http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/federal-deficits-
explode-is-anyone-paying-attention/
Federal Deficits Explode Is Anyone Paying Attention? With annual federal deficits on track to more than double
over the next decade, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are both promising to increase federal borrowing if elected
president. Red Ink: The Congressional Budget Office says the federal deficit will be 33% higher than last year's. Over the long
term, the deficit picture is just as bleak. But on campaign trail, this looming threat gets zero attention from either Hillary Clinton or
Donald Trump. The CBO's updated budget projections show that federal government's fiscal outlook has worsened
considerably over the past year. Red ink in fiscal year 2016, which ends on Sept. 30, will hit $590 billion. That's much
worse than the CBO had expected just a few months ago. It's also a big jump from last year's deficit, which was an already
outrageously high $439 billion. Revenues climbed 1% this year, but spending jumped 5%. What's more, the CBO
projects that in 10 years the annual deficit is on track to more than double, topping $1.3 trillion by 2026. That's equal
to 4.9% of the nation's economy, a scale that has been reached only seven times since World War II (and four of
those years were under President Obama). Compared with last year's forecast, all these numbers are all worse. The
CBO now says that from 2015 to 2025, deficits will total $8.4 trillion. Last year, it projected deficits over these same years
would total $7.4 trillion. The CBO now expects the national debt to equal 84% of GDP by 2025. Last year, it said the debt-to-
GDP ratio would be 77% by 2025. And
this depends on interest rates remaining low. As the CBO notes, "federal spending on
interest payments would increase substantially as a result of increases in interest rates."

Will be deficit Neutral

Russell, 1/17 --- David, Bryan Cave LLP, Lexology, http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c4ab05e0-
fd50-4aab-ab25-18f17c9efc99
Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have vowed to pass a tax package that is revenue-
neutral, meaning the legislation will not add to the budget deficit. To accomplish this goal, every reduction in the
corporate or individual rates must be offset by reducing or eliminating a deduction elsewhere, meaning negotiators
will have to pick winners and losers.

Best Comparative Studies disprove the link broadens tax base, increases growth, reduces avoidance and evasion
Edwards, 15 --- Chris, Director of Tax Policy, Cato Institute, White Paper,
https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/policy-priorities-white-paper-114th-congress-
update.pdf#page=49

The good news is that the corporate tax base will broaden automatically as the rate is cut. Because the corporate tax base
is so responsive in the modern economy, reductions in the rate will generate substantially higher investment and larger
reported profits over time. Statistical studies have found that the government would raise as much at a 25 percent
corporate rate as it currently raises at 35 percent. Cutting the tax rate would reduce tax avoidance and evasion , while
generating greater corporate investment and economic growth. The added growth would boost all forms of federal tax
receipts. Evidence on these dynamic effects of corporate tax cuts come from Canada. Canada cut its federal
corporate tax rate from 28 percent in the 1990s to just 15 percent today. Remarkably, there has been no obvious loss in
corporate tax revenues as a share of gross domestic product. The government raised 1.7 percent of GDP, on average, from the
corporate tax during the 1990s, and it raises 1.9 percent today. Businesses apparently responded to the lower rate by
shifting more reported profits into Canada and boosting domestic investment. The U.S. federal government collected 1.8
percent of GDP in corporate taxes in 2014. Thus Canada generates the same amount of revenue with a 15 percent rate
as we do with a rate more than twice as high at 35 percent. Clearly, our high tax rate is scaring away investment and
reported profits. If we cut the rate, businesses, the economy, and the government would all gain. The Canadian
experience is not unique. In a Cato Institute study, Chris Edwards looked at a sample of 19 high-income industrial
countries. He found that corporate tax revenues rose from about 2.5 percent of GDP in the 1980s to about 3.0 percent
today for these countries, even though the average corporate rate fell from more than 40 percent to just 25 percent during
that period. This is evidence that a lower tax rate in the United States would generate higher tax revenues.
 Impact---Growth---A2: Tax Cuts Bad Inflation/Overheat

Recession coming nowthis time is different only tax cuts solve inflationary effects actually create
resilience from shocks
Horowitz 12/1 (Evan, staff economist for the Boston Globe, A recession is coming, and were not prepared to deal with it
https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2016/12/01/recession-coming-and-not-prepared-deal-with/JYzEFc24DFBAunwMdTctRJ/story.html )
The U nited S tates is due for a recession . But if it arrives too soon, we may not have the tools to fight back. Not once in the full sweep
Were seven years into our slow but steady recovery, which means one of these two
of history has the United States gone more than 10 years without a recession.

things must be true: Either were on track to break the record for the longest period of sustained economic growth, or there

will be a recession under President Donald Trump. Even if you lean toward optimism, its still best to steady yourself
for the unexpected . And right now, the U nited States is unusually unprepared bereft of the resources
governments traditionally use to limit the crippling effects recessions can have on workers, businesses, and
struggling families. In general, there are two time-tested strategies for beating back a recession: cut interest rates or give people more
money. Right now, both approaches are compromised. Start with the rate cuts, which would be overseen by the Federal Reserve. For two generations,
the Fed has taken the lead in the fight against recessions, acting more quickly than Congress and aided by a tool as powerful as it is
reliable: the federal funds rate. By lowering that one target, the Fed eral Reserve can spur investment, encourage spending,
and turn the economy around. But to have a big impact, you need big rate reductions. Ideally, when a recession hits,
the Federal Reserve would be able to cut the federal funds rate by 4 to 5 percentage points. Thats what it did during the slowdown
in 2001 and again in 2007-2008. But cuts of that size are impossible today, because the federal funds rate is already close to zero , at
around half a percent. And while theres still time for that to change including at the Feds December meeting, where its expected to raise rates a quarter point (the first increase since last December) there isnt a single member

When the next recession hits, the Fed is likely to be stuck unable to cut rates as
of the Federal Reserve board who expects the rate to breach 4 percent in coming years.

much as it would need to combat the economic contraction. Now, its true that there are alternatives, other approaches the Fed could take to help mitigate
the impact of a recession. For instance, it could try a larger version of the bond-purchase program that was used after the Great Recession, or perhaps experiment with negative interest rates charging banks a small fee
whenever they want to store money. Trouble is, the further you move from the established playbook, the greater the uncertainty.

When the Fed reaches for exotic instruments, their precise impact will be harder to predict and potentially more difficult to
control. This is where, theoretically, Congress could ride to the rescue with its own plan to stoke a recession-plagued
economy by giving people money to spend. Maybe in the form of tax cuts, maybe via a jobs program, maybe by mailing out checks. Its not unprecedented.
Congress played a vital role in the fight to end the Great Recession, with a roughly $800 billion package of tax cuts and
spending initiatives bundled together as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Next time around, however, it may be harder to mobilize
congressional support. Partly thats because Republicans now control both branches of Congress, and they tend to be more
skeptical of the virtues of deficit spending. Even now, many Republicans deny that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act produced any benefits, despite a fairly broad consensus
among economists that it helped. Whats more, Trump seems ready to use up his recession-fighting ammunition before the enemy even

comes into view. Among the top priorities of the incoming Trump administration are large tax cuts and a burst of infrastructure
spending, both of them costly endeavors that are likely to increase the federal deficit. Pursuing this kind of deficit spending now, when were already near full employment, could push the US economy

into overdrive which isnt necessarily bad. Among other things, it could help push wages up, speed the Federal Reserves efforts to raise interest rates,
and give the economy enough resilience to shake off otherwise dangerous shocks.
 Impact---Growth---A2: Tax Cuts Bad Repatriation

Repatriation measures boost short term liquidity and comprehensive reform solves long term otherwise US
liquidity collapse inevitable
Lane, 16 --- Richard J. Lane Senior Vice President Corporate Finance Group Moody's Investors Service, Inc.,
Global Credit Research, 12/8, https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-One-time-cash-repatriation-tax-cut-
would-have-varied--PR_359237
Moody's: One-time cash repatriation tax cut would have varied, potentially short-term credit impact for US
companies
A one-time tax cut proposed by US President-elect Donald Trump on repatriation of non-financial US companies'
offshore cash would temporarily improve domestic liquidity. However, the credit implications for companies with
significant offshore cash holdings would depend on how they use the windfall, says Moody's Investor Service in a
new report.

Of the most likely scenarios, Moody's notes that aggressively boosting shareholder returns through buybacks or
dividends would be credit negative, while repaying debt or simply holding the cash on balance sheets would be
credit positive. The credit impact for companies that use repatriated cash to pursue acquisitions would vary by each
situation.

Four of the top five US cash holders -- Microsoft, Apple, Cisco Systems and Oracle -- have raised significant debt
to support dividend payments and share buybacks due to their substantial overseas cash holdings. While one-off tax
relief may provide a momentary solution, without a longer term fix, US companies will likely rebuild their offshore
cash holdings and continue to raise debt to support domestic needs.

"Cash repatriation tax relief would provide a one-time boost to financial flexibility, but more comprehensive tax
reform that provides companies improved economic access to their global cash would provide greater flexibility
and clarity to make long-term capital allocation decisions," notes Rick Lane, a Moody's Senior Vice President. "It
could also prompt companies to raise less debt capital, which would be credit positive."

Moody's estimates US non-financial companies' total offshore cash holdings reach about $1.3 trillion, or 74% of
total cash, in 2016.

Repatriation funds immediately reinjected as infrastructure financing solves liquidity, bonds, and econ
their ev doesnt assume
LaVorgna, 17---Joseph LaVorgna is the chief U.S. economist for Deutsche Bank Securities. LaVorgna is a regular
guest on CNBC, The Hill, 1/5, http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/312920-trump-to-address-
dodd-frank-tax-reform-before-aca

Furthermore, individual tax reform can be separated from corporate tax reform, because this will make passage
easier and quicker . Then, the latter can be tied into infrastructure spending, but more on this later.

The focus on tax cuts does not mean the administration will not be working on its other initiatives; it certainly will.
The dismantling of Dodd-Frank is arguably easier than tackling the Affordable Care Act (ACA) because many of
the rules in the former have yet to be codified.

Additionally, there remains significant leeway in terms of how the various regulatory bodies will interpret the
current law. After individual taxes have been cut, and the slow, arduous process of watering down Dodd-Frank has
begun, the administration will tackle the second half of tax reform reducing corporate taxes.

At this point, the economy should already have seen a lift from the reduction in household marginal income tax
rates, giving the administration added political capital.
Corporate tax reform will include an initiative to address the roughly $1 to $2 trillion in profits held overseas by
U.S. companies. To be sure, these profits would be repatriated back to the U.S. at a reduced rate.
In turn, these funds, which could total anywhere between $100 to $200 billion, could be used by state and local
governments for infrastructure projects. Essentially, the proceeds from repatriation would be used as tax
credits/federal subsidies to help finance infrastructure spending, similar to what was done under President Obama
with "Build America Bonds".

Since these would be municipal securities, they would not count against the federal debt.

Essentially, the first half of the year will likely see individual tax reform and some Dodd-Frank rollback, and the
second half of the year will likely see corporate tax reform and infrastructure spending.

The latter will help maintain the economy's glide path in 2018 as the demand-side stimulus of the tax cuts abates.

CTR key to liquidity high rates cause corporations to shut down investment - Best studies prove unique
sensitivity
Edwards, 15 --- Chris, Director of Tax Policy, Cato Institute, White Paper,
https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/policy-priorities-white-paper-114th-congress-
update.pdf#page=49
Policymakers in both parties say that they favor corporate tax reform and cuts to the corporate tax rate. With Republican majorities in Congress
and new leadership on the House and Senate tax committees, now is a good time to take a fresh crack at reform. Corporate tax reform is
important because corporate investment is a major driver of investment and innovation in the U.S. economy. High
corporate tax rates reduce the incentive to build new factories and buy new business equipment. If investment is
suppressed , economic growth will slow, fewer jobs will be created, and wages will stagnate. Globalization has
increased the power of corporate taxes to drive investment. As industries have become more mobile, international
competition to attract investment has increased. Unfortunately, America has been sitting on its hands while other
nations have slashed their tax rates. America has the highest general corporate tax rate in the world at 40 percent,
which includes the federal rate plus the average state rate. The average global rate is now just 24 percent, according to KPMG. A large body
of academic research confirms that corporate investments and reported profits are sensitive to differences in
international tax rates. And frequent news stories highlight the movement of investment and profits to lower-tax countries such as Ireland.
By retaining a high tax rate, America is shooting itself in the foot. U.S. businesses and workers lose, but so does the
government, because the corporate tax base is being eroded by our high rate.

Corporate tax reform key to solve inversions thats vital to foreign markets key to econ
Edwards, 15 --- Chris, Director of Tax Policy, Cato Institute, White Paper,
https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/policy-priorities-white-paper-114th-congress-
update.pdf#page=49

These issues are highlighted by the trend toward inversions, which occur when U.S. companies merge into foreign
parent companies. Inversions are designed not only to reduce the harm of our high corporate tax rate, but also to
avoid the punitive U.S. treatment of corporate foreign earnings. While we tax the global profits of U.S. companies,
most countries have territorial tax systems that tax their firms domestic profits but do not tax foreign active
business income. Suppose that a U.S. company is competing in the Chinese market against a firm based in Britain. Britain has a 21 percent
corporate tax rate and a territorial system, so the U.S. company will be at a disadvantage and may lose sales . That is
important for the U.S. economy because domestic jobs depend on U.S. corporations succeeding in foreign markets.
As U.S. firms expand abroad, they tend to boost exports from their U.S. operations, and they tend to employ more high-
paid people in headquarters-related activities, such as management, marketing, and research. By adopting a territorial tax system and a
lower tax rate, policymakers would make the United States a better place for corporations to locate their headquarters, to
build factories, and to hire high-skilled workers. All this points to the need for Congress to slash the corporate tax
rate. The first step should be a simple rate cut from 35 to 25 percent. That step would probably not lose the federal government any revenue over
the long run, as discussed below. The second step should be to cut the rate further to 15 percent. This second step should be matched with
reductions to unjustified tax breaks and with spending cuts.
 Impact---Growth---A2: Tax Cuts Bad---BAT - General

Wont pass with the border tax

Caporal 1-26 [Jack Caporal, Inside U.S. Trade 1-26-2017 Battle lines take shape, fight heats up over border
adjustable tax proposal]
National Retail Federation vice president of supply chain and customs policy, Jon Gold, told Inside U.S. Trade after the event that his group has already begun making
the case against the tax to the Ways & Means Committee. He noted that the
tax reform package's political fate is not sealed in the House
or the Senate. Some sources have questioned whether enough support exists for the package to clear the Senate if it
includes the b order adjustable tax provision.

Corporate tax cuts will pass but tariffs and border taxes wont
Silvia, 17 --- John, Chief Economist @ Wells Fargo Securities, 1/3,
http://image.mail1.wf.com/lib/fe8d13727664027a7c/m/1/115th-Congress-
20160103.pdf?utm_source=SFMC&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=&utm_content=&utm_term=7230679&si
d=44116
This week marks the beginning of the 115th Congress which, according to President-elect Donald Trump and senior Congressional leaders, is set to be an extremely busy two years. The list of
policy proposals from the new administration includes a repeal of the Affordable Care Act, corporate and individual tax reform/cuts, additional infrastructure spending, immigration reform, trade
This laundry list of potential policy changes raises two overarching questions: how
policy reconfiguration and regulatory changes.
politically feasible are each of these ideas, and what potential impacts could they have on different sectors of the economy? In this report, we will explore each of
these key issues and provide a general overview of what we think is most likely to become law over the next couple of years. In general, our
view is that there is a path by which Congress can quickly enact some of these policies , while others will take time to work through budgetary
and procedural processes. The most likely policy changes to occur relatively quickly are a federal budget for the rest of federal fiscal year
2017 and the upcoming 2018 fiscal year, a repeal of the Affordable Care Act, some form of corporate and individual tax reform and changes to trade policy.
Other policy areas, such as infrastructure spending, immigration reform and regulatory changes, are likely to play out over time and may take
longer than markets and some commentators currently anticipate. Our baseline economic forecast includes a slight boost to defense spending for fiscal years 2017 and 2018 but does not
include any other policy changes at this time. It is clear that there are a wide range of possible fiscal policy outcomes, which has made forecasting such economic outcomes challenging. We will
make changes to our baseline forecast when the policy debates unfold to a point where we can evaluate the aggregate economic impact of specific, concrete pieces of legislation. Cont
he United States top statutory corporate income tax rate is the highest among its
Corporate Tax Reform: A Potomac Two Step? T

OECD peers (Figure 5), which has led corporate tax reform to be a popular topic for several years, in some cases with bipartisan
support . Corporate income taxes comprise a much smaller share of federal revenues than the individual side of the tax system, which
makes the fiscal realities of a tax cut a bit easier on the corporate side (Figure 6). As a result, we believe that at least
some form of a corporate tax cut is likely to get done during the next 12 months. Other key changes may take more time. There are
some differences between President-elect Trumps tax plan and the plan developed in the House of Representatives led by Speaker Paul Ryan known as A Better Way. While it is difficult to
we expect the tax rates and policy changes to look more like the A
pin down exactly what the final corporate tax reform package will look like,
Better Way plan. So what are the key corporate tax provisions of the House GOP plan? First, the plan would reduce the corporate tax rate from 35
percent to 20 percent and cap taxes on pass-through businesses, or firms taxed under the individual tax code, at a maximum rate of 25 percent. In
addition, the plan would institute a repatriation rate of deferred foreign income of 8.75 percent on cash and cashequivalent profits and 3.5
percent on other profits. The other reforms proposed include allowing for full expensing of capital investments in equipment, structures and inventories and eliminating the tax deduction
for interest on new borrowing. 3 The plan would also setup a border adjustability tax that would allow businesses to exclude receipts from exports but disallow any
deductions for imports. Another key provision would shift the corporate tax code to a destination-based tax system where U.S. multinational corporations would be exempt from tax on both
Of all these tax policy proposals, we see the lower
domestic and foreign income generated overseas but still taxed on any production for U.S. consumption.

tax rates on corporate and pass-through entities as well as the lower repatriation rate as the most likely to be enacted
quickly . The other elements of the plan are likely to face uphill battles given the number of firms that rely on interest
deductibility and those firms that rely heavily on imports, such as retailers. In addition, the proposal to move to a border
adjustment tax may face some challenges by the World Trade Organization. 4 Just as the budget reconciliation process could be
employed for an ACA repeal, it could also be used to push through corporate and/or individual tax cuts/reforms. It is expected that at least some
of these reforms/cuts will be passed in 2017 in one of the two reconciliation processes. There is, however, one other option to ram through tax policy (or other policy)
changes: invoking what is known on Capitol Hill as the nuclear option. Essentially the rules of the Senate could be modified to remove the 60-vote threshold for legislation thus allowing for
the passage of tax cuts/reforms or even health care reform. This would clearly be a last resort and would be a dramatic departure from Senate tradition but could happen if the Senate
we see corporate tax
Parliamentarian interpreting the rules of the chamber does not allow many of the proposed policy changes through the budget reconciliation process. In short,

cuts as the most likely immediate policy change and, in fact, early indications from the Trump transition team suggest that corporate tax policy
changes are likely to occur in two steps.5 The remaining tax policy proposals will likely take more time and face tougher
political battles .
Tax cuts will pass but political constraints mean tariff components will get triaged boosts growth but avoids
downsides PC Key and spills over
Stanion, 1/25 --- Percival Stanion is head of multi-asset at Pictet Asset Management, Pensions Expert,
http://www.pensions-expert.com/Comment-Analysis/Investing-in-a-Trump-era-Calm-with-risk-of-storm?ct=true
Investing in a Trump era: Calm with risk of storm We are still in the early days, but so far markets have taken a fairly
optimistic stance toward the broad outlines of Donald Trumps policies. Investors have focused on plans for
generous tax cuts and infrastructure spending, conveniently overlooking the potentially negative slogans from the presidential
campaign tariff barriers, immigration control and a more isolationist foreign policy. For the time being until we see more
evidence of the Trump regime in action we are content to support the benign market view . This is partly because we
recognise the immense barriers to any radical policy shifts arising from the division of power within the US
constitution. Given the limited budget of political capital available to the Trump administration, there are probably
only so many things it can achieve . The switch towards more fiscal stimulus seems most likely, accompanied and
counterbalanced by tighter monetary policy. The main tenets of the Trump economic platform should add momentum to an already strong
economy, lifting both the real growth rate and inflationary pressures. Indeed, the possibility of a US economic boom, which would
have been easily dismissed just a few months ago, is now a non-trivial prospect. Markets are also now even more certain that
the Fed will continue to raise interest rates next year. But
we should remember that an awful lot can go wrong. Controversial or
positions could become bogged down in
unpopular candidates for the cabinet, Supreme Court, or even vacant Federal Reserve Board
Congressional trench warfare and undermine cohesion on the few areas where it exists.
 Impact---Growth---A2: Tax Cuts Bad---BAT Businesses

Its not a tax increase just a shift from origin to destination based system good for manufacturing,
investment, jobs, and re-shoring experts agree
Cole, 17 --- Alan Cole is an economist at the Tax Foundation, a non-partisan tax-policy research group in
Washington, D.C. His analysis has been used by members of Congress and 2016 presidential candidates to design
their tax plans, National Review, 1/25, http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444240/donald-trump-trade-border-
adjustment-level-playing-field
House Republicans proposed border adjustment is the best way to address President Trumps concerns about
trade.
A central theme of President Trumps 2016 campaign was that international-trade and tax policies can discourage
companies from creating jobs in the U.S. Trump feels so strongly about this that he has contemplated implementing
a border tax in the early days of his administration. While skepticism of trade in general is unwarranted, theres an
element of truth to the idea that American manufacturers cant compete on an un-level playing field . The tax
proposal spearheaded by Ways and Means chairman Kevin Brady and championed by his fellow House Republicans
would be a great way to correct the problem, and may be just the international business-tax policy that President
Trump is looking for.
The current U.S. corporate-income tax is origin-based, which means it taxes companies based on the location of
their production. It is the highest such tax in the developed world, as Tax Foundation research shows. In a political
environment that has focused so much on bringing jobs back to the United States, this origin-based system is due for
a change. It makes little sense to make our corporate-tax system origin-based if we want to encourage new
investments in our country. This is why Chairman Brady has taken to calling the current corporate-income tax the
Made in America tax. It is also why other countries have slashed their origin-based taxes and left the U.S. behind.
Experts have long agreed that our business-tax system makes little sense, and they have developed a few alternative
proposals under which businesses would still pay a share of taxes but wouldnt be penalized for investing in new
U.S. jobs. The most commonly proposed alternatives are a destination-based system in which businesses pay
based on where their revenues are earned, and a shareholder system in which business owners pay based on where
they live. Both of these approaches are largely superior to the current system.
Chairman Bradys proposal would make the U.S. corporate-income tax destination-based rather than origin-based,
using a tool known as a border adjustment. This is a good trade . It would prevent companies from avoiding U.S.
tax liability by locating their production abroad. In his own talk of border taxes, Trump has intuited the problem
Brady means to address. A company that wants to fire all of its people in the United States and build some factory
someplace else and then thinks that that product is going to just flow across the border, thats not going to happen,
he recently told a group of top American CEOs.

Their ev falsely assesses BAT in isolation and assumes its a new tax offsetting rate cuts more than
compensate and checks trump tariffs which are worse
Cole, 17 --- Alan Cole is an economist at the Tax Foundation, a non-partisan tax-policy research group in
Washington, D.C. His analysis has been used by members of Congress and 2016 presidential candidates to design
their tax plans, National Review, 1/25, http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444240/donald-trump-trade-border-
adjustment-level-playing-field
A destination-based tax perfectly fits Trumps aims. It would also be a comprehensive solution, and therefore far
better than using individual penalties on individual companies or putting up a pure tariff, which would damage the
tradable sector of our economy unnecessarily by discriminating against it. (Layering a tariff on top of the current
system would essentially tax the tradable sector twice and everyone else only once.)
This is not to say that a destination-based proposal has no drawbacks; for one thing, if it were the only component
of the plan, it would be a tax increase. But House Republicans plan on using it to help make other tax cuts even
larger than they were before.
In a piece last week for National Review, John McLaughlin and Jim McLaughlin criticized the border-adjustment
approach and cited their own polling data to suggest that it is unpopular with the public. But neither their words nor
their poll questions really captured the current policy situation and the tradeoffs being made here. They seem, for
example, to be under the misapprehension that President Trump does not want any border taxes, when he has said
repeatedly that he favors them. Furthermore, their polling is based on the premise that a border adjustment would be
a new tax, rather than a modification of an existing tax that already penalizes Americans. Despite this
characterization, an astounding 41 percent of those polled still approved of the idea. One wonders how high that
number would be if respondents were given additional information about the tax cuts the proposal would help pay
for.
It seems as though a large number of Americans really do think businesses that locate production abroad and sell in
the U.S. should pay tax on that activity. In this, they appear to agree with President Trump. And a proper, vetted,
destination-based system combined with offsetting tax cuts is the best way for them to realize their vision.
Chairman Bradys border-adjustment proposal may, in fact, be just the thing Trump is looking for.

CTR Key to exports and foreign market access that outweighs turns vital to econ
Edwards, 15 --- Chris, Director of Tax Policy, Cato Institute, White Paper,
https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/policy-priorities-white-paper-114th-congress-
update.pdf#page=49
These issues are highlighted by the trend toward inversions, which occur when U.S. companies merge into foreign
parent companies. Inversions are designed not only to reduce the harm of our high corporate tax rate, but also to
avoid the punitive U.S. treatment of corporate foreign earnings. While we tax the global profits of U.S. companies,
most countries have territorial tax systems that tax their firms domestic profits but do not tax foreign active
business income. Suppose that a U.S. company is competing in the Chinese market against a firm based in Britain. Britain has a 21 percent
corporate tax rate and a territorial system, so the U.S. company will be at a disadvantage and may lose sales . That is
important for the U.S. economy because domestic jobs depend on U.S. corporations succeeding in foreign markets.
As U.S. firms expand abroad, they tend to boost exports from their U.S. operations, and they tend to employ more high-
paid people in headquarters-related activities, such as management, marketing, and research. By adopting a territorial tax system and
a lower tax rate, policymakers would make the United States a better place for corporations to locate their headquarters, to
build factories, and to hire high-skilled workers. All this points to the need for Congress to slash the corporate tax
rate. The first step should be a simple rate cut from 35 to 25 percent. That step would probably not lose the federal government any revenue over
the long run, as discussed below. The second step should be to cut the rate further to 15 percent. This second step should be matched with
reductions to unjustified tax breaks and with spending cuts.

Formal plan will be designed to mitigate potential BAT flaws, and broader reforms solve downsides
Baker, 2/5 --- Mary Burke Baker, K&L Gates, Government Affairs Advisor Mary Burke Baker is a government affairs advisor
in the Washington, D.C. office. Mary focuses on federal tax matters affecting businessesincluding domestic and multi-national
corporations and all types of pass-through entitiesand individuals. Her practice covers tax policy, tax reform, regulatory and
other guidance, tax administration and technical tax issues, 2/5, http://www.natlawreview.com/article/border-adjustment-tax-
sleeper-issue-house-republican-tax-reform-blueprint-waking
Trade experts warn that the BAT could be viewed as a discriminatory tax or a prohibited export subsidy not compatible with the United
States World Trade Organization (WTO) commitments. A successful challenge at the WTO by U.S. trading partners likely would take several
years to resolve, but could result in punitive tariffs on U.S. exports and leave U.S. businesses in limbo, calibrating risks while awaiting clarity.
Although House Republicans acknowledge this possibility, they consider the BAT an indirect tax, like the European VAT, which
would not run afoul of WTO rules. Economists are split on the impact of the BAT. For example, some say that the value of
the dollar will increase as a result, reducing the effective cost of imports over the longer term. Others are more concerned
about the effective short-term increase in the cost of imports. House Republican Response House Republicans are frustrated that hard lines
are being drawn even before they release a formal plan. They are aware of the concerns about the BAT and are
working to design a response that would mitigate those concerns, including possible transition rules for raw
materials and certain commodities, while keeping the overarching policy in place. They want stakeholders to run the
numbers in the context of the overall Blueprint, including lower rates, full expensing, a territorial international
system, and repatriation, to see how they come out in the big picture . Then they want to hear from stakeholders so
they can understand their business flows and practices.
 Impact---Growth---A2: Tax Cuts Bad---BAT Trade

Doesnt undermine trade their ev misunderstands how tax policy works its based on false equivalence
with punitive tariffs
Fernholz, 2/1 --- Tim, Quartz LLC, covers state, business and society for Quartz,
https://qz.com/888091/this-is-the-republican-plot-to-kill-the-us-corporate-income-tax-as-we-know-it/
But Spicers freelancing generated confusion about a serious proposal, developed over years, to restructure the US
corporate tax system from one that taxes profits to one that taxes domestic consumption. It includes a 20%
assessment on imports, but it is not targeted at Mexico, and its purpose is not to penalize trade .
The concept, called border adjustment, is a needed counterbalance to other business tax cuts in the plan, which has
key backers like House speaker Paul Ryan, House Ways and Means Committee chair Kevin Brady, and Republican
tax guru Grover Norquist. But its name and disagreements over how it might affect currency markets has led many
to confuse it with the punitive tariffs called for by Trump, who seemed to dismiss this feature of the tax-overhaul
plan just prior to taking office.
Anytime I hear border adjustment, I dont love it, Trump told the Wall Street Journal in January, just days before
his inauguration. Because usually it means were going to get adjusted into a bad deal.
The plan also has drawn criticism from some stalwart backers of tax cuts like Koch Industries, the influential
petroleum conglomerate, and Wal-Mart, the mega-retailer, which rely on imports.
Yet border adjustmentand the consumption tax behind itdeserves consideration because it is what Trump might
propose if he were interested in crafting policy not with the aim of offending trade partners, liberals, and the
Republican establishment, but rather with the goal of bringing investment back to the US while still conceding the
reality of a globalized economy. It also would fit with the world view of his trade advisor Peter Navarro, who is
eager to tear down the global supply chains that undergird the success of US multinationals today. And, together
with the other big changes under consideration in Congress, it might actually shift more investment toward the US
without the negative consequences of punitive tariffs or the ad hoc cronyism of Trumps twitter bullying.

Future administration complies

Caporal 2-2 [Jack Caporal, Inside US Trade, 2-2-2017, WTO could authorize unprecedented trade retaliation in
border adjustable tax dispute]
He also argued that a dispute of this size would likely take over four years , a point on which Hufbauer agreed, and there is no
guarantee that President Trump or the Republican champions of the border adjustable tax would be in office at that point. This means
that even if the U.S. lost , its government in four years may be more willing to change its tax policy to avoid retaliation
at the WTO and settle the dispute, if it loses. This line of thinking makes a dispute more appealing, Bown argued.

It will be compliant theyll carefully tailor it

Leonard 1-26-2017 [Jenny Leonard Inside US Trade Ways & Means Chair Brady defends border adjustability as
WTO-compliant]
House Ways & Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady (R-TX) defended the House GOP's tax blueprint -- particularly its border
adjustability provision -- by saying he is "very confident" the bill would withstand World Trade Organization challenges
if it became law, though he expects other countries to criticize the move nonetheless.
"I'm convinced that this is WTO-consistent," Brady on Jan. 24 told a crowd of business leaders at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, citing "three key tests that the
WTO uses in making these determinations."
He did not elaborate on those tests. But a Ways & Means aide provided an explanation: "The WTO has not examined a destination-based cash flow system. In general,
in analyzing a provision, the WTO will examine whether it constitutes a subsidy, whether it is otherwise a prohibited export subsidy, and whether it is consistent with
the WTO national treatment principle."
"So looking at the three key tests I'm very confident that we meet all three ," Brady said in his Chamber speech. "In our proposal we are
moving away from that income tax based on where the products are produced or where profits are booked to a very simple cash flow system based on where it's
consumed. It is economically equivalent and trade equivalent to the value-added tax."
More than 100 countries have a value-added tax system, Brady noted, and Republican leaders in the House argue that reforming the U.S. tax
system according to the GOP blueprint would eliminate the competitive disadvantage that U.S. businesses face and disincentivize
moving operations abroad.
Brady acknowledged that "there
will be a thousand different opinions on whether it will be WTO-compliant," but said " we have
the advantage of designing this tax system to be so."
"I do expect China and Europe and Mexico and Canada to yell about this," he said. "They have tax advantages built in. That unbalanced approach will not continue;
we're dead serious about leveling the playing field."
Brady's panel, which has jurisdiction over tax and trade policy, is working on a "fairly short timetable" in developing its tax bill, Brady said, adding that Donald
Trump's victory made it possible for his caucus to follow through on a "bold" agenda in 2017.
Brady has remained committed to the border adjustability provision despite criticism from some industries as well as Democratic staff on the Senate Finance
Committee.
President Trumpinitially dubbed the GOP tax plan and the border-adjustment provision "too complicated " but shortly
after softened his stance , signaling that the provision is under consideration.

Corporate tax reform key to solve inversions thats vital to foreign markets
Edwards, 15 --- Chris, Director of Tax Policy, Cato Institute, White Paper,
https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/policy-priorities-white-paper-114th-congress-
update.pdf#page=49

These issues are highlighted by the trend toward inversions, which occur when U.S. companies merge into foreign
parent companies. Inversions are designed not only to reduce the harm of our high corporate tax rate, but also to
avoid the punitive U.S. treatment of corporate foreign earnings. While we tax the global profits of U.S. companies,
most countries have territorial tax systems that tax their firms domestic profits but do not tax foreign active
business income. Suppose that a U.S. company is competing in the Chinese market against a firm based in Britain. Britain has a 21 percent
corporate tax rate and a territorial system, so the U.S. company will be at a disadvantage and may lose sales . That is
important for the U.S. economy because domestic jobs depend on U.S. corporations succeeding in foreign markets.
As U.S. firms expand abroad, they tend to boost exports from their U.S. operations, and they tend to employ more high-
paid people in headquarters-related activities, such as management, marketing, and research. By adopting a territorial tax system and a
lower tax rate, policymakers would make the United States a better place for corporations to locate their headquarters, to
build factories, and to hire high-skilled workers. All this points to the need for Congress to slash the corporate tax
rate. The first step should be a simple rate cut from 35 to 25 percent. That step would probably not lose the federal government any revenue over
the long run, as discussed below. The second step should be to cut the rate further to 15 percent. This second step should be matched with
reductions to unjustified tax breaks and with spending cuts.

Weak US Growth causes protectionist anti-trade backlash and china bashing

JIMENEZ 12 - Master's student at Georgetown University; degree in political science and international relations
from CIDE, Mexico City. (Protectionism Makes Comeback As Recovery Stalls,
http://atlanticsentinel.com/2012/01/protectionism-makes-comeback-as-recovery-stalls/)

As a result, protectionism could gain weight in the upcoming months and while it may be vilified by
conventional wisdom which rightfully points out the benefits of free trade, there is a human face which legitimizes it.
Supporters of protectionism tend to justify their demands through what they regard as the direct negative effects of trade with other countries.
Some of these effects are caused by the unfair practices of governments as Chinas. Others are due to the abundance of cheap labor in countries
as Mexico.
Whatever the reason, according to protectionists unchecked trade liberalization causes
unemployment and income inequality. Americas disturbing trade deficit with China is one of the
favorite arguments of trade critics in the United States. These opinions have a considerable impact
in various segments of the population. The 2008 financial crisis only helped enforce the notion
that Americans industry ought to be protected from unfair competition overseas.
According to theory, trade liberalization benefits an economy by expanding its production capabilities and diversifying the goods it can consume.
Trade dynamics promoted by international competition lead to a decrease in prices, benefiting consumers and producers alike.
It also expands the labor pool, thereby reducing costs. Trade leads to specialization. Every country has a comparative advantage in producing
certain type of goods due to its factor endowment. An economy will specialize in the production of goods which uses intensively its relative
abundant factor. Thus, Germany, which is relatively abundant in high skill labor, specializes in the production of high end goods (computers,
pharmaceuticals, etc.), while Vietnam, which is relatively abundant in low skill labor, specializes in the production of basic goods (agricultural
products, clothes).
Through specialization, countries are able to increase their respective national income because they produce what they are more efficient in
producing and trade it to the world. But then, what happens to those industries in which a nation is inefficient? Herein lays the main dilemma of
trade which can fuel protectionismspecialization leads to the disappearance of inefficient industries. Theoretically, this should not be a
problem, since workers in these industries will gravitate to other industries which are succeeding. Reality is more complex.
Skill biased technological change has made it very difficult for job displacement to occur. All types of jobs have modified their requirements in
line with technological chance. A laid off worker will struggle to find another job because he doesnt have the required set of skills. Retraining
could take years. The protectionists argue that this is exactly why the state must design and implement policies to offset those effects of
liberalization.
Its easy for Americans to blame the Chinese for their trade deficit, to propose to punish China
by turning its currency manipulation into an illegal subsidy and disregard recommendations to change domestic
consumption patterns which, in fact, makes American society the main actor responsible for their current situation.
A more effective way to enable economic growth than either raise or reduce trade tariffs may be the implementation of an industrial policy. This
refers to measures introduced by governments to channel resources into sectors which they view as critical to future economic growth. It implies
benefiting some by hurting others (the financial resources have to come from somewhere else). Consequently, industrial policy should only be
deployed to counter market failures and externalities which prevent the industries in which a country has comparative advantage from naturally
becoming as efficient as they should be.
The successful examples of Japan, South Korea and the Southeast Asian tiger economies encourage governments around the world to intervene
in their industries through subsidies, tariffs, taxes, etc. so as to increase their profitability. The idea is to benefit those sectors that the state
believes have a comparative advantage over those of other countries and create national champions
There are problems with this analysis. Japan and South Korea both had the overt support of the United States which, due to Cold War dynamics,
prevented their experiments from failing. For their part, the tigers, except Hong Kong, had authoritarian governments that facilitated the
implementation of policies and they, too, enjoyed American support.
There are examples that demonstrate both successes and failures but, to be fair, the outcomes were contingent upon other variables which require
closer analysis. Chinas is the most recent case of an industrial policy, and, so far, it seems it has been successful.
This has caused alarm in the United States where Chinas success is increasingly perceived as
coming at the expense of American workers. The politicization of industrial policy that aims to correct market
imbalances unfortunately often leads democratic governments to privilege certain interest groups, whether theyre corporations or unions, at the
expense of their economys competitiveness as a whole. Perhaps, in this sense, Chinas comparative advantage is its very authoritarianism?

No impact wont bring suit

Caporal 2-2 [Jack Caporal, Inside US Trade, 2-2-2017, WTO could authorize unprecedented trade retaliation in
border adjustable tax dispute]
Analysts are asserting that the W orld T rade O rganization could authorize over $100 billion in trade retaliation if the
United States implements a border adjustable tax -- as envisioned in the House Republican tax reform blueprint -- and subsequently
loses a dispute at the WTO.
But for that reason alone the U.S. may be able to persuade other WTO members not to bring a case, Gary Hufbauer, a fellow
at the Peterson Institute of International Economics said at a Feb. 1 conference the organization held on the tax issue.
There is precedent for this, Hufbauer said. The Helms-Burton law was about to be challenged by the European Union, it
was not challenged for the reason that at the time because the Clinton administration basically told the Europeans, 'if you challenge
this and you prevail, that'll blow up the WTO.' The Helms Burton Act, signed by President Clinton in 1996, strengthens the U.S.
embargo on Cuba by extending the application of the embargo to foreign countries that trade with Cuba, among other measures.
There are many cases that are not brought which could arguably be brought because they're kind of too big for the system,
Hufbauer continued, citing the example of a WTO case both the George W. Bush and Obama administrations considered bringing over
currency manipulation.
Impact - BioPharma
 Impact---BioPharma---2NC

Patent expirations will decimate BioPharma---tax reforms key to revive their pipelines to sustain growth
Fortunre 12-6 via Reuters, How Donald Trumps Corporate Tax Holiday Could Spur a Pharma M&A Boom,
2016, http://fortune.com/2016/12/06/donald-trump-corporate-tax-holiday-pharma/
U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's plan to incentivize U.S. companies to repatriate their swelling overseas cash
piles could spur a new wave of dealmaking in a pharmaceutical industry seeking to buy its way into growth.
For years, big U.S. drugmakers have turned to acquisitions of foreign companies to put their overseas cash to work,
rather than bring it home at a 35% tax rate. Trump has proposed allowing repatriation of this cash at a 10% tax rate,
hoping some of it will be spent on hiring and investing in their businesses.
However, drugmakers are much more likely to spend this money on acquisitions that could revive their drug
development pipeline by acquiring smaller peers with promising offerings, as opposed to risking more of their own
dollars on research and development, corporate executives and dealmakers say.
Some of these deals could even result in job cuts as companies seek to eliminate overlaps.
"Would we consider to repatriate the cash? I would say yes, and what we would look at would be first to maintain
the lowest weighted average cost of capital for the company," Amgen (AMGN, -0.73%) chief financial officer
David Meline told analysts and investors on the company's most recent earnings call in October.
"Then we would look at certainly deploying cash towards external opportunities, but in that instance we would
certainly lead with other strategic opportunities that make sense where we could get a return for our own
shareholders from such investments."
Trump's transition team did not respond to a request for comment on the potential impact of his proposed tax
holiday on the drug industry.
Corporate America had $1.3 trillion, or 74% of its total cash, stashed overseas in 2016, according to Moody's
Investors Service. That's up from an estimated $1.2 trillion, or 72% of total cash, a year earlier.
While the top five overseas cash holders are technology companies such as Apple (AAPL, +0.18%) and Microsoft
(MSFT, +2.64%), the pharmaceutical industry accounts for a big chunk of that cash.
The five U.S. pharmaceutical companies with the largest cash piles, namely Pfizer (PFE, +0.67%), Merck (MRK,
+0.20%), Johnson & Johnson (JNJ, -0.85%), Amgen and Eli Lilly (LLY, -0.36%), hold nearly $250 billion in
overseas funds, according to data from U.S. non-profit research and advocacy group Citizens for Tax Justice.
At the same time, big pharma is in hot pursuit of the next blockbuster drug. Many of the industry's most successful
franchises, from Gilead's Hepatitis C cure and Biogen's multiple sclerosis treatments, to AbbVie's arthritis drug
Humira, are all bracing for declining revenues as patents age and competition heats up.
Valuations of biotechnology companies that could be acquisition targets for major drug firms are still hovering near
historic lows after being dragged down by election-season political criticism of high drug prices.
"Tax repatriation is a more likely situation now, benefiting large biotechs and (pharmaceutical companies) with
significant offshore cash and a desire to buy mid-cap companies," RBC Capital equity analyst Michael Yee wrote in
a research note.

Pharma innovation solves disease---extinction

Engelhardt 8 PhD, MD, Professor of Philosophy @ Rice (Hugo, Innovation and the Pharmaceutical Industry:
Critical Reflections on the Virtues of Profit, EBrary)
Many are suspicious of, or indeed jealous of, the good fortune of others. Even when profit is gained in the market
without fraud and with the consent of all buying and selling goods and services, there is a sense on the part of some
that something is wrong if considerable profit is secured. There is even a sense that good fortune in the market,
especially if it is very good fortune, is unfair. One might think of such rhetorically disparaging terms as "wind-fall
profits". There is also a suspicion of the pursuit of profit because it is often embraced not just because of the material
benefits it sought, but because of the hierarchical satisfaction of being more affluent than others. The pursuit of
profit in the pharmaceutical and medical-device industries is tor many in particular morally dubious because it is
acquired from those who have the bad fortune to be diseased or disabled. Although the suspicion of profit is not
well-founded, this suspicion is a major moral and public-policy challenge. Profit in the market for the
pharmaceutical and medical-device industries is to be celebrated. This is the case, in that if one is of the view (1)
that the presence of additional resources for r esearch and d evelopment spurs innovation in the development of
pharmaceuticals and med-ical devices (i.e., if one is of the view that the allure of profit is one of the most effective
ways not only to acquire resources but productively to direct human energies in their use), (2) that given the limits of
altruism and of the willingness of persons to be taxed, the possibility of profits is necessary to secure such resources,
(3) that the allure of profits also tends to enhance the creative use of available resources in the pursuit of phar-
maceutical and medical-device innovation, and (4) if one judges it to be the case that such innovation is both
necessary to maintain the human species in an ever-changing and always dangerous environment in which new
microbial and other threats may at any time emerge to threaten human well-being, if not survival (i.e., that such
innovation is necessary to prevent increases in morbidity and mortality risks), as well as (5) in order generally to
decrease morbidity and mortality risks in the future, it then follows (6) that one should be concerned regarding any
policies that decrease the amount of resources and energies available to encourage such innovation. One should
indeed be of the view that the possibilities for profit, all things being equal, should be highest in the pharmaceutical
and medical-device industries. Yet, there is a suspicion regarding the pursuit of profit in medicine and especially in
the pharmaceutical and medical-device industries

Biopharma is key to solve inevitable rapidly mutating pandemics

Jeffery Sachs 14Professor of Sustainable Development, Health Policy and Management @ Columbia University
[Jeffrey D. Sachs (Director of the Earth Institute @ Columbia University and Special adviser to the United Nations
Secretary-General on the Millennium Development Goals) Important lessons from Ebola outbreak, Business
World Online, August 17, 2014, http://tinyurl.com/kjgvyro]

Ebola is the latest of many recent epidemics, also including AIDS, SARS, H1N1 flu, H7N9 flu, and others. AIDS is the
deadliest of these killers, claiming nearly 36 million lives since 1981. Of course, even larger and more sudden epidemics are possible , such
as the 1918 influenza during World War I, which claimed 50-100 million lives (far more than the war itself). And, though the 2003 SARS
outbreak was contained, causing fewer than 1,000 deaths, the disease was on the verge of deeply disrupting several East Asian economies including Chinas. There
are four crucial facts to understand about Ebola and the other epidemics. First, most emerging infectious diseases are
zoonoses, meaning that they start in animal populations, sometimes with a genetic mutation that enables the jump to
humans. Ebola may have been transmitted from bats; HIV/AIDS emerged from chimpanzees; SARS most likely came from civets traded in animal markets in
southern China; and influenza strains such as H1N1 and H7N9 arose from genetic re-combinations of viruses among wild and farm animals. New zoonotic
diseases are inevitable as humanity pushes into new ecosystems (such as formerly remote forest regions); the food industry
creates more conditions for genetic recombination; and climate change scrambles natural habitats and species
interactions. Second, once a new infectious disease appears, its spread through airlines, ships, megacities, and trade in animal products
is likely to be extremely rapid . These epidemic diseases are new markers of globalization, revealing through their
chain of death how vulnerable the world has become from the pervasive movement of people and goods. Third, the poor are the first to
suffer and the worst affected. The rural poor live closest to the infected animals that first transmit the disease . They
often hunt and eat bushmeat, leaving them vulnerable to infection. Poor, often illiterate, individuals are generally unaware of how
infectious diseases -- especially unfamiliar diseases -- are transmitted, making them much more likely to become infected and to infect others. Moreover,
given poor nutrition and lack of access to basic health services, their weakened immune systems are easily
overcome by infections that better nourished and treated individuals can survive. And de-medicalized conditions -- with few if any
professional health workers to ensure an appropriate public-health response to an epidemic (such as isolation of infected individuals, tracing of contacts, surveillance,
and so forth) -- make initial outbreaks more severe. Finally, the
required medical responses, including diagnostic tools and effective medications and
vaccines, inevitably lag behind the emerging diseases. In any event, such tools
must be continually replenished . This requires cutting-
edge biotechnology, immunology, and ultimately bioengineering to create large-scale industrial responses (such as
millions of doses of vaccines or medicines in the case of large epidemics). The AIDS crisis, for example, called forth tens of billions of dollars for research and
development -- and similarly substantial commitments by the pharmaceutical industry -- to produce lifesaving antiretroviral drugs at global scale. Yet each
breakthrough inevitably leads to the pathogens mutation , rendering previous treatments less effective. There is no ultimate
victory, only a constant arms race between humanity and disease-causing agents.

Diseases causes extinctionno burnout

{Ross D. E. MacPhee et al. 13, Ph.D. in Physical Anthropology from University of Alberta, Former chairman of the
Department of Mammalogy at the American Museum of Natural History, Professor at Richard Gilder Graduate
School, Alex D. Greenwood, Head of the Department of Wildlife Diseases at the Leibniz Institute for Zoo and
Wildlife Research, Professor of wildlife diseases in the Department of Veterinary Medicine of the Freie Universitt
Berlin, Infectious Disease, Endangerment, and Extinction, Hindawi Publishing Corporation,
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijeb/2013/571939/, Date Accessed: 4-14-16}

Infectious disease, especially virulent infectious disease, is commonly regarded as a cause of fluctuation or decline
in biological populations. However, it is not generally considered as a primary factor in causing the actual endangerment
or extinction of species. We review here the known historical examples in which disease has, or has been assumed to have had, a major deleterious impact on animal species, including extinction, and highlight some recent
cases in which disease is the chief suspect in causing the outright endangerment of particular species. We conclude that the role of disease in historical extinction s at

the population or species level may have been underestimated. Recent methodological breakthroughs may lead to a
better understanding of the past and present roles of infectious disease in influencing population fitness and other parameters.
1. Background
Although lethal epi- or panzootics are obvious risk factors that can lead to population fluctuation or decline in particular circumstances, infectious diseases are seldom considered as potential drivers of extirpation or extinctionthat
is, of the complete loss of all populations or subunits comprising a given biological species. For example, in conservation biology, infectious disease is usually regarded as having only a marginal or contributory influence on
extinction, except perhaps in unusual circumstances (e.g., [14]). In their examination of 223 instances of critically endangered species listed by the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) as allegedly threatened by
infectious disease, Smith et al. [4] found that in the overwhelming majority of cases there was no conclusive evidence to support infectious disease as a contributing threat. Although this record should improve with increasing
awareness of the effects of infectious diseases on wildlife, as this paper illustrates progress has so far been slow.
Both of the authors of this paper are primarily concerned with mammals, which is the group that will receive the bulk of attention here. However, at the pragmatic, data-gathering level, the issues concerned with properly accounting
for and evaluating the effects of infectious diseases on natural populations differ little from one phylogenetic grouping to another.
First, narrowing down extinction events or even catastrophic population declines to single causes is almost always problematic. In most real cases, extinction is multicausational, even if one cause can be identified as being
predominantly responsible [5]. Habitat fragmentation and climate change are currently regarded as the leading prime movers behind most instances of extreme endangerment, to which other stressors such as pollution, invasive
competitors, and so forth, might be of greater or lesser importance in particular circumstances. Disease, however, is rarely mentioned as a possible contributing factor in such contexts (but see [6]).
Another difficulty is lack of knowledge about pathogen diversity and susceptibility in wildlife. In the absence of sufficient means of detection and characterization, it is difficult to assess or to give quantitative expression to the degree
to which pathogens might influence population decline or extinction. Thus it has been estimated that only a small fraction of bacterial diversity has been identified at even the most basic systematic level. This problem is exacerbated in
the case of viruses, which often evolve rapidly and defy, in any case, classical methodologies for identifying species [7]. For example, bat viruses have only recently begun to be described systematically, even though many
chiropterans are known vectors of numerous zoonotic diseases and corporately represent the second largest grouping (by species richness) of mammals after rodents [8, 9]. A similar lack of knowledge affects our understanding of
parasites and fungi that affect wildlife.

unless a species is studied extensively during and up to the actual extinction

The foregoing difficulties are compounded when one considers that,

event affecting it, all extinction studies are retrospective. Retrospective investigation of losses in which disease is
possibly implicated is often severely hindered by limitations in the number and quality of samples available for
study, as well as the inability to satisfy Kochs postulatesespecially if both host and pathogen became extinct
simultaneously [10]. Performing isolation, reisolation, and reinfection experiments to directly establish that a particular pathogen was indeed the causative agent behind a given infection is either very difficult or
impossible to do retrospectively. Isolation and recreation of the 1918 H1N1 influenza A virus [11], for example, were performed by sequencing from extractions derived from individuals thought to have died of the disease in WWI,
not by directly isolating the infectious virus from tissues (as would be required to formally comply with Kochs postulates). Although most studies will have to be correlative rather than dispositive, one can nevertheless test
hypotheses concerning plausible causal agents and examine samples for presence/absence of specific pathogens [12].
Forensically, decay, degradation, and chemical changes in DNA post mortem produce severe methodological challenges to retrieving and accurately determining sequences [13]. In addition, in any retrospective investigation involving
ancient DNA, pathogen nucleic acids will be less abundant than those of the host, and this dilution effect will make sequence retrieval even more complex [10]. For example, relatively abundant mitochondrial DNA is generally
easier to retrieve from fossils or historical samples than lower copy per cell nuclear DNA. Pathogen nucleic acids are generally even lower copy than host DNA sequences in a given extraction. These and other factors reviewed here
may help to explain the paucity of conclusive studies of disease-mediated extinction, except in the very few instances in which sampling and methodological roadblocks could be overcome. Nonetheless, in favorable circumstances it
should be possible to genetically analyze ancient pathogens with sufficient accuracy to make the endeavor worthwhile, especially because next-generation sequencing methods are beginning to make such endeavors ever more feasible
[1418].
Why should the possible role of infectious disease in endangerment and extinction be regarded as a critical issue in modern conservation? Whether or not disease was ever a major cause of extinction in the fossil record [19], in our
times it plays an acknowledged but perhaps underestimated role. Pathogen-driven population declines have been identified in a wide array of invertebrate and vertebrate taxa (cf. [20]), suggesting that the phenomenon is probably
universal. Yet without the kinds of monitoring methods now available, some and perhaps most of these declines would have gone undetected, or attributed to other causes. Further, the processes forcing such declines are as diverse as
the pathogens themselves and are far from being clearly understood. The apparent increase in zoonotic diseases during the last few decades [21] may be objectively real or merely due to better monitoring, but it seems highly likely
that loss or reduction of pristine habitats and the overall impact of invasive species should promote the introduction of opportunistic pathogens into wildlife with increasing frequency.
Thus, understanding the dynamics of disease-mediated species declines may be critical to conservation missions concerned with a wide variety of species and habitats. Recent advances in molecular biology and microbiology have
permitted the detection and identification of hosts of novel microorganisms, many of which are pathogenic, and the technology needed to assess threat levels is becoming increasingly available.
2. Disease as an Agent of Extinction: Some Considerations
Although the fossil record clearly establishes that the fate of all species is to eventually die out, it is obvious from the same record that the rate of disappearance of individual species varies significantly [22]. As already noted,
inferences about how (as opposed to when) an individual species disappeared must be developed inductively and retrospectively. An important guideline is that apparent causes of extinction that are diachronic (repeatedly affect
species across time) are inherently more plausible than ones that are claimed to have occurred only once, or apply to only one taxon. Although this means that explanations about individual extinctions are not strictly testable, they can
nevertheless be evaluated in terms of likelihood, which is the approach currently taken by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and several other conservation organizations interested in compiling extinction
statistics [23, 24].
It is an accepted tenet in conservation biology that any severe, continuing threat to a species might eventually contribute to its extinction [25]. From this perspective, it is also accepted that diseases presenting with very high levels of
mortalityas in the case of a highly transmissible infection that is newly emergent in a populationcan cause outright endangerment. But are there conditions under which a disease, probably in combination with other threats, might
so imperil a species to cause its complete disappearance? MacPhee and Marx [19] considered this issue from the standpoint of model pathogenic features that a disease-provoking organism might exhibit in forcing the extinction of a
given species. These features include:
(1) a reservoir species presenting a stable carrier state for the pathogen,
(2) a high potential for causing infections in susceptible species, affecting critical age groups,
(3) a capacity for hyperlethality, defined here as mortality rates in the range of 5075%.
Only under the most extreme conditions is it conceivable that a species would suffer extinction in a single epizootic event. Much more likely would be repeated outbreaks over a period of years gradually reducing the fitness level of
the species, with final disappearance potentially caused by stochastic events (such as causally unassociated climate change). One way in which this condition might be achieved would be through a stable carrier (i.e., a species other
than the target, living in similar circumstances in the same environment, and in which the infection is inapparent or at least sublethal). A well-studied example is the transfer of simian acquired immunodeficiency virus from one
species of macaque to another [26]. Although this instance occurred under captive conditions, repeated outbreaks of distemper in lions and African wild dogs have long been thought to be due to transfer from domestic dogs (although
the mechanism is debated; see [27]). Obviously, for a disease to have a very severe impact, it would be necessary for the pathogen to occur in highly lethal, aggressive strains that strongly impact the target species before attenuated
strains arise and become common.
High potential for causing infections in a susceptible species is usually associated with the ability to successfully enter the organism through a major portal, such as the respiratory tract, where it can be lodged and transmitted easily
(e.g., via aerosol). To achieve hyperlethality and produce serious mortality, all age groups within a species would probably have to be susceptible, not just the very young or very old (or the immunocompromised), with death the usual

outcome. In large-bodied mammals, a fundamental consideration is that any process that deleteriously affects young
individuals will have a pronounced effect on survivorship because of the lengthy intervals in birth spacing [19].
Lethality in the range of 5075% is obviously extremely high and thus extremely unusual, although historically seen in Ebola
infections in humans and in experimental transmission studies from pigs to macaques [28]. High percentages may have also been achieved in rinderpest outbreaks among East African bovids in the early 20th
century [29], although quantitative data on this are largely lacking. An important issue here, however, is whether pathogens causing this level of

lethality could maintain themselves in nature long enough to seriously imperil a species. Speculatively, a possible outcome
with hyperlethal infections producing a rapid, fatal outcome is that affected populations would be reduced to small
numbers of widely dispersed and/or relatively or completely immune individuals. Under these circumstances, the epizootic would
necessarily abate as it ran out of new hosts, leading to the conclusion that exceptionally lethal diseases cannot be
indefinitely maintained in a population or species under normal circumstances. However, if reservoirs exist from which the pathogen could
repeatedly emerge , in principle epizootics might resurge year after year until population sizes were reduced below
viable levels (~50500 individuals). At this point stochastic effects might intervene and lead to complete loss of the species.
Among possible examples of this perfect storm of circumstances and consequences is the loss of Christmas Island rats, detailed elsewhere in this paper. Among birds, the severe impact of avian malaria on Hawaiian honeycreepers is
also pertinent and discussed later in this paper. Although a number of honeycreeper species survive at high elevations, above the limit at which introduced Culex mosquitos can survive, there are multiple adventitious threats, such as
deforestation and competition from invasive species, which add to their endangerment picture [30].
 Impact---BioPharma---BioTerror Module

Continual research solves and deters bioattacks

Chyba 4 - Co-Director of the Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC), Stanford Institute for
International Studies, and an Associate Professor at Stanford University
[Christopher & Alex Greninger, Biotechnology and Bioterrorism: An Unprecedented World Survival, 46:2,
Summer 2004, http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/20722/Chyba_2004.pdf]

In the absence of a comprehensive and effective system of global review of potential high-consequence research, we are instead trapped in a kind of offencedefence
arms race. Even as legitimate biomedical researchers develop defences against bio logical pathogens, bad actors could in turn engineer
countermeasures in a kind of directed version of the way natural pathogens evolve resistance to anti-microbial drugs. The mousepox case provides a harbinger of what
is to come: just as the United States was stockpiling 300m doses of smallpox vaccine as a defence against a terrorist smallpox attack, experimental modification of the
mousepox virus showed how the vaccine could possibly be circumvented. The United States is now funding research on antiviral drugs and other ways of combating
smallpox that might be effective against the engineered organism. Yet there are indications that smallpox can be made resistant to one of the few known antiviral
drugs. The
future has the appearance of an eternal arms race of measures and countermeasures. The arms race metaphor should be used with
caution; it too is in danger of calling up misleading analogies to the nuclear arms race of the Cold War. First, the
biological arms race is an offence
defence race , rather than a competition between offensive means. Under the BWC, only defensive research is legitimate. But more fundamentally, the driver of
de facto offensive capabilities in this arms race is not primarily a particular adversary, but rather the ongoing global advance of microbiological and biomedical
research. Defensive measures are in a race with nefarious applications of basic research, much of which is itself undertaken for protection
against natural disease. In a sense, we are in an arms race with ourselves. It is hard to see how this arms race is stable an offence granted comparable resources
would seem to be necessarily favoured. As with ballistic missile defence, particular defensive measures may be defeated by offensive countermeasures. In the
biological case, implementing defensive measures will require not only research but drug development and distribution plans.
Offensive measures need not exercise this care, although fortunately they will likely face comparative resource constraints (especially if not associated with a state
programme), and may find that some approaches (for example, to confer antibiotic resistance) have the simultaneous effect of inadvertently reducing a pathogens
virulence. The defence must always guard against committing the fallacy of the last move, whereas the offence may embrace the view of the Irish Republican Army
after it failed to assassinate the British cabinet in the 1984 Brighton bombing: Today we were unlucky, but remember we have only to be lucky once you will have
to be lucky always.40 At the very least, thedefence will have to be vigilant and collectively smarter than the offence. The only way for the
defence to win convincingly in the biological arms race would seem to be to succeed in discovering and implementing certain de facto
last-move defences, at least on an organism-by-organism basis. Perhaps there are defences, or a web of defences, that will prove too difficult for any plausible
non-state actor to engineer around. Whether such defences exist is unclear at this time, but their exploration should be a long-term research
goal of US biodefence efforts. Progress might also have an important impact on international public health. One of the Grand Challenges identified by the
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in its $200m initiative to improve global health calls for the discovery of drugs that minimise the emergence of drug resistance a
Should a collection of such defensive moves prove
kind of last move defence against the evolutionary countermeasures of natural microbes.41
possible, bioterrorism might ultimately succumb to a kind of globalised dissuasion by denial :42 non-state groups would
calculate that they could not hope to achieve dramatic results through biological programmes and would choose to direct their
efforts elsewhere.

Bioweapons cause extinction

Anders Sandberg et al., James Martin Research Fellow, Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford University, "How
Can We Reduce the Risk of Human Extinction?" BULLETIN OF THE ATOMIC SCIENTISTS, 9--908,
http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/how-can-we-reduce-the-risk-of-human-extinction.

The risks from anthropogenic hazards appear at present larger than those from natural ones. Although great progress
has been made in reducing the number of nuclear weapons in the world, humanity is still threatened by the
possibility of a global thermonuclear war and a resulting nuclear winter. We may face even greater risks from
emerging technologies. Advances in synthetic biology might make it possible to engineer pathogens capable of
extinction- level pandemics. The knowledge, equipment, and materials needed to engineer pathogens are more
accessible than those needed to build nuclear weapons. And unlike other weapons, pathogens are self-
replicating , allowing a small arsenal to become exponentially destructive . Pathogens have been implicated in
the extinctions of many wild species. Although most pandemics "fade out" by reducing the density of susceptible
populations, pathogens with wide host ranges in multiple species can reach even isolated individuals. The
intentional or unintentional release of engineered pathogens with high transmissibility, latency, and lethality might
be capable of causing human extinction. While such an event seems unlikely today, the likelihood may increase
as biotechnologies continue to improve at a rate rivaling Moore's Law.
Synthetic biology makes bioterror inevitable- creates means and motive
Rose, 14 -- PhD, recognized international biodefense expert
[Patrick, Center for Health & Homeland Security senior policy analyst & biosecurity expert, National Defense
University lecturer, and Adam Bernier, expert in counter-terrorism, "DIY Bioterrorism Part II: The proliferation of
bioterrorism through synthetic biology," CBRNePortal, 2-24-14, www.cbrneportal.com/diy-bioterrorism-part-ii-the-
proliferation-of-bioterrorism-through-synthetic-biology/, accessed 8-16-14]

In Part I of this series, we examined how the advancement of synthetic

biology has made bio-engineering accessible to the
mainstream biological community. Non-state actors who wish to employ biological agents for ill intent are sure to be aware of
how tangible bio-weapons are becoming as applications of synthetic biology become more affordable and the
probability of success increases with each scientific breakthrough. The willingness of non-state actors to engage in biological attacks is not a new concept; however,
the past biological threat environment has been subdued compared to that of conventional or even chemical terrorism. The frequency and deadliness of biological
attacks has, thankfully, been limited; much of which can be attributed to the technical complexity or apparent ineptitude of the perpetrators developing biological
weapons. Despitethe infrequency and ineffectiveness of biological attacks in the last four decades, the threat may be
changing with the continued advancement of synthetic biology applications. Coupled with the ease of info rmation
sharing and a rapidly growing do-it-yourself-biology (DIYbio) movement (discussed in Part I), the chances of not only ,
more attacks , but potentially more deadly ones will inevitably increase . During the last half century terrorist organizations have
consistently had an interest in using biological weapons as a means of attacking their targets, but only few have actually made a weapon and
used it. The attraction is that terrorist activities with biological weapons are difficult to detect and even more difficult to attribute without a specific perpetrator
claiming responsibility. Since 1971 there have been more than 113,113 terrorist attacks globally and 33 of them have been biological. The majority of bio-terrorism
incidents recorded occurred during the year 2001 (17 of the 33); before 2001 there were 10 incidents and since 2001 there were 6 (not counting the most recent Ricin
attacks). The lack of a discernable trend in use of bio-terrorism does not negate the clear intent of extremist organizations to use biological weapons. In fact, the
capacity to harness biological weapons more effectively today only increases the risk that they will successfully be employed. The landscape is changing :
previously the instances where biological attacks had the potential to do the most harm (e.g., Rajneeshees cults Salmonella attacks in 1984, Aum Shinri Kyos
Botulinum toxin, and Anthrax attacks in the early 90s) included non-state actors with access to large amounts of funding and scientists. Funding and a cadre of
willing scientists does not guarantee success though. The
assertion was thus made that biological weapons are not only expensive,
they require advanced technical training to make and are even more difficult to effectively perpetrate acts of terrorism
with. While it is difficult to determine with certainty whether the expense and expertise needed to create biological weapons has acted as a major deterrent for groups
thinking of obtaining them, many experts would argue that the cost/expertise barrier makes the threat from biological attacks extremely small. This assertion is
supported by the evidence that the vast majority of attacks have taken place in Western countries and was performed by Western citizens with advanced training in
scientific research. In
the past decade the cost/expertise assertion has become less accurate. Despite the lack of biological
attacks, there are a number of very dangerous and motivated organizations that have or are actively pursuing biological
weapons. The largest and most outspoken organization has been the global Al Qaeda network, whose leaders have frequently and passionately called for the
development (or purchase) of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). The principal message from Al Qaeda Central and Al Qaeda in the Arabian
Peninsula (AQAP) has included the call to use biological WMDs to terrorize Western nations. Al Qaeda has had a particular focus on biological
and nuclear weapons because of their potential for greatest harm. Osama Bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and Anwar al-Awlaki have all called for attacks using
biological weapons, going so far as to say that Muslims everywhere should seek to kill Westerners wherever possible and that obtaining WMDs is the responsibility of
all Muslims. Before the US-led invasion of Afghanistan, Al Qaeda had spent significant funds on building a bio-laboratory and had begun collecting scientists from
around the world; however, the Afghanistan invasion and subsequent global War on Terrorism is thought to have disrupted their capabilities and killed or captured
many of their assets. Despite the physical setbacks, this disruption does not appear to have changed the aggressive attitude
towards obtaining WMDs (e.g., more recently U.S. Intelligence has been concerned about AQAP attempting to
make Ricin). The emergence of synthetic biology and DIYbio has increased the likelihood that Al Qaeda will
succeed in developing biological WMDs. The low cost and significantly reduced level of necessary expertise may
change how many non-state actors view bio logical weapons as a worthwhile investment. This is not to say that
suddenly anyone can make a weapon or that it is easy. To the contrary making an effective biological weapon will
still be difficult, only much easier and cheaper than it has been in the past. The rapid advancements of synthetic
bio logy could be a game changer , giving organizations currently pursuing biological weapons more options,
and encouraging other organizations to reconsider their worth. Because the bar for attaining bio logical weapons
has been lowered and is likely to continue to be lowered as more advances in biological technology are made, it is important that the
international community begin to formulate policy that protects advances in science that acts to prevent the intentional misuse of synthetic biology. Disregard
for this consideration will be costly. A successful attack with a potent biological weapon, where no
pharmaceutical interventions might exist, will be deadly and the impact of such an attack will reverberate
around the globe because biological weapons are not bound by international borders.
 Impact---BioPharma---Tax Cuts Key

BioPharma lagging nowcorporate tax reform is key to sustaining the industry and spur innovation
John Lechleiter, PhD, Chair and CEO, Eli Lilly and former National Science Foundation Fellow, Harvard
University, To Guarantee the U.S.s Economic Future, We Need Tax Reform Now, FORBES, 11514,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnlechleiter/2014/01/15/to-guarantee-the-u-s-s-economic-future-we-need-tax-reform-
now/#6624ddfd4caa, accessed 9-9-16.

America is the world leader in innovative industries such as biopharmaceuticals, but were kidding ourselves if we
think that continued U.S. leadership is guaranteed . Among the many challenges we have to confront is a corporate tax system thats way out of
step with competitors around the world. High corporate tax rates disadvantage U.S. companies in the global marketplace and
deny them investment opportunities here at home that could boost the economy and create jobs. We are long overdue for reform.
So its good news that both House Ways & Means Chairman Dave Camp and Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus have released discussion drafts that provide a
useful platform for public dialogue. Now, some elements of these discussion drafts are problematic, but they will be refined in the months ahead. Corporate tax reform
is bound to be a long and difficult process, so rather than stress points of disagreement, Id like to seek common ground by outlining some general principles for
reform and the clear solutions that flow from them. Lower tax rates. Fact: America
has one of the highest statutory corporate tax rates in
the world 39.1 percent. Thats 14 percentage points above the average for OECD countries, according to the Tax Foundation. And in case youve
heard that the U.S. tax rate is offset by generous deductions, let me add that we have the highest effective tax rate ,
with an average burden of 30.9 percent in 2012. Thats the finding of a recent study by PricewaterhouseCoopers . Its not hard to see how the
worlds highest tax rate discourages investment in the United States, when a company can expect to pay nearly twice
as much in taxes here on average as it would in the United Kingdom (16.7 percent effective tax rate) or Hong Kong (16.5). If we want the U.S.
to be competitive in the global marketplace, we need a statutory corporate tax rate of no more than 25 percent.
Global companies make complex investment decisions in markets around the world, often with years of advance
planning. We look at factors like ease of market access, the availability of a qualified workforce and existing
resources, and the cost of operations all of which can be impacted by tax rates. When were talking about
investments in the billions of dollars for example, it costs north of $1 billion to take a new medicine from concept to
pharmacy or to build a modern pharmaceutical production facility even fractions of tax percentage points can
make or break investment decisions. Lowering rates should be a guiding principle for corporate tax reform.

Inorganic growth is key to BioPharma---tax cuts are key

Ramsey 16 Lydia Ramsey, Reporter at BI, What We Know So Far About What A Trump Presidency Means For
The Drug Industry, Business Insider, 11-11, http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-presidency-pharmaceutical-
industry-2016-11
Beyond drug-pricing pressure being removed, analysts seem to be anticipating more mergers and acquisitions in the
pharma industry. Corporate tax reform, another part of Trump's platform, could free up more cash to spend on
deals.
"Given that many BioPharma companies are looking for inorganic growth to drive new topline growth, the
increased access to cash could potentially drive a new wave of pipeline acquisitions," Morgan Stanley analysts
wrote in a note Thursday.
 Impact---BioPharma---Solves Disease

US biopharma is key to solve emerging biogenic threats

PCAST 12-- Presidents Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (An advisory group of the nations
leading scientists and engineers, appointed by the President to augment the science and technology advice available
to him from inside the White House and from cabinet departments and other Federal agencies), Report To The
President On Propelling Innovation In Drug Discovery, Development, and Evaluation, (September 2012)

Innovative Medicines Have Made Tremendous Contributions to Public Health Biomedical innovations including advances in medicines, medical
procedures, and public healthhave provided extraordinary benefits to the U.S. public. We live longer and we live healthier than our forebears.
Life expectancy at birth has risen from around 47 years at the turn of the 20th century to 78 years today. 4 Many diseases that were once fatal or
debilitating can now be prevented, delayed, or ameliorated. While nutrition, sanitation, other public health measures, and expanded access to care
have been major sources of increasing human health, innovative medicines have also played a profound role in this progress. Infections that were the
leading cause of mortality in the early 20th century are now largely eliminated. Pneumonia, the leading cause of death in the early 20th century, is
now effectively treated with antibiotics. Vaccines have led to the eradication or control of many devastating infectious
diseases, including polio, small pox, diphtheria, and measles. First recognized in 1981, HIV is now treated with over 20 FDA-approved drugs, although more
progress is still needed. Multi-drug regimens effectively control HIV infection, preventing the development of AIDS. Pharmaceutical therapies have led to cures for
multiple malignancies that were once universally fatal; for example, childhood leukemia is now cured in 80 percent of cases, testicular cancer in over 90 percent of
cases, and Hodgkins lymphoma in over 90 percent of cases. Recombinant proteins, replacing specific proteins that are not effectively produced by individuals
carrying certain genetic mutations, have transformed the therapies for multiple debilitating disorders including type I diabetes and hemophilia. Immunosuppressive
drugs have offered effective therapies for autoimmune disorders, such as multiple sclerosis, and have enabled organ transplantation. Along with a reduction in
smoking and better medical care, cholesterol-lowering therapy, blood pressure- lowering drugs, anti-platelet agents, and diabetes treatment have contributed to a
substantial decrease in death from heart attacks (70 percent decline5 over the past 60 years). Innovation in Medicine has Depended on a Partnership Among
Researchers, Industry, and Regulators These innovations have been brought forth by a remarkable ecosystem consisting of three
major components: (1) academic researchers who have unlocked secrets of basic biology and revealed mechanisms that
underlie disease, as well as the Federal and other funders who support their research; (2) a robust bio-pharmaceutical industry, which has
developed molecules to treat disease and conducted clinical trials to demonstrate their safety and efficacy; and (3) government
regulators, who have balanced the benefits and risks that are inherent in any medical innovation. Patients themselves have played a critical role in propelling
advances by focusing attention on the urgency of developing therapies and spurring creative approaches, and by participating in clinical trials. Medical
progress depends on a successful partnership among these sectors. Others, including physicians, health care payors, pharmacists, and consumer
groups, also play crucial roles. The United States has consistently led the world in all these areas: (i) Academic research. By any measure,
the Nation has been the world leader in groundbreaking biomedical research . This success is owed in large part to
the strength of its extraordinary universities and research institutions . Federal investments in the biomedical research enterprise, led
by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and augmented by other agencies, have for the last 60 years propelled research advances by supporting a robust academic
community that generates biomedical knowledge, patentable inventions, and trained scientists, including 135 NIH-funded Nobel Laureates.6 In 2010, Federal funding
for health research totaled about $46 billion (about $35 billion from NIH, of which $5 billion was provided under the Recovery Act 7), while private and public health
The United States has also been an indisputable leader in the
research funding combined reached $140 billion.8 (ii) Biopharmaceutical industry.
global biopharmaceutical industry. This leadership has resulted from a combination of factors, including: a strong
patent system, access to capital, strong support for research and development (R&D) by both public and private funders, a high-quality
science-based regulatory system at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and a market that recognizes and pays for
innovative new medicines. As of 2005, 8 of the worlds top 15 pharmaceutical companies (by sales) were
headquartered in the United States.9 Since the 1960s, the United States has been the headquarters for a larger share of
firms that invent and introduce to market new chemical entities (NCEs) than any other country, and from 2001-
2010, U.S.-based firms invented 57 percent of the NCEs produced globally.10 More than half of all clinical trials
underway are being conducted in whole or in part in the United States.11 In the last three decades of the 20th century, a revolution in
molecular biology and associated technologies, including recombinant DNA, gave birth to a new industry, biotech. The biotech
industry arose and has flourished in the United States, with strong early clusters in the high-tech and highly-educated
areas near San Francisco and Boston, and subsequent expansion to other locations including Seattle, San Diego, North Carolina, Maryland, and Virginia. A
unique combination of access to academic research institutions, scientists, and venture capitalists created the
ripe conditions for the industry to take hold and grow from the 1980s to today, aided by supportive legislation, such as
the Bayh-Dole Act, that encouraged universities and businesses to commercialize scientific discoveries in biotechnology. The
United States accounts for more than 40 percent of the worlds patents in biotech nologyfar more than the E.U. at 25 percent and
Japan at 17 percent. 12 The Nations leadership in biomedical innovation has been supported by a robust industry,
and, in turn, investments in biomedical research and corresponding medical advances have allowed industry and
the economy to thrive. Biomedical innovation has supported U.S. economic growth, and high-value, high-
skilled jobs for Americans. The medical innovation sector as a whole (including the public and private enterprises) employs
nearly one million people 13 and industry-contracted studies show that exports in 2010 from the biopharmaceutical industry
reached nearly $47 billion, with a subset of the industry, biotechnology products yielding a net positive trade balance. 14
This is a source of significant export strength relative to major industries, such as automobiles ($38.4 billion in 2010 exports); plastics and rubber products ($25.9
billion in 2010 exports); communications equipment ($27 billion); and computers ($12.5 billion). Pharmaceutical sales have increased steadily over the past decade,
15 reaching a record high of $856 billion in 2010. The biopharmaceutical industry estimates that it pays an average salary of $96,563 to the 650,000 people it
employs, and that it has indirectly contributed more than $300 billion to U.S. GDP.16 Moreover, public health gains as a result of biomedical
innovation bolster the U.S. economy ; the growth in life expectancy between 1970 and 1990, for example, had added approximately $2.4 trillion to
the U.S. GDP by the year 2000. 17 pg. 1-3
 Impact---BioPharma---Disease - A2: Burnout

causes extinctionno burnout Best methodological studies

{Ross D. E. MacPhee et al. 13, Ph.D. in Physical Anthropology from University of Alberta, Former chairman of the
Department of Mammalogy at the American Museum of Natural History, Professor at Richard Gilder Graduate
School, Alex D. Greenwood, Head of the Department of Wildlife Diseases at the Leibniz Institute for Zoo and
Wildlife Research, Professor of wildlife diseases in the Department of Veterinary Medicine of the Freie Universitt
Berlin, Infectious Disease, Endangerment, and Extinction, Hindawi Publishing Corporation,
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijeb/2013/571939/, Date Accessed: 4-14-16}

Infectious disease, especially virulent infectious disease, is commonly regarded as a cause of fluctuation or decline
in biological populations. However, it is not generally considered as a primary factor in causing the actual endangerment
or extinction of species. We review here the known historical examples in which disease has, or has been assumed to have had, a major deleterious impact on animal species, including extinction, and highlight some recent
cases in which disease is the chief suspect in causing the outright endangerment of particular species. We conclude that the role of disease in historical extinction s at

the population or species level may have been underestimated. Recent methodological breakthroughs may lead to a
better understanding of the past and present roles of infectious disease in influencing population fitness and other parameters.
1. Background
Although lethal epi- or panzootics are obvious risk factors that can lead to population fluctuation or decline in particular circumstances, infectious diseases are seldom considered as potential drivers of extirpation or extinctionthat
is, of the complete loss of all populations or subunits comprising a given biological species. For example, in conservation biology, infectious disease is usually regarded as having only a marginal or contributory influence on
extinction, except perhaps in unusual circumstances (e.g., [14]). In their examination of 223 instances of critically endangered species listed by the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) as allegedly threatened by
infectious disease, Smith et al. [4] found that in the overwhelming majority of cases there was no conclusive evidence to support infectious disease as a contributing threat. Although this record should improve with increasing
awareness of the effects of infectious diseases on wildlife, as this paper illustrates progress has so far been slow.
Both of the authors of this paper are primarily concerned with mammals, which is the group that will receive the bulk of attention here. However, at the pragmatic, data-gathering level, the issues concerned with properly accounting
for and evaluating the effects of infectious diseases on natural populations differ little from one phylogenetic grouping to another.
First, narrowing down extinction events or even catastrophic population declines to single causes is almost always problematic. In most real cases, extinction is multicausational, even if one cause can be identified as being
predominantly responsible [5]. Habitat fragmentation and climate change are currently regarded as the leading prime movers behind most instances of extreme endangerment, to which other stressors such as pollution, invasive
competitors, and so forth, might be of greater or lesser importance in particular circumstances. Disease, however, is rarely mentioned as a possible contributing factor in such contexts (but see [6]).
Another difficulty is lack of knowledge about pathogen diversity and susceptibility in wildlife. In the absence of sufficient means of detection and characterization, it is difficult to assess or to give quantitative expression to the degree
to which pathogens might influence population decline or extinction. Thus it has been estimated that only a small fraction of bacterial diversity has been identified at even the most basic systematic level. This problem is exacerbated in
the case of viruses, which often evolve rapidly and defy, in any case, classical methodologies for identifying species [7]. For example, bat viruses have only recently begun to be described systematically, even though many
chiropterans are known vectors of numerous zoonotic diseases and corporately represent the second largest grouping (by species richness) of mammals after rodents [8, 9]. A similar lack of knowledge affects our understanding of
parasites and fungi that affect wildlife.

unless a species is studied extensively during and up to the actual extinction

The foregoing difficulties are compounded when one considers that,

event affecting it, all extinction studies are retrospective. Retrospective investigation of losses in which disease is
possibly implicated is often severely hindered by limitations in the number and quality of samples available for
study, as well as the inability to satisfy Kochs postulatesespecially if both host and pathogen became extinct
simultaneously [10]. Performing isolation, reisolation, and reinfection experiments to directly establish that a particular pathogen was indeed the causative agent behind a given infection is either very difficult or
impossible to do retrospectively. Isolation and recreation of the 1918 H1N1 influenza A virus [11], for example, were performed by sequencing from extractions derived from individuals thought to have died of the disease in WWI,
not by directly isolating the infectious virus from tissues (as would be required to formally comply with Kochs postulates). Although most studies will have to be correlative rather than dispositive, one can nevertheless test
hypotheses concerning plausible causal agents and examine samples for presence/absence of specific pathogens [12].
Forensically, decay, degradation, and chemical changes in DNA post mortem produce severe methodological challenges to retrieving and accurately determining sequences [13]. In addition, in any retrospective investigation involving
ancient DNA, pathogen nucleic acids will be less abundant than those of the host, and this dilution effect will make sequence retrieval even more complex [10]. For example, relatively abundant mitochondrial DNA is generally
easier to retrieve from fossils or historical samples than lower copy per cell nuclear DNA. Pathogen nucleic acids are generally even lower copy than host DNA sequences in a given extraction. These and other factors reviewed here
may help to explain the paucity of conclusive studies of disease-mediated extinction, except in the very few instances in which sampling and methodological roadblocks could be overcome. Nonetheless, in favorable circumstances it
should be possible to genetically analyze ancient pathogens with sufficient accuracy to make the endeavor worthwhile, especially because next-generation sequencing methods are beginning to make such endeavors ever more feasible
[1418].
Why should the possible role of infectious disease in endangerment and extinction be regarded as a critical issue in modern conservation? Whether or not disease was ever a major cause of extinction in the fossil record [19], in our
times it plays an acknowledged but perhaps underestimated role. Pathogen-driven population declines have been identified in a wide array of invertebrate and vertebrate taxa (cf. [20]), suggesting that the phenomenon is probably
universal. Yet without the kinds of monitoring methods now available, some and perhaps most of these declines would have gone undetected, or attributed to other causes. Further, the processes forcing such declines are as diverse as
the pathogens themselves and are far from being clearly understood. The apparent increase in zoonotic diseases during the last few decades [21] may be objectively real or merely due to better monitoring, but it seems highly likely
that loss or reduction of pristine habitats and the overall impact of invasive species should promote the introduction of opportunistic pathogens into wildlife with increasing frequency.
Thus, understanding the dynamics of disease-mediated species declines may be critical to conservation missions concerned with a wide variety of species and habitats. Recent advances in molecular biology and microbiology have
permitted the detection and identification of hosts of novel microorganisms, many of which are pathogenic, and the technology needed to assess threat levels is becoming increasingly available.
2. Disease as an Agent of Extinction: Some Considerations
Although the fossil record clearly establishes that the fate of all species is to eventually die out, it is obvious from the same record that the rate of disappearance of individual species varies significantly [22]. As already noted,
inferences about how (as opposed to when) an individual species disappeared must be developed inductively and retrospectively. An important guideline is that apparent causes of extinction that are diachronic (repeatedly affect
species across time) are inherently more plausible than ones that are claimed to have occurred only once, or apply to only one taxon. Although this means that explanations about individual extinctions are not strictly testable, they can
nevertheless be evaluated in terms of likelihood, which is the approach currently taken by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and several other conservation organizations interested in compiling extinction
statistics [23, 24].
It is an accepted tenet in conservation biology that any severe, continuing threat to a species might eventually contribute to its extinction [25]. From this perspective, it is also accepted that diseases presenting with very high levels of
mortalityas in the case of a highly transmissible infection that is newly emergent in a populationcan cause outright endangerment. But are there conditions under which a disease, probably in combination with other threats, might
so imperil a species to cause its complete disappearance? MacPhee and Marx [19] considered this issue from the standpoint of model pathogenic features that a disease-provoking organism might exhibit in forcing the extinction of a
given species. These features include:
(1) a reservoir species presenting a stable carrier state for the pathogen,
(2) a high potential for causing infections in susceptible species, affecting critical age groups,
(3) a capacity for hyperlethality, defined here as mortality rates in the range of 5075%.
Only under the most extreme conditions is it conceivable that a species would suffer extinction in a single epizootic event. Much more likely would be repeated outbreaks over a period of years gradually reducing the fitness level of
the species, with final disappearance potentially caused by stochastic events (such as causally unassociated climate change). One way in which this condition might be achieved would be through a stable carrier (i.e., a species other
than the target, living in similar circumstances in the same environment, and in which the infection is inapparent or at least sublethal). A well-studied example is the transfer of simian acquired immunodeficiency virus from one
species of macaque to another [26]. Although this instance occurred under captive conditions, repeated outbreaks of distemper in lions and African wild dogs have long been thought to be due to transfer from domestic dogs (although
the mechanism is debated; see [27]). Obviously, for a disease to have a very severe impact, it would be necessary for the pathogen to occur in highly lethal, aggressive strains that strongly impact the target species before attenuated
strains arise and become common.
High potential for causing infections in a susceptible species is usually associated with the ability to successfully enter the organism through a major portal, such as the respiratory tract, where it can be lodged and transmitted easily
(e.g., via aerosol). To achieve hyperlethality and produce serious mortality, all age groups within a species would probably have to be susceptible, not just the very young or very old (or the immunocompromised), with death the usual

outcome. In large-bodied mammals, a fundamental consideration is that any process that deleteriously affects young
individuals will have a pronounced effect on survivorship because of the lengthy intervals in birth spacing [19].
Lethality in the range of 5075% is obviously extremely high and thus extremely unusual, although historically seen in Ebola
infections in humans and in experimental transmission studies from pigs to macaques [28]. High percentages may have also been achieved in rinderpest outbreaks among East African bovids in the early 20th
century [29], although quantitative data on this are largely lacking. An important issue here, however, is whether pathogens causing this level of
lethality could maintain themselves in nature long enough to seriously imperil a species. Speculatively, a possible outcome
with hyperlethal infections producing a rapid, fatal outcome is that affected populations would be reduced to small
numbers of widely dispersed and/or relatively or completely immune individuals. Under these circumstances, the epizootic would
necessarily abate as it ran out of new hosts, leading to the conclusion that exceptionally lethal diseases cannot be
indefinitely maintained in a population or species under normal circumstances. However, if reservoirs exist from which the pathogen could
repeatedly emerge , in principle epizootics might resurge year after year until population sizes were reduced below
viable levels (~50500 individuals). At this point stochastic effects might intervene and lead to complete loss of the species.
Among possible examples of this perfect storm of circumstances and consequences is the loss of Christmas Island rats, detailed elsewhere in this paper. Among birds, the severe impact of avian malaria on Hawaiian honeycreepers is
also pertinent and discussed later in this paper. Although a number of honeycreeper species survive at high elevations, above the limit at which introduced Culex mosquitos can survive, there are multiple adventitious threats, such as
deforestation and competition from invasive species, which add to their endangerment picture [30].

Resistance isnt self-limiting best studies

Economist 11 [The Economist, 3-31-2011 http://www.economist.com/node/18483671]
There are basic biological reasons, too, for thinking that resistance may be self-limiting. For a bug, being resistant is costly. It
has to adjust its physiology, and resistance often works by making enzymes that degrade the drug, or by producing extra copies
of proteins that pump the drug out of the bacterial cell, both of which require a lot of energy. Some creatures cannot seem to
manage the trick at allat least for certain drugs. One species of Streptococcus, called S. pyogenese, has never been seen to throw up a penicillin-resistant
strain, whereas another, S. pneumoniae, is frequently not susceptible to that drug (see chart 1). In these circumstances, the theory goes, a resistant organism is less a
superbug and more a cosseted creature that can beat the competition only in the unfair arena of a hospital or a clinic. Another reason, then, for accepting the status
quo. Unfortunately, this comforting argument may not be wholly true . In the Lancet in 2007 Herman Goossens, a microbiologist at the
University of Antwerp, laid out the results of a trial designed to investigate the idea. His team divided healthy volunteers into three groups.
To one group they gave an antibiotic called azithromycin. To another they gave a second, clarithromycin. To the third they gave a placebo. They then followed the
progress of the Streptococci in each volunteer's throat. As expected, those who were taking the placebo showed no signs of drug-resistant strains of Streptococcus at
any time during the study. Also as expected, the Streptococci in those taking the antibiotics showed sharply elevated levels of resistance within days. What was
surprisingand worrying for those who think that resistant bacteria will do better than the non-resistant wild type only while the selective pressure remains onwas
that those populations of Streptococci which acquired resistance retained it for over a year. The evolutionary logic behind the
argument that resistant organisms are inferior is seductive. But in case it is wrong , and because resistance clearly is a problem anywayeven if a
vastly smaller one than not having antibiotics at allthe second response is to try to rein in overuse.

Resistance can jump bacteria make them even more dangerous

McKenna 13 [Maryn McKenna is an independent journalist Senior Fellow of the Schuster Institute for Investigative
Journalism at Brandeis University and a research affiliate at MIT 7-24-2013 http://www.nature.com/news/antibiotic-
resistance-the-last-resort-1.13426]
As a rule, high-ranking public-health officials try to avoid apocalyptic descriptors . So it was worrying to hear Thomas Frieden and Sally Davies warn of a

coming health nightmare and a catastrophic threat within a few days of each other in March. The agency heads were talking about the soaring
increase in a little-known class of antibiotic-resistant bacteria: carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CREs). Davies, the United Kingdom's chief medical officer, described CREs as a risk as serious as

terrorism (see Nature 495, 141; 2013). We have a very serious problem, and we need to sound an alarm, said Frieden, director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta, Georgia. Their dire

phrasing was warranted. CREs cause bladder, lung and blood infections that can spiral into life-threatening septic shock. They evade the action of almost all antibiotics including the carbapenems, which are
considered drugs of last resort and they kill up to half of all patients who contract them. In the United States, these bacteria have been found in 4% of all hospitals and 18% of those that offer long-term critical care. And an analysis
carried out in the United Kingdom predicts that if antibiotics become ineffective, everyday operations such as hip replacements could end in death for as many as one in six1. The language used by Davies and Frieden was intended to
break through the indifference with which the public usually greets news about antibiotic resistance. To close observers, however, it also had a tinge of exasperation. CREs were first identified almost 15 years ago, but did not become
a public-health priority until recently, and medics may not have appreciated the threat that they posed. Looking back, say observers, there are lessons for researchers and health-care workers in how to protect patients, as well as those
hospitals where CREs have not yet emerged. It is not too late to intervene and prevent these from becoming more common, says Alexander Kallen, a medical epidemiologist at the CDC. At the same time, he acknowledges that in

researchers at the CDC

many places, CREs are here for good. More on antibiotics: Farming up trouble Hindsight is key to the story of CREs, because it was hindsight that identified them in the first place. In 2000,

were grinding through analyses for a surveillance programme known as Intensive Care Antimicrobial Resistance Epidemiology (ICARE), which had been running for six years to monitor
intensive-care units for unusual resistance factors. In the programme's backlog of biological samples, scientists identified one from the Enterobacteriaceae family, a group of gut-dwelling bacteria. This particular sample of
Klebsiella pneumoniae, a common cause of infection in intensive-care units had been taken from a patient at a hospital in North Carolina in 1996 (ref. 2). It was weakly resistant to carbapenems, powerful broad-spectrum antibiotics
developed in the 1980s. Antibiotics have been falling to resistance for almost as long as people have been using them; Alexander Fleming, who discovered penicillin, warned about the possibility when he accepted his Nobel prize in
1945. Knowing this, doctors have used the most effective drugs sparingly: careful rationing of the powerful antibiotic vancomycin, for example, meant that bacteria took three decades to develop resistance to it. Prudent use,
researchers thought, would keep the remaining last-resort drugs such as the carbapenems effective for decades. The North Carolinan strain of Klebsiella turned that idea on its head. It produced an enzyme, dubbed KPC (for Klebsiella

the gene that encoded the enzyme sat on a plasmid, a piece of DNA that can
pneumoniae carbapenemase), that broke down carbapenems. What's more,

move easily from one bacterium to another . Carbapenem resistance had arrived. At first, however, microbiologists considered this CRE to be a
lone case. Jean Patel, a microbiologist who is now deputy director of the CDC's office of antimicrobial resistance, says that CDC staff were reassured by the fact that the sample had been collected four years earlier and that
testing of the remaining archives revealed no further instances of resistance. It wasn't that there was a lack in interest in looking for these, Patel says. Instead, the attitude at the time was, We have a system for identifying these and

But the CDC's surveillance programme was limited : it tracked only 41 hospitals out of some 6,000
it's working, and if more occur we'll hear about it.

and its analyses lagged far behind sample collection . So when carbapenem resistance emerged again, years passed before
anyone noticed .

burn-outs wrong
Torrey and Yolken 5 E. Fuller and Robert H, Directors Stanley Medical Research Institute, 2005, Beasts of the Earth:
Animals, Humans and Disease, pp. 5-6
 For many years, it was believed that microbes and human slowly learn to live
The outcome of this marriage, however, is not as clearly defined as it was once thought to be.

with each other as microbes evolve toward a benign coexistence wit their hosts. Thus, the bacterium that causes syphilis was thought to be extremely virulent when it initially spread among
humans in the sixteenth century, then to have slowly become less virulent over the following three centuries. This reassuring view of microbial history has recently been challenged by Paul Ewald and others, who have questioned whether microbes do necessarily evolve toward long-term

accommodation with their hosts. Under certain circumstances, Ewald argues, Natural selection mayfavor the evolution of extreme harmfulness if the exploitation that damages the host

The outcome of such a marriage may thus be the murder of one spouse
[i.e. disease] enhances the ability of the harmful variant to compete with a more benign pathogen.

by the other . In eschatological terms, this view argues that a microbe such as HIV or SARS virus may be truly capable of eradicating the
human race.
 Impact---BioPharma---Disease A2: No Pandemics

its likely, spreads globally in months, and makes every impact inevitable
Clapper 13 Director of National Intelligence (James R., Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence, 3/12/13; <www.intelligence.senate.gov/130312/clapper.pdf>)//Beddow
Scientists continue to discover previously unknown pathogens in humans that made the jump from animals
zoonotic diseases. Examples are: a prion disease in cattle that jumped in the 1980s to cause variant Creutzeldt-Jacob disease; a bat
henipavirus that in 1999 became known as the human Nipah Virus; a bat corona virus that jumped to humans in 2002 to cause Severe Acute
Respiratory Syndrome (SARS); and another SARS-like corona virus recently identified in individuals who have been in Saudi Arabia, which
might also have bat origins. Human and livestock population growth and encroachment into jungles increase human
exposure to crossovers. No one can predict which pathogen will be the next to spread to humans, or when or
where such a development will occur, but humans will continue to be vulnerable to pandemics, most of which
will probably originate in animals. An easily transmissible, novel respiratory pathogen that kills or
incapacitates more than one percent of its victims is among the most disruptive events possible. Such an
outbreak would result in a global pandemic that causes suffering and death in every corner of the world, probably in
fewer than six months. This is not a hypothetical threat. History is replete with examples of pathogens sweeping
populations that lack immunity, causing political and economic upheaval, and influencing the outcomes of
warsfor example, the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic affected military operations during World War I and caused
global economic disruptions. The World Health Organization has described one influenza pandemic as the epidemiological equivalent of
a flash flood. However, slow-spreading pathogens, such as HIV/AIDS, have been just as deadly, if not more so. Such a pathogen with
pandemic potential may have already jumped to humans somewhere; HIV/AIDS entered the human population more than 50
years before it was recognized and identified. In addition, targeted therapeutics and vaccines might be inadequate to keep up
with the size and speed of the threat, and drug-resistant forms of diseases, such as tuberculosis, gonorrhea, and
Staphylococcus aureus, have already emerged.

inevitable rapidly mutating pandemics medical innovation key to solve

Jeffery Sachs 14Professor of Sustainable Development, Health Policy and Management @ Columbia University
[Jeffrey D. Sachs (Director of the Earth Institute @ Columbia University and Special adviser to the United Nations
Secretary-General on the Millennium Development Goals) Important lessons from Ebola outbreak, Business
World Online, August 17, 2014, http://tinyurl.com/kjgvyro]

Ebola is the latest of many recent epidemics, also including AIDS, SARS, H1N1 flu, H7N9 flu, and others. AIDS is the
deadliest of these killers, claiming nearly 36 million lives since 1981. Of course, even larger and more sudden epidemics are possible , such
as the 1918 influenza during World War I, which claimed 50-100 million lives (far more than the war itself). And, though the 2003 SARS
outbreak was contained, causing fewer than 1,000 deaths, the disease was on the verge of deeply disrupting several East Asian economies including Chinas. There
are four crucial facts to understand about Ebola and the other epidemics. First, most emerging infectious diseases are
zoonoses, meaning that they start in animal populations, sometimes with a genetic mutation that enables the jump to
humans. Ebola may have been transmitted from bats; HIV/AIDS emerged from chimpanzees; SARS most likely came from civets traded in animal markets in
southern China; and influenza strains such as H1N1 and H7N9 arose from genetic re-combinations of viruses among wild and farm animals. New zoonotic
diseases are inevitable as humanity pushes into new ecosystems (such as formerly remote forest regions); the food industry
creates more conditions for genetic recombination; and climate change scrambles natural habitats and species
interactions. Second, once a new infectious disease appears, its spread through airlines, ships, megacities, and trade in animal products
is likely to be extremely rapid . These epidemic diseases are new markers of globalization, revealing through their
chain of death how vulnerable the world has become from the pervasive movement of people and goods. Third, the poor are the first to
suffer and the worst affected. The rural poor live closest to the infected animals that first transmit the disease . They
often hunt and eat bushmeat, leaving them vulnerable to infection. Poor, often illiterate, individuals are generally unaware of how
infectious diseases -- especially unfamiliar diseases -- are transmitted, making them much more likely to become infected and to infect others. Moreover,
given poor nutrition and lack of access to basic health services, their weakened immune systems are easily
overcome by infections that better nourished and treated individuals can survive. And de-medicalized conditions -- with few if any
professional health workers to ensure an appropriate public-health response to an epidemic (such as isolation of infected individuals, tracing of contacts, surveillance,
and so forth) -- make initial outbreaks more severe. Finally, the required medical responses, including diagnostic tools and effective medications and
vaccines, inevitably lag behind the emerging diseases. In any event, such tools
must be continually replenished . This requires cutting-
edge biotechnology, immunology, and ultimately bioengineering to create large-scale industrial responses (such as
millions of doses of vaccines or medicines in the case of large epidemics). The AIDS crisis, for example, called forth tens of billions of dollars for research and
development -- and similarly substantial commitments by the pharmaceutical industry -- to produce lifesaving antiretroviral drugs at global scale. Yet each
breakthrough inevitably leads to the pathogens mutation , rendering previous treatments less effective. There is no ultimate
victory, only a constant arms race between humanity and disease-causing agents.
 Impact---BioPharma---Disease---A2: Surveillance Solves

Surveillance doesnt solve resistance cant detect patterns soon enough, limited program
McKenna 13 [Maryn McKenna is an independent journalist Senior Fellow of the Schuster Institute for Investigative
Journalism at Brandeis University and a research affiliate at MIT 7-24-2013 http://www.nature.com/news/antibiotic-
resistance-the-last-resort-1.13426]
As a rule, high-ranking public-health officials try to avoid apocalyptic descriptors . So it was worrying to hear Thomas Frieden and Sally Davies warn of a

coming health nightmare and a catastrophic threat within a few days of each other in March. The agency heads were talking about the soaring
increase in a little-known class of antibiotic-resistant bacteria: carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CREs). Davies, the United Kingdom's chief medical officer, described CREs as a risk as serious as

terrorism (see Nature 495, 141; 2013). We have a very serious problem, and we need to sound an alarm, said Frieden, director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta, Georgia. Their dire

phrasing was warranted. CREs cause bladder, lung and blood infections that can spiral into life-threatening septic shock. They evade the action of almost all antibiotics including the carbapenems, which are
considered drugs of last resort and they kill up to half of all patients who contract them. In the United States, these bacteria have been found in 4% of all hospitals and 18% of those that offer long-term critical care. And an analysis
carried out in the United Kingdom predicts that if antibiotics become ineffective, everyday operations such as hip replacements could end in death for as many as one in six1. The language used by Davies and Frieden was intended to
break through the indifference with which the public usually greets news about antibiotic resistance. To close observers, however, it also had a tinge of exasperation. CREs were first identified almost 15 years ago, but did not become
a public-health priority until recently, and medics may not have appreciated the threat that they posed. Looking back, say observers, there are lessons for researchers and health-care workers in how to protect patients, as well as those
hospitals where CREs have not yet emerged. It is not too late to intervene and prevent these from becoming more common, says Alexander Kallen, a medical epidemiologist at the CDC. At the same time, he acknowledges that in

researchers at the CDC

many places, CREs are here for good. More on antibiotics: Farming up trouble Hindsight is key to the story of CREs, because it was hindsight that identified them in the first place. In 2000,

were grinding through analyses for a surveillance programme known as Intensive Care Antimicrobial Resistance Epidemiology (ICARE), which had been running for six years to monitor
intensive-care units for unusual resistance factors. In the programme's backlog of biological samples, scientists identified one from the Enterobacteriaceae family, a group of gut-dwelling bacteria. This particular sample of
Klebsiella pneumoniae, a common cause of infection in intensive-care units had been taken from a patient at a hospital in North Carolina in 1996 (ref. 2). It was weakly resistant to carbapenems, powerful broad-spectrum antibiotics
developed in the 1980s. Antibiotics have been falling to resistance for almost as long as people have been using them; Alexander Fleming, who discovered penicillin, warned about the possibility when he accepted his Nobel prize in
1945. Knowing this, doctors have used the most effective drugs sparingly: careful rationing of the powerful antibiotic vancomycin, for example, meant that bacteria took three decades to develop resistance to it. Prudent use,
researchers thought, would keep the remaining last-resort drugs such as the carbapenems effective for decades. The North Carolinan strain of Klebsiella turned that idea on its head. It produced an enzyme, dubbed KPC (for Klebsiella

the gene that encoded the enzyme sat on a plasmid, a piece of DNA that can
pneumoniae carbapenemase), that broke down carbapenems. What's more,

move easily from one bacterium to another. Carbapenem resistance had arrived. At first, however, microbiologists considered this CRE to be a
lone case. Jean Patel, a microbiologist who is now deputy director of the CDC's office of antimicrobial resistance, says that CDC staff were reassured by the fact that the sample had been collected four years earlier and that
testing of the remaining archives revealed no further instances of resistance. It wasn't that there was a lack in interest in looking for these, Patel says. Instead, the attitude at the time was, We have a system for identifying these and

But the CDC's surveillance programme was limited : it tracked only 41 hospitals out of some 6,000
it's working, and if more occur we'll hear about it.

and its analyses lagged far behind sample collection . So when carbapenem resistance emerged again, years passed before
anyone noticed .
Impact - Competitiveness
 Impact---Competitiveness---2NC

Tax reform to US competitiveness

Trotter 16 Gayle Trotter, Senior Fellow at Independent Women's Forum, Political Analyst and Tax Attorney,
Trump's Corporate Tax Plan Will Make America Competitive Again, Washington Examiner, 12-21,
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trumps-corporate-tax-plan-will-make-america-competitive-
again/article/2610172
The corporate tax reforms proposed by President-elect Trump promise to make America competitive again in the global

economy, and Congress should work to implement the changes quickly.

Lowering the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 15 percent will help, not only to keep businesses here, but also bring jobs and
innovation back home by reducing wacky incentives for U nited S tates companies to migrate offshore in tax-driven
"inversion" deals.
In response to a fairer, more efficient tax system you can expect to hear anguished caterwauling from Trump's opponents. These critics object that the top 1 percent will get 47 percent of the total
our existing tax system, which works against the
benefits in the Trump tax plan while the bottom 60 percent will get just 10 percent. The critique misunderstands

American people and favors special interests and out-of-touch politicos who fund their own pet projects by
spending taxpayer dollars with abandon.
Everybody does whatever they can to pay the least amount of tax possible, including Warren Buffett and the rest of the super-wealthy.
Buffett embarrassed the Obama administration by orchestrating a corporate tax inversion of Burger King while the administration changed tax rules to limit the availability of corporate
inversions, rather than taking the easy, obvious, and more effective step of simply lowering the corporate tax rate. The Trump tax plan takes that easy step.
You can also expect to hear more of the same redistributionist, spread-the-wealth-around arguments about how socking it to the upper brackets will enhance the lot of middle-income earners. It's
another example of attractive rhetoric making bad policy.
Our current average corporate tax rate of 39.1 percent , with state and local taxes included, is the highest among members of the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a forum of 35 democratic countries with market economies.
One way or another, all corporations are ultimately owned by flesh-and-blood humans. Rhetoric aside, it is not the corporation that suffers from high taxes. Shareholders bear the tax burden
leveled against corporations, as noted by the public policy group Just Facts.
Main Street suffers too. The American worker bears as much as 25 percent of the cost of corporate tax, according to a Congressional Budget Office estimate. Worse still, when taxes are
too high, workers become former workers . Rising minimum wage laws incentivized
Corporations vote with their feet , moving their tax domicile from the U.S. to countries with lower corporate tax
rates, in the same way that retired New Yorkers shelter retirement income by abandoning their high-tax state for a state without an income tax, such as Florida.
Thanks to Washington's perversely backward tax policies, most Americans have seen their income stagnate as China
and India become world economic powerhouses .
Consumers suffer as well. Too-high corporate taxes guarantee higher costs for consumers everywhere, from the gas pump and the grocery store to the car showroom and the appliance dealer.
the Trump tax plan would actually help increase overall federal revenues . In June, the Tax Foundation
Beyond helping workers and consumers,

tax reform draft would raise at least $100 billion more per year for the federal government by
reported that a House Republican
broadening the tax base. This would put a solid dent in our annual deficits, which are expected to rise above $1 trillion dollars per year in the near future.
For too many years, both the executive and legislative branches have allowed a broken tax regime to persist. Rather than repairing a flawed system, they worked to extend tax breaks for special
interests while ignoring the American worker and Main Street businesses.
With the promise of meaningful tax reform within the Trump administration's first 100 days , the U.S. will take its
first steps toward a globally competitive tax policy. What's not great about that result?

Competiveness prevents great power war

Colby and Lettow 14 (Elbridge and Paul, Robert M. Gates fellow @ Center for a New American Security + senior
director for strategic planning on the U.S. National Security Council staff from 2007 to 2009, 7/3, Have We Hit
Peak America?, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/07/03/have_we_hit_peak_america)

In other words, a greater number of Americans are worried about diminishing U.S. influence today than in the face of feared Soviet
technological superiority in the late 1950s, the Vietnam quagmire of the late 1960s, the 1973 oil embargo, the apparent resurgence of Soviet power around the 1979
invasion of Afghanistan, and the economic concerns that plagued the late 1980sthe five waves of so-called declinist anxiety that political scientist Samuel
Huntington famously identified. Many analysts have attributed Americans current anxiety to the aftershock of waging two long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the
polls actually reflect something deeper and more potenta legitimate, increasingly tactile uncertainty in the minds of the American people
created by changes in the world and in Americas competitive position , which they feel far more immediately than do the participants in Washington
policy debates. Average Americans do not experience the world through the lens of great-power rivalry or U.S. leadership abroad, but rather through that of an
increasingly competitive globalized labor market, stagnating income growth among the middle class, and deep and unresolved worries about their childrens future. A
recent cnn poll, for instance, found that Americans think by a 2-to-1 margin that their childrens lives will be worse than their own. They are questioning the promise
of growth and expanding opportunitythe very substance of the American dream. This anxiety is real and justified, and it lies behind much of the publics support for
withdrawing from the world, for retrenchment. Yet American leadership and engagement remain essential. The United States cannot hide
from the world. Rather, it must
compete. And if it competes well, it can restore not only its economic health, but also its
strength for the long haul. That resilience will preserve Americans ability to determine their fate and the nations ability to lead in the way its interests
require. Unfortunately, absent from current discussions about U.S. foreign policy has been a hardheaded assessment of what it will actually take to rejuvenate and
compete. Policymakers and experts have not yet taken a clear-eyed look at the data and objectively analyzed the
fundamental shifts under way globally and what they mean for Americas competitive position. Nor have they debated the steps necessary to sustain U.S.
power over the long term. THE WORLDS ECONOMIC CENTER OF GRAVITY The larger a countrys GDP, the greater its pull on the worlds economic center of
gravity. So when the Industrial Revolution spurred massive growth in the United States, the center moved west, eventually out over the Atlantic Ocean. Today, it is
moving back toward Asia. Many foreign-policy experts seem to believe that retaining American primacy is largely a matter of willof how America chooses to exert
its power abroad. Even President Obama, more often accused of being a prophet of decline than a booster of Americas future, recently asserted that the United States
has rarely been stronger relative to the rest of the world. The question, he continued, is not whether America will lead, but how we will lead. But will is
unavailing without strength. If the United States wants the international system to continue to reflect its interests and
valuesa system, for example, in which the global commons are protected, trade is broad-based and extensive, and
armed conflicts among great nations are curtailed it needs to sustain not just resolve, but relative power . That, in turn,
will require acknowledging the uncomfortable truth that global power and wealth are shifting at an unprecedented
pace, with profound implications. Moreover, many of the challenges America faces are exacerbated by vulnerabilities that are largely self-created, chief among them
fiscal policy. Much more quickly and comprehensively than is understood, those vulnerabilities are reducing Americas freedom of action
and its ability to influence others. Preserving Americas international position will require it to restore its economic
vitality and make policy choices now that pay dividends for decades to come. America has to prioritize and to act. Fortunately, the United
States still enjoys greater freedom to determine its future than any other major power, in part because many of its problems are within its ability to address. But this
process of renewal must begin with analyzing Americas competitive position and understanding the gravity of the situation
Americans face. FOR THE FIRST TIME IN 200 YEARS, MOST GROWTH IS OCCURRING IN THE DEVELOPING WORLD, and the speed with which that
shifta function of globalizationhas occurred is hard to fathom. Whereas in 1990 just 14 percent of cross-border flows of goods, services, and finances originated
in emerging economies, today nearly 40 percent do. As recently as 2000, the gdp of China was one-tenth that of the United States; just 14 years later, the two
economies are equal (at least in terms of purchasing power parity). This shift reorders what was, in some sense, a historical anomaly: the transatlantic dominance of
the past 150 years. As illustrated by the map below, it wasnt until the Industrial Revolution took hold in the 19th century that the worlds economic center of
gravity decisively moved toward Europe and the United States, which have since been the primary engines of growth. Today, however, the
economic center
of gravity is headed back toward Asia, and it is doing so with unique historical speed. This trend will persist even though
emerging economies are hitting roadblocks to growth, such as pervasive corruption in India and demographic challenges and serious distortions in the banking system
in China. For instance, according to the asset-management firm BlackRock and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (oecd), consumption in
emerging markets has already eclipsed that in the United States, and spending by the middle classes in Asia-Pacific nations is on track to exceed middle-class
spending in North America by a factor of nearly six by 2030. U.S. wealth is not shrinking in absolute termsand it continues to benefit from
economic globalizationbut the United States and its allies are losing might compared with potential rivals . Although Europe and
Japan have been responsible for much of the developed worlds lost relative economic power, the U.S. economy has also slowed from its traditional rates of expansion
over the past several decades. Worsening productivity growth has played a particularly large role in the U.S. slowdown, dropping to
around 0.5 percent annually, which the Financial Times has referred to as a productivity crisis. A range of factors are responsible, including a decline in the skill
level of the American workforce and a drop in resources allocated to research and development. U.S. REVENUE VS. SPENDING By 2043, federal spending on
entitlements and net interest payments will exceed federal revenues, meaning funds for any discretionary programs will be borrowed. Overall, the U.S. economy has
become less competitive. The McKinsey Global Institute, for instance, has measured the relative attractiveness of the United States across a range of metrics, such as
national spending on research and development and foreign direct investment as a percentage of gdp. It found that U.S. business attractiveness relative
to that of competitors fell across 14 of 20 key metrics from 2000 to 2010and improved in none. And according to the Harvard Business Review, U.S.
exports global market share dropped across the board from 1999 to 2009 and suffered particularly sharp falls in cutting-edge fields such as aerospace. This shift
in economic growth toward the developing world is going to have strategic consequences. Military power ultimately
derives from wealth. It is often noted that the United States spends more on defense than the next 10 countries combined. But growth in military spending
correlates with gdp growth, so as other economies grow, those countries will likely spend more on defense, reducing the
relative military power of the United States. Already, trends in global defense spending show a rapid and marked shift from the United States and its
allies toward emerging economies, especially China. In 2011, the United States and its partners accounted for approximately 80 percent of the military spending by the
15 countries with the largest defense budgets. But, according to a McKinsey study, that share could fall significantly over the next eight yearsperhaps to as low as
55 percent. The resulting deterioration in American military superiority has already begun, as the countries benefiting most rapidly from globalization are using their
newfound wealth to build military capacity, especially in high-tech weaponry. As Robert Work and Shawn Brimley of the Center for a New American Security wrote
this year: [T]he dominance enjoyed by the United States in the late 1990s/early 2000s in the areas of high-end sensors, guided weaponry, battle networking, space
and cyberspace systems, and stealth technology has started to erode. Moreover, this erosion is now occurring at an accelerated rate. (Work has since been confirmed
as deputy secretary of defense.)
 Impact---Competitiveness---Tax Cuts Key

Competitiveness is in a long term decline now because our corporate tax rates reform key
Engler, 13 --- John, Governor of Michigan, et al, Business Roundtable, Corporate Tax ReformThe Time Is
Now, Submission to the House Committee on Ways and Means, Tax Reform Working Groups, 41513, p. 11-
15.

Global trade and investment is increasingly important to world economies The growing global interconnections of the worlds
economies are evident in our daily life. Global trade has increased from 19 percent of world output in 1980 to 29 percent in 2011. Global cross-border investment has
increased even more rapidly, rising from 5 percent of world output in 1980 to 31 percent in 2011 (Exhibit 5). The United States also has increased participation in
global markets over this period, expanding both trade and foreign direct investment relative to U.S. GDP (Exhibit 6): Exports of goods and services have increased
to an average of 13.3 percent of GDP in 201012, up from an average of 8.4 percent of GDP in the 1980s.20 The share of total corporate earnings from abroad has
increased to an average of 34.3 percent in 201012, up from an average of 16.7 percent in the 1980s.21 Foreign direct investment by American companies has
increased to an average of 31.3 percent of GDP in 201011 (the two most recent years for which data are available), up from an average of 9.9 percent of GDP in the
1980s.22 U.S. share of world exports and foreign investment is in decline Despite the increased importance of foreign markets to the U.S. economy, American
companies have not kept pace with expanding global markets. In 2011, exports from the United States accounted for about 9.4 percent of
world exports, down from 17 percent in 1960. U.S. outward investment as a share of worldwide crossborder investment has declined even more significantly. In 2011,
outward foreign direct investment from the United States accounted for about 21 percent of global cross-border investment, down from 39 percent in 1980 (Exhibit 7).
With American companies responsible for a smaller share of world exports and cross-border investment, the U.S.
economy is losing its share of the global marketplace to foreign competitors. American companies account for a
declining share of the Global Fortune 500. The declining relative importance of American companies in the world economy
also is reflected in the rankings of the largest companies in the world. In 1960, American companies comprised 17 of the top 20 global
companies ranked by sales. In 2012, the latest data show just five American companies in the top 20.23 Among the companies listed in the Global Fortune 500, the
number of U.S.-headquartered companies declined 26 percent between 2000 and 2012, from 179 to 132. The countries with the largest number of additions to the top
500 global companies over this period were the socalled BRICs: China added 63, India added seven, and Brazil and Russia each added five (Exhibit 8). In 2012, China
was second to the United States in the number of companies in the top 500, up from 14th in 1995. Growth of the emerging market economies will continue to offer
new markets for Americanproduced goods and services 95 percent of the worlds population growth is forecast to be in emerging markets, with increasing
spending by their middle-class populations relative to developed countries. 24 Goldman Sachs estimates that within the next 10 years emerging market economies in
aggregate will be as large as industrialized economies.25 American companies compete in these emerging markets with both locally headquartered companies as well
as multinational companies headquartered in other developed countries. Within the OECD, 93 percent of the non-U.S. companies in the Global Fortune 500 in 2012
are headquartered in countries that use more favorable territorial tax systems, and all have a lower home-country corporate tax rate. 26 Reflecting the increasing use of
territorial systems around the world, in 1995 only 27 percent of the non-U.S. OECD companies in the Global Fortune 500 were headquartered in territorial countries.
This heightened world competition makes U.S. corporate tax policy more important than ever. American companies require
an internationally competitive tax system to compete on a level playing field with their most advanced competitors from around the world in markets at home and
abroad. WhereverAmerican companies compete abroad, they are virtually certain to be competing against foreign
companies with more favorable tax rules. Corporate tax rules that hinder the competitiveness of American
companies disadvantage American workers and impede the strength of the U.S. economy.

High corporate taxes ensure slow growth and hinders competitiveness in the long term
Tori Whiting 16, Research Assistant in the Center for Trade and Economics at The Heritage Foundation, August 4 th,
Soaring Business Taxes Hurt Americas Ability to Compete, The Daily Signal,
http://dailysignal.com/2016/08/04/soaring-business-taxes-hurt-americas-ability-to-compete/, Date Accessed: 8-29-
16

As a result, the U.S. now has the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world, exceeding the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development average
by nearly 15 percentage points. By
maintaining such a high corporate tax rate, the U nited S tates hinders its
competitiveness in the global economy . In 1993, the U.S. corporate tax rate was increased from 34 to 35 percent, where it has remained since.
Corporations in the U.S. also are subject to state and local taxes, resulting in a combined average corporate tax rate of 39 percent. In contrast, Estonia, for example,
has decreased its corporate tax rate by 6 percentage points since 2005. Hong Kong has a simple and efficient tax system, and a top corporate tax rate of only 16.5
percent. According to Curtis S. Dubay and David R. Burton, research fellow and senior fellow at The Heritage Foundation, respectively, the
current business
tax system is slowing investment , which depresses economic growth , slows job creation , and suppresses
wages . These problems are reflected in Heritages 2016 Index of Economic Freedom, where the U.S. is ranked 154th out of 178 countries
in fiscal freedom . In June, House Republicans released a blueprint for tax reform, which included proposals to change the way the government taxes
corporations and other businesses. Reforms clearly are needed. In the end, reforming the corporate tax rate is about making
America a place where domestic and foreign businesses can invest , grow , and prosper while supporting jobs
right here at home.
Corporate rate reduction solvesglobalization magnifies the impact
Robert Carroll 11, National Director at the Quantitative Economics and Statistics at Ernst & Young LLP,
September, The Economic Benefits of Reducing the US Corporate Income Tax Rate, Ernst and Young LLP,
http://ratecoalition.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/ey-report-economic-benefits-of-a-lower-corporate-tax-rate-
2011-09-17.pdf, Date Accessed: 8-30-16

Increased competitiveness of the United States in the global economy Most other developed nations have lowered their corporate
tax rates over the past decade while the U.S. corporate tax rate has remained unchanged. At the same time, increasing
globalization amplifies the importance of differences in corporate tax rates across countries. In a global economy capital flows more freely
across borders. Increased capital mobility makes it more sensitive to differential in its tax treatment. In addition, other
advantages the U nited States once held such as a highly educated work force, large open markets, and infrastructure
are less significant as former ly developing countries mature in the global economy. Rates have fallen in other nations, while the
US corporate tax rate has remained unchanged As shown in Figure 2, the US statutory corporate income tax rate has remained largely unchanged for over two
decades. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 lowered the top federal corporate income tax rate from 46% to 34%, which was followed by a 1% increase in 1993, bringing
the rate to its current level of 35%. At the beginning of the 1980s, the US statutory corporate income tax rate was slightly above the OECD average, but since the late
1980s most other developed nations have reduced their statutory corporate income tax rates to levels often significantly below those of the United States. Today, the
United States has a 39.2% combined federal-state statutory corporate income tax rate, which is significantly above the average 25.5% rate within the OECD (or 29.9%
when weighted by GDP). Countries continue to lower their corporate tax rates. Of the 34 OECD nations, 30 have lowered their statutory corporate income tax rates
since 2000. The United Kingdom is scheduled to lower its corporate tax rate to 23% by 2015. Canada has lowered its federal corporate tax rate to 16.5% in 2011, with
a reduction to 15% in 2013. 8 The Japanese government earlier proposed lowering their corporate tax rate by five percentage point, but has been deferred due to the
tsunami. Some policy analysts argue the US statutory corporate income tax rate is not the right measure for comparing
the United States to other nations because it does not reflect differences in the tax base. The same trends, however, are
reflected in other metrics for comparing effective corporate income tax rates. In several recent studies the effective
marginal tax rates on new investment were found to be higher in the U nited States than the average for member
nations of the OECD.9 In another study on effective tax rates based on financial statement data, the United States had an effective tax rate that was the
second highest among the 15 countries analyzed, exceeded only by Japan.10 Furthermore, statutory tax rates do matter, and have significant economic effects as
described below. Globalization
amplifies the economic effects from differences in corporate tax rates Changes in the
corporate income tax rate are much more important in the current global economy than in the past. Capital flows more
freely across borders, and other countries economies have grown rapidly as they have adopted more market-economy policies. Nearly one-third of the US economy is
now integrated with the rest of the world through international trade. US imports and exports increased dramatically over the past half century, growing 311%
between 1962 and 2007, and now representing 29% of US gross domestic product (GDP). The total stock of foreign direct investment by US companies grew to
30.3% of GDP in 2009, up from just 7.7% in 1980.11 For
many US companies, foreign operations account for more than half of all
sales. Foreign investments by US companies are expected to accelerate , as the International Monetary Fund projects 69% of the worlds
growth through 2014 will occur in developing countries. Table 1 shows the rapidly changing global economy from the perspective of the locations of headquarters of
the Fortune Global 500 companies. The number of Fortune Global 500 headquarters in the United States and Japan, the two major economies with the highest
corporate income tax rates, has fallen 30 percent in just the past eleven years. The
United States is the only country in the top ten that has
not reduced its corporate tax rate in the past eleven years. The US corporate rate is eight percent age points above
the average for the other top ten countries and almost ten percentage points above all of the other major global companies. This globalization makes it
easier for businesses and investors to reallocate or move their capital across borders in response to differences in
countries tax policies, which amplifies the detrimental effects of a high US corporate income tax rate. Research has found that the corporate income tax can
have a large impact on where multinational companies choose to place their production facilities and on the size of these investments.12 A lower US corporate tax rate
The Economic Benefits of Reducing the US Corporate Income Tax Rate would reduce the tax on repatriated
earnings of US-headquartered multinational corporations, and reduce the competitive disadvantage US
multinationals currently have in bidding against foreign competitors for acquisition targets. Additional US investment is important
because it can spur additional local employment, increases in productivity that spill over to other segments of the
local economy, and other benefits commonly associated with foreign direct investment. Research generally finds that foreign direct investment is
highly sensitive to cross-country differences in after-tax returns. One study summarizing research in this area found that a 1 percentage point reduction in a host
countrys tax rate increased foreign direct investment by 2.9% and also found that the responsiveness of foreign direct investment has risen over time.13 Foreign
direct investment in the US supported 5 million US jobs in 201014; additional foreign investment would result in additional US employment.

CTR is crucial to competiveness

Michele Davis, Partner, Brunswick Group, Why Corporate Tax Reform Is A Must, INSIGHT, American Action
Forum, 3311, https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/why-corporate-tax-reform-is-a-must/, accessed 9-
9-16.
President Obama embarked on a nationwide tour to declare his intent to win the future for American workers. He should embrace corporate tax reform
as the lynchpin of that agenda and devote the unwavering leadership and attention necessary to see it through so that American companies attract
the capital they need to win the future in a global economy. Ninety-five percent of the worlds population lives outsides the United States.
As the world gets smaller and our markets get more interlinked, the ability of US companies to compete globally will
become an ever more important factor in US job creation and living standards. US companies and their employees must be able to
thrive on that global stage, or risk withering away here at home. Across sectors ranging from technology, to energy to professional services, US
companies have risen to that challenge, and are leading their competition in markets around the globe. They succeed because they have world-beating innovation,
productive employees, and the most efficient processes for bringing these new innovative products and services to market. And that
global leadership
creates jobs back home in the U nited S tates. But the ability to compete is threatened by our outdated US corporate tax
system . Written 25 years ago, the corporate tax code simply doesnt work in todays integrated global economy where its
easier than ever before to run a successful global business from anywhere. More and more, our corporate tax code is an
obstacle to the competitiveness of US companies and their ability to create American jobs.
 Impact---Competitiveness---A2: No Impact

Decline causes WMD lashoutno checks

Harold James 14, Professor of history at Princeton Universitys Woodrow Wilson School who specializes in
European economic history, 7/2/14, Debate: Is 2014, like 1914, a prelude to world war?,
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/read-and-vote-is-2014-like-1914-a-prelude-to-world-
war/article19325504/

it could happen again . The approach of

As we get closer to the centenary of Gavrilo Princips act of terrorism in Sarajevo, there is an ever more vivid fear:
the hundredth anniversary of 1914 has put a spotlight on the fragility of the worlds political and economic security
systems . At the beginning of 2013, Luxembourgs Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker was widely ridiculed for evoking the shades of 1913. By now he is looking
like a prophet. By 2014, as the security situation in the South China Sea deteriorated , Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe cast China as the
equivalent to Kaiser Wilhelms Germany; and the fighting in Ukraine and in Iraq is a sharp reminder of the dangers of escalation .
Lessons of 1914 are about more than simply the dangers of national and sectarian animosities. The main story of today as then is the
precariousness of financial globalization , and the consequences that political leaders draw from it. In the influential view of Norman Angell in his
1910 book The Great Illusion, the interdependency of the increasingly complex global economy made war impossible. But a
quite opposite conclusion was possible and equally plausibl e and proved to be the case. Given the extent of
fragility, a clever twist to the control levers might make war easily winnable by the economic hegemon. In the wake
of an epochal financial crisis that almost brought a complete global collapse, in 1907, several countries started to
think of finance as primarily an instrument of raw power , one that could and should be turned to national advantage. The 1907 panic emanated
from the United States but affected the rest of the world and demonstrated the fragility of the whole international financial order. The aftermath of the 1907 crash
drove the then hegemonic power Great Britain - to reflect on how it could use its financial power. Between 1905 and 1908, the British Admiralty evolved the broad
outlines of a plan for financial and economic warfare that would wreck the financial system of its major European rival, Germany, and destroy its fighting capacity.
Britain used its extensive networks to gather information about opponents. London banks financed most of the worlds trade. Lloyds provided insurance for the
shipping not just of Britain, but of the world. Financial networks provided the information that allowed the British government to find the sensitive strategic
vulnerabilities of the opposing alliance. What pre-1914 Britain did anticipated the private-public partnership that today links technology giants such as Google, Apple
or Verizon to U.S. intelligence gathering. Since last year, the Edward Snowden leaks about the NSA have shed a light on the way that global networks are used as a
source of intelligence and power. For Britains rivals, the financial panic of 1907 showed the necessity of mobilizing financial powers themselves. The United States
realized that it needed a central bank analogous to the Bank of England. American financiers thought that New York needed to develop its own commercial trading
system that could handle bills of exchange in the same way as the London market. Some of the
dynamics of the pre-1914 financial world are
now re-emerging. Then an economically declining power , Britain, wanted to use finance as a weapon against its larger and
faster growing competitors, Germany and the United States. Now America is in turn obsessed by being overtaken by Ch ina according to
some calculations, set to become the worlds largest economy in 2014. In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, financial institutions
appear both as dangerous weapons of mass destruction , but also as potential instruments for the application of national power. In managing the
2008 crisis, the dependence of foreign banks on U.S. dollar funding constituted a major weakness, and required the provision of large swap lines by the Federal
Reserve. The United States provided that support to some countries, but not others, on the basis of an explicitly political logic, as Eswar Prasad demonstrates in his
new book on the Dollar Trap. Geo-politics is intruding into banking practice elsewhere. Before the Ukraine crisis, Russian banks were trying to acquire assets in
Central and Eastern Europe. European and U.S. banks are playing a much reduced role in Asian trade finance. Chinese banks are being pushed to expand their role in
global commerce. After the financial crisis, China started to build up the renminbi as a major international currency. Russia and China have just proposed to create a
new credit rating agency to avoid what they regard as the political bias of the existing (American-based) agencies. The next stage in this logic is to think about how
financial power can be directed to national advantage in the case of a diplomatic tussle. Sanctions are a routine (and not terribly successful) part of the pressure
applied to rogue states such as Iran and North Korea. But financial pressure can be much more powerfully applied to countries that are deeply embedded in the world
economy. The test is in the Western imposition of sanctions after the Russian annexation of Crimea. President Vladimir Putins calculation in response is that the
European Union and the United States cannot possibly be serious about the financial war. It would turn into a boomerang: Russia would be less affected than the more
developed and complex financial markets of Europe and America. The threat of systemic disruption generates a new sort of uncertainty,
one that mirrors the decisive feature of the crisis of the summer of 1914 . At that time, no one could really know
whether clashes would escalate or not. That feature contrasts remarkably with almost the entirety of the Cold War, especially since the 1960s, when
the strategic doctrine of M utually Assured Destruction le ft no doubt that any superpower conflict would inevitably
escalate . The idea of network disruption relies on the ability to achieve advantage by surprise, and to win at no or low cost. But it is inevitably a gamble, and raises
prospect that others might, but also might not be able to, mount the same sort of operation. Just as in 1914, there is an enhanced temptation to roll
the dice, even though the game may be fatal .

makes the US uncooperative and desperate leads to hegemonic wars

Goldstein 7 - Professor of Global Politics and International Relations @ University of Pennsylvania, Avery
Goldstein, Power transitions, institutions, and China's rise in East Asia: Theoretical expectations and
evidence, Journal of Strategic Studies, Volume30, Issue 4 & 5 August 2007, pages 639 682
Two closely related, though distinct, theoretical arguments focus explicitly on the consequences for international
politics of a shift in power between a dominant state and a rising power. In War and Change in World Politics,
Robert Gilpin suggested that peace prevails when a dominant states capabilities enable it to govern an
international order that it has shaped. Over time, however, as economic and technological diffusion
proceeds during eras of peace and development, other states are empowered. Moreover, the burdens of
international governance drain and distract the reigning hegemon, and challengers eventually emerge who seek to
rewrite the rules of governance. As the power advantage of the erstwhile hegemon ebbs, it may become
desperate enough to resort to theultima ratio of international politics, force, to forestall the increasingly
urgent demands of a rising challenger. Or as the power of the challenger rises, it may be tempted to press its
case with threats to use force. It is the rise and fall of the great powers that creates the circumstances under
which major wars, what Gilpin labels hegemonic wars, break out.13 Gilpins argument logically encourages
pessimism about the implications of a rising China. It leads to the expectation that international trade, investment,
and technology transfer will result in a steady diffusion of American economic power, benefiting
the rapidly developing states of the world, including China. As the US simultaneously scurries to put out the many
brushfires that threaten its far-flung global interests (i.e., the classic problem of overextension), it will be unable to
devote sufficient resources to maintain or restore its former advantage over emerging competitors like
China. While the erosion of the once clear American advantage plays itself out, the US will find it ever
more difficult to preserve the order in Asia that it created during its era of preponderance. The expectation is an
increase in the likelihood for the use of force either by a Chinese challenger able to field a stronger military in
support of its demands for greater influence over international arrangements in Asia, or by a besieged American
hegemon desperate to head off further decline. Among the trends that alarm those who would look at Asia
through the lens of Gilpins theory are Chinas expanding share of world trade and wealth(much of it resulting
from the gains made possible by the international economic order a dominant US established); its acquisition
of technology in key sectors that have both civilian and military applications (e.g., information, communications,
and electronics linked with to forestall, and the challenger becomes increasingly determined to realize the transition
to a new international order whose contours it will define. the revolution in military affairs); and an expanding
military burden for the US (as it copes with the challenges of its global war on terrorism and especially its struggle
in Iraq) that limits the resources it can devote to preserving its interests in East Asia.14 Although similar to Gilpins
work insofar as it emphasizes the importance of shifts in the capabilities of a dominant state and a rising challenger,
the power-transition theory A. F. K. Organski and Jacek Kugler present in The War Ledger focuses more closely on
the allegedly dangerous phenomenon of crossover the point at which a dissatisfied challenger is about to overtake
the established leading state.15 In such cases, when the power gap narrows, the dominant state
becomes increasingly desperate. Though suggesting why a rising China may ultimately present grave dangers for
international peace when its capabilities make it a peer competitor of America, Organski and Kuglers power-
transition theory is less clear about the dangers while a potential challenger still lags far behind and faces a difficult
struggle to catch up. This clarification is important in thinking about the theorys relevance to interpreting Chinas
rise because a broad consensus prevails among analysts that Chinese military capabilities are at a minimum two
decades from putting it in a league with the US in Asia.16 Their theory, then, points with alarm to trends in
Chinas growing wealth and power relative to the United States, but especially looks ahead to what it sees as the
period of maximum danger that time when a dissatisfied China could be in a position to overtake the US on
dimensions believed crucial for assessing power. Reports beginning in the mid-1990s that offered
extrapolations suggesting Chinas growth would give it the worlds largest gross domestic product
(GDP aggregate, not per capita) sometime in the first few decades of the twentieth century fed these sorts of
concerns about a potentially dangerous challenge to American leadership in Asia.17 The huge gap between Chinese
and American military capabilities (especially in terms of technological sophistication) has so far discouraged
prediction of comparably disquieting trends on this dimension, but inklings of similar concerns may be reflected in
occasionally alarmist reports about purchases of advanced Russian air and naval equipment, as well as concern that
Chinese espionage may have undermined the American advantage in nuclear and missile technology, and
speculation about the potential military purposes of Chinas manned space program.18
Moreover, because a dominant state may react to the prospect of a crossover and believe that it is wiser
to embrace the logic of preventive war and act early to delay a transition while the task is more manageable,
Organski and Kuglers power-transition theory also provides grounds for concern about the period prior to the
possible crossover.19 pg. 647-650
AFF
Thumpers
 Thumper Laundry List 2AC
Russia, healthcare, infrastructure and Twitter thump
Westwood 6-10 [Sarah Westwood is a White House reporter for the Washington Examiner 6-10-2017
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/james-comey-cloud-hindering-trumps-agenda/article/2625553]
President Trump worked this week to revive his legislative agenda and kick off his administration's pursuit of an infrastructure overhaul, but the
attention devoted to former FBI Director James Comey 's congressional testimony demonstrated how difficult it will be to get back
on track.
Trump's efforts to expedite legislative priorities that had stalled amid controversy included a meeting with House and Senate leaders on Tuesday,
which was followed by a private dinner with a handful of national-security-focused Republican lawmakers that evening.
One GOP congressional aide noted this was "not the first overture" the White House had made toward Republicans on Capitol Hill. But another told the Washington
Examiner that Trump's team has been "very hands-off" when it comes to big-ticket items like Obamacare repeal and tax reform .
A third Republican aide said Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney had recently met with members about tax reform.
"But I expect to see a bigger push in coming weeks," that aide said.
Several Republican staffers pointed to Vice President Mike Pence as the most visible face of the Trump administration's congressional outreach over the past month.
However, one staffer acknowledged that Trump has impressed some members with his personal touch and his ability to recall details about individual lawmakers.
In the nearly five weeks since Trump removed his FBI director, the Russian election-meddling probe that was once under Comey's purview has threatened
to overtake the White House and grind its agenda to a standstill . West Wing aides faced a daily barrage of questions
about the investigation and Comey's involvement with it until, in late May, they began referring all Russia-related inquiries to Trump's outside counsel.
Mark Serrano, a Republican strategist, said the move to direct those questions toward Marc Kasowitz, Trump's attorney, could help the administration tremendously in
its efforts to advance beyond the controversies.
"That was a very necessary and prudent measure for the sake of the country, for the sake of the operations for the White House," Serrano said.
After a week of hearings and revelations that saw multiple current and former administration officials deny encountering interference in the Russia probe, the White
House should take advantage of the momentum it now has, Serrano argued.
"I think the administration should first value and appreciate the point they've reached," he said. "It's demonstrated that the there's no shred of evidence of Russian
collusion. There's not a shred of evidence that there was any obstruction of justice."
But Trump's agenda won't progress without the assistance of Republicans on Capitol Hill, Serrano cautioned, and uniting those
lawmakers around Trump's agenda remains a challenge.
"I think congressional Republicans are as conflicted today as they were a year ago about Donald Trump," Serrano said. "He's an outsider, he's a disrupter,
and not all of them but many of them are part of the problem. They are part of the, you know, the establishment elites, and they are reluctant to embrace him."
Ford O'Connell, a Republican strategist, said the
GOP could be running out of time to notch any legislative accomplishments before
the midterm elections sweep some Republican House members out of office.
"Congressional Republicans have to grow a backbone. They have to realize that, in terms of numbers, it's not going to get any better than it is right now," O'Connell
said of the House majority. "You've got to produce some deliverables, basically."
Obamacare overhaul and tax reform have hit roadblocks in the House and Senate thanks to
Trump's top two legislative priorities an
dissent within Republican ranks about the direction of those policies. And this week, administration officials piled on a third
policy initiative by announcing its renewed push for an infrastructure package before the end of the year.
"When we talk about Obamacare and we talk about tax reform or tax cuts, these are not just Trump items that are just separate from the GOP agenda like, say, the wall
might be," O'Connell noted. "These are items that [Republicans] promised no matter who the president is."
Beyond the friction Trump has encountered on Capitol Hill, the president may find
his own habits a hindrance to his return to governing.
unpredictable use of Twitter , a staple of his political career since it launched in 2015, has become an obstacle to his efforts at
Trump's
building goodwill in Congress. Confronted with a steady stream of controversial or inaccurate tweets from the
president, many Republican members have chosen to distance themselves from Trump rather than wade into the
quicksand of defending Trump from himself.
 Thumper Laundry List Russia 1AR

Russia thumps Comey causes GOP distancing, diverts time Westwood

GOP divisions, empirics, hurts him long term costs PC

Bennett 6-12 [John T. Bennett White House Correspondent for CQ Roll 6-12-2017 Legislative Agenda Gets
Tougher for Trump http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/comey-speaks-domestic-agenda-gets-tougher-trump]
President Donald Trump is declaring victory despite scathing testimony against him by former FBI Director James B. Comey. But
that likely will further complicate his domestic agenda and transform the 2018 midterms into a referendum on his actions related to the bureaus
investigation into Russian meddling in U.S. elections.
Comey did not land a knockout blow on the president during hours of dramatic testimony Thursday. But some experts say he presented a strong case that the president
obstructed justice when Trump leaned on him to drop a probe of his first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, and then allegedly fired Comey for refusing to do
so.
Senate Intelligence Committee Republicans largely provided the president cover during the widely watched hearing, and Republican members are continuing work on
the health care and tax overhaul packages Trump wants to sign into law as soon as possible.
GOP leaders such as Speaker Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin are defending Trumps actions as the behavior of a political neophyte who was simply unaware of the
protocol for a chief executive when dealing with a FBI director.
Even before Trump fired Comey, triggering the appointment of a special counsel for the Russia probe, deep divisions among Republicans
threatened the agenda. But Trumps legal troubles will further burden an already embattled legislative process as the
president sheds political capital , experts say.
Both opponents and supporters of the president feel they gathered more ammunition from yesterdays hearing, so this fight isnt going away anytime
soon, said Michael Steel, a onetime senior aide to former House Speaker John A. Boehner and 2016 GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush.
That will continue to make it difficult for congressional Republicans to get the press and the public to focus on tax reform, health
care and other priorities, Steel added.
A continuing muddle
Carl Bon Tempo, a history professor at the University at Albany, SUNY, said the legal troubles experienced by Presidents
Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton show it makes it hard for the sitting president to do the job he was elected
to do.
These kinds of situations suck up so much time and energy from a president and from his White House staff, Bon
Tempo said. Most likely, the legislative agenda which was going to be very difficult before all of this is going to
continue to be a muddle for the foreseeable future.

Distracts attention, provides GOP cover to not move Trump agenda

Merica 6-6 [Dan Merica, CNN Politics Producer,6-6-23017 http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/06/politics/trump-agenda-
russia-congress/index.html]
Donald Trump's legislative agenda is stalled on Capitol Hill, collateral damage to a mix of swirling controversies -- including the
firing of FBI Director James Comey and Russia investigation -- and the President's off-the-cuff style that has Republican lawmakers
constantly responding to the crisis du jour .
After Trump's unexpected 2016 win, Republicans were bullish at the start his presidency about winning wholesale changes to health care, remaking the tax system and
rebuilding America's infrastructure.
Nearly five months in, though, little of that has happened. And Trump's top aides are now acknowledging the problem.
"There's no doubt that keeping members focused on investigations detracts from our legislative agenda and detracts from what we're trying to
deliver to the American people," Marc Short, Trump's White House director of legislative affairs, told reporters on Monday.
Stunted progress
the continual drip, drip, drip of
Short's blunt comments echo what Republicans in the White House and on Capitol Hill have said in private about
controversies coming from the White House. With only so many hours to work each week, the controversies have forced
Republicans to spend time responding to Trump stories and protecting the party, leaving them largely unable to move
legislation through a contentious Congress .
Trump's flagging approval rating -- 37% in the most recent Gallup poll -- is at or near historic lows for this early in his presidency, a fact that
has not helped the issue. Public disapproval has hardened Trump's opposition, giving Democrats hope for the future and has
provided some Republicans the cover to stand up to the President when needed.
 Thumper Laundry List Health Care 1AR
Healthcare thumps GOP divisions Westwood

The vote is soon causing fights

Ferrechio 6-12 [Susan Ferrechio is the chief congressional correspondent for the Washington Examiner 6-12-2017
Republicans getting restless for legislative victories http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/republicans-getting-
restless-for-legislative-victories/article/2625401]
Even without the distraction of Trump tweets and hearings over the firing of FBI Director James Comey, the GOP has internal differences that have
stopped it from advancing healthcare and tax reform .
Senate Republicans are struggling to agree on the scope of a bill to repeal and replace the healthcare law, and if they
do pass a bill, it will be tough to get House Republicans to endorse it as the party fights over how much of
Obamacare to keep in place.
The House last week passed legislation to repeal much of the Obama-era financial reform law, which Republicans said would boost the economy by lifting
burdensome regulations.
But the bill faces a Democratic filibuster in the Senate, so it's not likely to ever become law.
"The parties seem so far apart," Flake said.
Democrats have begun taunting the GOP for failing to pass major agenda items.
"Republicans have virtually no legislative agenda to advance and no accomplishments to tout," said one memo from the Democratic leadership emailed to reporters.
House Republican leaders last week promoted their legislative accomplishments, pointing out that they have passed 158 bills this year, far more than the average of 91
and more than the 131 bills Democrats passed during the same time period while former President Barack Obama was in the White House.
"So you rate it in modern history, pretty good movement of going forward," said Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, D-Calif.
Some Republicans said they believe the pace is picking up.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell last week fast-tracked a legislative vehicle for the Senate healthcare bill, suggesting
the chamber would take up a measure soon .

Healthcare failure blocks tax reform costs PC

Bolton 6-6 [Alex Bolton, The Hill staff writer, Trump, GOP plot path for agenda 6-6-2017
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/336664-trump-gop-plot-path-for-agenda]
President Trump and Republican leaders presented a unified front at the White House Tuesday amid growing doubt over the presidents ability to pass his agenda on Capitol Hill.
Trump called the meeting to find a way to restart his stalled agenda, which has backed up behind an impasse in the Senate over healthcare reform.
Trumps bold plans to rewrite the tax code and spur billions of dollars in infrastructure investment are stuck in limbo while lawmakers
squabble over healthcare subsidies for low-income Americans and the future of Medicaid.
Senators had hoped to put together a draft of healthcare reform legislation over the Memorial Day recess but instead were only given a broad PowerPoint presentation outlining basic concepts to
review over lunch Tuesday.
Even so, Trump struck an optimistic tone as he sat down with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), touting House passage of healthcare legislation
and predicting the Senate will follow suit and get a bill across the finish line this summer.
The president tried to reset the tone of the healthcare debate by praising the House bill as a good concept, contradicting the sharp criticisms that various Senate Republicans have aimed at the
bill.
Once the doors were closed to the public, Trump asked McConnell and his deputy, Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas), for an update on the healthcare debate, according to House
Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who also attended the meeting.
Senate Republicans are continuing to work on their own version of healthcare reform, and while they have pledged their commitment to passing a bill, theres
growing doubt that they will be able to bring together at least 50 members of their 52-person conference.
Sen. Lindsey Graham told reporters
(R-S.C.) Were stuck We cant get there from here
earlier in the day: . , and suggested his colleagues hold an up-
or-down vote on healthcare in the next few weeks and then move on to tax reform.
Asked by reporters after the meeting whether the Senate could pass a healthcare bill by the July 4 recess, McCarthy replied, Not to my knowledge do we have a date set.
Trump and his congressional allies discussed the news that Anthem, a major health insurer, is pulling out of the ObamaCare marketplace in Ohio, leaving about 20 counties without an insurer
willing to sell health plans on the government-sponsored exchange next year.
Trump also pushed his proposal to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, something Congress declined to fund in April when it passed its spending bill for the rest of fiscal 2017.
The president added a new twist to it by floating the idea of building solar panels into the wall to provide a renewable energy source, according to House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.),
who was also at the meeting.
Returning to the Capitol, McConnell, who has cautioned Trump in recent weeks about veering off script and spending too much time on Twitter, praised the meeting.
We had a very good discussion about all the issues were dealing with these days, he said, declining to answer questions about healthcare or former FBI Director James Comeys testimony
scheduled for Thursday before the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Comeys appearance in the Senate later this week is highly anticipated and will be carried live by several television networks.
It threatens to add to what Marc Short, Trumps director of legislative affairs, has called a distraction that detracts from our legislative agenda.
McCarthy, however, told reporters that Comey did not come up for discussion with Trump.
While Trump struck a positive tone ahead of Tuesdays meeting, GOP leaders know he has grown increasingly frustrated with their lack of action on big-ticket items.
Last week he urged lawmakers to scrap the Senate filibuster to speed action on healthcare and tax reform.
We need to get some legislative accomplishments, Cornyn acknowledged to reporters before heading to the White House.
its clear the party remains starkly divided over questions such
Republican senators who attended a lengthy healthcare discussion over lunch earlier in the day said

ashow to subsidize the healthcare coverage of low-income families and cut the cost of Medicaid.
We are all cautiously optimistic; thats the best I can do for you. We want to get this done. Its a heavy lift , said Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho)

after the meeting.

Republicans cant move on tax reform until they finish the healthcare debate because the budget reconciliation vehicle they
want to use to rewrite the tax code with 51 votes cant move until they either pass or scrap the healthcare reform bill.
Internal Link
 PC Not Key 2AC

PC fails---Trump rhetoric and party divisions guarantee gridlock

Lightman, 16 David Lightman, national political correspondent for McClatchy Newspaper, 11-10-2016, Trump
gets a mandate and a Congress, Times Colonist, http://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/columnists/david-
lightman-trump-gets-a-mandate-and-a-congress-1.2589756

WASHINGTON - Donald Trump will use his stunning victory to insist voters gave him a mandate to shake up
Washington.
Hes right. But Washington wont play along.
Trumps rise from political outsider to president of the United States is unlikely to move a Congress that he reviled
for months. Its a Congress that promises to continue being stuck, poisoned by venomous, relentless partisanship
that Tuesdays election wont stop.
Hes also dogged by his mouth and his own party. Top Republicans distanced themselves from Trump weeks and
sometimes months ago. And Trump has shown a consistent ability to alienate blocs of constituents with his insults.
Trump has a significant mandate, said Jonathan Felts, former White House political director for president George
W. Bush. His challenge will be being disciplined enough so that he can spend his political capital proactively
moving legislation rather than wasting it having to clean up self-inflicted wounds.
Trump will begin his presidency as one of the most distrusted, disliked men ever to occupy the White House.
Nearly two of three people in network exit polls said he was not honest or trustworthy, and 60 per cent viewed him
unfavourably. Just 13 per cent said they were excited about a Trump presidency.
He won after a campaign largely devoid of serious debate over issues.
And while he marshalled an impressive brigade of voters frustrated by a stodgy, unresponsive political system, he
also benefited by running against an opponent with negatives almost as high as his. What dominated the dialogue
between Hillary Clinton and him were accusations about who is more irresponsible, hateful and corrupt.
Theres no big mandate for change of a policy nature, said Lee Miringoff, the director of the Marist Institute for
Public Opinion.
Trump will try to bring people together, to be sure.
The distrust will put pressure on both parties to work together, said Michael Feldman, a Democratic consultant
who was a senior adviser to vice-president Al Gore.
That doesnt mean theyll be successful. There are huge, huge obstacles.
Foremost is a Congress where Democrats and Republicans have been warring for years, with no end in sight. Even
within the parties, struggles persist.
Conservatives and centre-right lawmakers are at odds over whether to stand on principle or seek compromise.
Democratic liberals are at odds with pragmatists.
Congress wont let Trump dictate its agenda. House Speaker Paul Ryan separated himself from Trump last month,
telling House members he would no longer defend the partys nominee.
What could save Trumps agenda is that its often Ryans agenda, and the House of Representatives will retain a
solid GOP majority next year.
Congressional Republicans have been eager for years to repeal and replace Obamacare. Trump agrees. Democrats
are determined to keep the law and offer improvements.
Immigration appears headed for another stalemate. Democrats tend to favor a comprehensive approach, combining
a path to citizenship for many immigrants who are already in the U.S. illegally with a crackdown on border
enforcement.
Ryan prefers what he calls stages and pieces, not some big massive bill, starting with tighter border security.
One presidential plank no mandate will save is Trumps calls for a wall between the U.S. and Mexico. Objections
from Democrats, who will have enough Senate strength to block any such proposal, will doom this idea. And if not,
Trumps plan to have Mexico pay for it is likely to go nowhere.
No mandate will be big enough to get Mexico to pay for the wall, said Felts.
First, though, Trump has to get his team in place, and that will prove difficult.
Historically, a new president had his team in place by Jan. 20 and pointed to voter support to push a top priority:
Ronald Reagans 1981 tax cut, Bill Clintons 1993 deficit-reduction plan, George W. Bushs 2001 tax cut and
Barack Obamas overhaul of the health-care system.
That momentum eased the path for ideas that would have been far more difficult to push in later years. Thats hardly
a sure thing this time.
The next president is going to have a really hard time, said Quentin Kidd, the director of the Wason Center for
Public Policy at Christopher Newport University in Virginia. The level of dysfunction that frustrates people is not
going to go away.

PC not real
Edwards, 16 George C. Edwards III, Distinguished Professor of Political Science and Jordan Chair in Presidential
Studies at Texas A&M, 2016, The Potential of Presidential Leadership, Study Done for the White House
Transition Project

The best evidence is that presidential persuasion is effective only at the margins of congressional decision making.
Presidential legislative leadership operates in an environment largely beyond the presidents control and must
compete with other, more stable factors that affect voting in Congress in addition to party. These include ideology,
personal views and commitments on specific policies, and the interests of constituencies. By the time a president
tries to exercise influence on a vote, most members of Congress have made up their minds on the basis of these
other factors.
 PC---Not Real---1AR
PC not real---other factors like ideology and constituencies outweigh and mean no vote switching---PC is too
little too late---thats Edwards

PC theory is assertions with zero support---reject their ev

Default to poli sci consensus
Edwards, 16 George C. Edwards III, Distinguished Professor of Political Science and Jordan Chair in Presidential
Studies at Texas A&M, 2016, The Potential of Presidential Leadership, Study Done for the White House
Transition Project

The American political system is not a fertile field for the exercise of presidential leadership. Most political actors,
from the average citizen to members of Congress, are free to choose whether to follow the chief executives lead;
the president cannot force them to act. At the same time, the sharing of powers established by the Constitutions
checks and balances not only prevents the president from acting unilaterally on most important matters but also
gives other power holders different perspectives on issues and policy proposals.
Nevertheless, the tenacity with which many commentators embrace the persuasive potential of political leadership is
striking. They often fall prey to an exaggerated concept of the potential for using the bully pulpit to go public or
pressuring members of Congress to fall into line with the White House. They routinely explain historic shifts in
public policy, such as those in the 1930s, 1960s, and 1980s, in terms of the extraordinary persuasiveness of Franklin
D. Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, and Ronald Reagan. Equally striking is the lack of evidence of the persuasive power
of the presidency. Observers in both the press and the academy base their claims about the impact of such
leadership on little or no systematic evidence . There is not a single systematic study that demonstrates that
presidents can reliably move others to support them.
In sum, we should not infer from success in winning elections that the White House can persuade members of the
public and Congress to change their minds and support policies they would otherwise oppose. Indeed, such
assumptions are likely to lead to self-inflicted wounds.
 PC---Not Real---Public
Doesnt change public opinion---the only causal link is backwards
Edwards, 16 George C. Edwards III, Distinguished Professor of Political Science and Jordan Chair in Presidential
Studies at Texas A&M, 2016, The Potential of Presidential Leadership, Study Done for the White House
Transition Project

Leading the Public

Despite the expectations of new presidents that they will be able to persuade the public to support their initiatives, it
is a mistake for them to assume they can change public opinion. There is nothing in the historical record to support
such a belief, and there are long-term forces that work against presidential leadership of the public . Adopting
strategies for governing that are prone to failure waste rather than create opportunities,1 so it is critically important
for presidents to assess accurately the potential for obtaining public support.
Presidents invest heavily in leading the public in the hope of leveraging public support to win backing in Congress.
Nevertheless, there is overwhelming evidence that presidents rarely move the public in their direction. Most
observers view Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton as excellent communicators. Nevertheless, the evidence is clear that
pluralities and often majorities of the public opposed them on most of their policy initiatives. Moreover, after they
made efforts to lead the public, opinion typically moved away from rather than toward the positions they favored.2

*Too many barriers

Edwards, 16 George C. Edwards III, Distinguished Professor of Political Science and Jordan Chair in Presidential
Studies at Texas A&M, 2016, The Potential of Presidential Leadership, Study Done for the White House
Transition Project

Typically, then, presidential leadership of public opinion fails. Indeed, research has found that public opinion
usually moves contrary to the presidents position. A moderate public usually receives too much liberalism from
Democrats and too much conservatism from Republicans.9
There are many impediments to leading the public,10 including the
the difficulty of obtaining and maintaining the publics attention
the dependence on the media to reach the public
the need to overcome the publics policy and partisan predispositions
the publics misinformation and resistance to correction
the distrust of the White House created by partisan media
the publics aversion to loss and thus wariness of policy change
Presidents find it difficult to focus the publics attention on a policy because the White House must deal with so
many issues and faces competition in agenda setting from Congress and the media. In addition, the White House
finds it increasingly difficult to obtain an audience for its viewsor even airtime on television to express them.
Moreover, many people who do pay attention miss the presidents points. Because the president rarely speaks
directly to the American people as a whole, the White House is dependent on the press to transmit its messages, but
the media are unlikely to adopt consistently either the White Houses priorities or its framing of issues. Moreover,
committed, well-organized, and well-funded opponents offer competing frames. As a result, presidents usually fail
to move the public to support themselves and their policies.

Empirics
Edwards, 16 George C. Edwards III, Distinguished Professor of Political Science and Jordan Chair in Presidential
Studies at Texas A&M, 2016, The Potential of Presidential Leadership, Study Done for the White House
Transition Project
Despite the favorable context of the national trauma resulting from the September 11 terrorist attacks, the long-term
disdain of the public for Saddam Hussein, and the lack of organized opposition, George W. Bush made little
headway in moving the public to support the war in Iraq, and once the initial phase of the war was over, the rally
resulting from the quick U.S. victory quickly dissipated. Bush also sought far-reaching changes in public policy
across a broad range of domestic issues. To achieve his goals, he went public as much as any of his predecessors,
but from tax cuts and immigration to Social Security, he was not able to move the public in his direction.5
Barack Obama and his aides anticipated transforming American politics on the back of his legendary
communication skills. Despite his eloquence, the president could not obtain the publics support for his initiatives
that were not already popular when he announced them. Most notably, the Affordable Care Act lacked majority
support even six years after it passed. Whether it was the fiscal stimulus designed to restart the economy or closing
the prison at Guantnamo Bay and transferring prisoners from there to the United States, the president took his case
to the public and came away without changing its views .6
Even Franklin D. Roosevelt, the president often viewed as the greatest politician of the twentieth century, faced
constant frustration in his efforts to move the public to prepare for entry into World War II. His failure to persuade
the public regarding his plan to pack the Supreme Court effectively marked the end of the New Deal.7 George
Washington, who was better positioned than any of his successors to dominate American politics, because of the
widespread view of his possessing exceptional personal qualities, did not find the public particularly deferential.8
 PC---Bad
PC backfires---causes hardening and polarization that sabotage legislation
Edwards, 16 George C. Edwards III, Distinguished Professor of Political Science and Jordan Chair in Presidential
Studies at Texas A&M, 2016, The Potential of Presidential Leadership, Study Done for the White House
Transition Project

A reliance on persuasive leadership may not only threaten the disposition to compromise but also undermine the
context necessary for negotiation. Presidents persistence in emphasizing persuasion may increase both elite and
public polarization and thus decrease their chances of success in governing. When political leaders take their cases
directly to the public, they have to accommodate the limited attention spans of the public and the availability of
space on television. As a result, the president and his opponents often reduce choices to stark black and white terms.
When leaders frame issues in such terms, they typically frustrate rather than facilitate building coalitions. Such
positions are difficult to compromise , which hardens negotiating positions.
Too often persuasive discourse revolves around destroying enemies rather than producing legislative products
broadly acceptable to the electorate. Frightening people about the evils of the opposition is often the most effective
means of obtaining attention and inhibiting support for change . Such scare tactics encourage ideologically charged
and harsh attacks on opponents while discouraging the comity necessary for building coalitions. When people are
sorted into enclaves in which their views are constantly and stridently reaffirmed, as they often are today, neither the
public nor members of Congress is likely to display a compromising attitude. How can you compromise with those
holding views diametrically opposed to yours and whom your party leaders and other political activists relentlessly
vilify?
Tax Reform
 Tax Reform Wont Pass 2AC
Tax reform wont pass no bill, GOP splinters, delayed
Goldman 6-2 [David Goldman, CNN MoneyStream senior editor, 6-2-2017 Trump says his tax bill is 'moving
along.' Except it doesn't exist http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/02/news/economy/donald-trump-tax-bill/index.html]
President Trump says Congress is working hard to pass his tax reform bill.
"Our tax bill is moving along in Congress, and I believe it's doing very well," he said at a Rose Garden speech on Thursday.
One problem : There is no tax bill .
The only evidence of a White House tax strategy is a bunch of rhetoric from Trump's economic team and a one-page
outline hastily presented to the public in April. Trump called the proposal "one of the biggest tax cuts in American history."
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and White House National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn began pressing Republican members of Congress in mid-May
to get on board with Trump's tax agenda. But no
legislation has emerged.
"I think a lot of people will be very pleasantly surprised," Trump said of the phantom tax bill . "The Republicans are working
very, very hard. We'd love to have support from the Democrats, but we may have to go it alone. But it's going very well."
Historically, tax reform has been among the most difficult tasks for Washington to accomplish. Just about every
legislator has a pet tax incentive that he or she is unwilling to part with. Even in a GOP-controlled House and Senate,
Republican lawmakers could splinter if they are asked to back a plan that many economists and budget analysts warn will
increase deficits.
So far, the White House has insisted that the plan will "pay for itself" through economic growth. But there is no evidence to
suggest tax cuts can pay for themselves. At best, growth may make up for a fraction of the cost.
The Trump administration had initially hoped that tax reform could be accomplished before Congress' August recess. But without
an actual bill to debate, even Mnuchin told the Financial T imes recently that his time frame is "not realistic at this point."
 Tax Reform Wont Pass 1AR
Tax reform wont pass theres no actual bill or evidence its coming together, no strategy and theres
already GOP splinters Goldman

No GOP unity, anything that can pass is too moderate, not enough time
Sherfinski 6-7 [David Sherfinski covers politics for The Washington Times, Tax reform promise by GOP may not
be kept before recess 6-7-2017 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/7/tax-reform-promise-by-gop-
may-not-be-kept-before-r/]
Tax officials at some of Americas biggest companies are discounting chances that Republicans will be able to rewrite the tax code
by next year, saying Wednesday that theyre going about business as usual.
The bearish assessment suggests little faith in the GOP , which has for years promised a massive tax code overhaul if voters gave the party control
of Washington.
Now in control, however, Republicans have struggled to find unity on a plan that can flatten the code while not sending the country spiraling into
debt or angering key constituencies.
Meaningful tax reform by next summer is less likely than not, said Jeffrey Maydew, who works in global tax planning at the
legal firm Baker McKenzie.
And big changes are unlikely to happen at all if things dont materialize by early next year, said Christopher J. Wolter, vice president of tax for Boeing, who says hes
less optimistic than I was about major action before next summer.
Dave Koenig, vice president for tax at the Retail Industry Leaders Association, a trade group, said it depends on the definition of meaningful.
I think we will have tax legislation, Mr. Koenig said. Whether it is comprehensive tax reform or more of a tax cut well see.
But Judith Lemke, vice president of tax at Corning Incorporated, a glass manufacturing company, said she cautioned her management team earlier this year not to get
too excited about the prospect for major changes until the plans actually came out.
Its hard to count on tax reform, said Ms. Lemke, who was also a top adviser to former Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus.
In the meantime, we continue to plan sort of business as usual with a very close eye on tax reform. I think the calendar is getting quite challenging, she said.
The business leaders were speaking at an event in Washington, D.C., hosted by Bloomberg BNA as House, Senate and White House officials try to jump-start
momentum on the issue before lawmakers head home for their August recess.
Were all on board to do it this year, Gary Cohn, director of the White House National Economic Council, said Wednesday on Fox News.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch said at the BNA event hes
generally optimistic about the prospects for some sort of tax
package, but said lawmakers should temper desires to swing for the fences.
While I think we should be ambitious, we must also be realistic, the Utah Republican said. At the end of the day,
any bill or proposal that cant get 51 votes in the Senate and 218 votes in the House is, not to put too fine a point on
it, a waste of time.
Mr. Hatch said hes willing to stomach an initial drop in revenue from lower tax rates if it puts the economy on a path for growth. In addition to lowering individual
rates, House Republicans have proposed cutting the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent, while the White House wants an even steeper corporate rate cut,
to 15 percent.
But Mr. Wolter said there simply arent enough viable revenue offsets to bring rates down to the levels the GOP wants.
The math doesnt work, Mr. Wolter said. Its $100 billion over 10 years for each point you take off the rate, and theres not enough things to add up to what youre
going to get down to.
Ms. Lemke also reminded people that Republicans
have plenty on their plate outside of taxes, including health care , the looming
debt ceiling fight and the ongoing investigations into Russian interference in last years election.
I mean, it just starts to be a daunting calendar , she said. If you dont get something done in the first quarter of next year, then youre starting
to look at elections, right, and the closer you get to elections, the less people want to talk about tax reform.

Freedom Caucus blocks budget imperils tax reform

Golshan 6-12 [Tara Golshan, Policy & Politics Reporter for Vox, 6-12-2017 https://www.vox.com/policy-and-
politics/2017/6/12/15769282/conservatives-threat-budget-trump-tax-reform]
The most conservative faction of House Republicans is posturing to derail President Trumps tax plans an issue on which
he desperately needs a legislative win if he and GOP leaders do not agree to sweeping cuts to food stamps and other safety net programs. Their
demands would amount to even more pain for the poorest Americans than Trump has already proposed, in order to fund tax cuts that would
primarily benefit the very rich.
That faction, the House Freedom Caucus, has been emboldened by extracting key concessions from Trump in order to pass his
health care bill through the House last month. Its members are now effectively threatening to impound a budget resolution that is
crucial to any hopes Republicans have of cutting taxes this year, unless the party agrees to $300 billion in social service cuts.
The Freedom Caucus is feeling the strength of its leverage over GOP moderates and the administration it knows that without its
members votes, the budget is doomed , and with it, for the next year at least, any hope of passing tax cuts through the
Senate on a strictly party-line vote.
Right now a budget cannot pass in the House of Representatives it cant , conservative Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) said at an event
Friday with the Heritage Foundation, hinting at divisions among Republicans . If you dont get a budget agreement, you
cant get reconciliation. Without reconciliation you cant do tax reform, he added.
Consensus of economic forecasters
Schoen 6-5 [John W. Schoen is an award-winning online journalist, who has reported and written about economics,
business and financial news for more than 30 years. He is economics reporter for CNBC.com, and was a founder of
msnbc.com, CNBC and public radio's Marketplace. 6-5-2017 Economists dont expect tax reform, infrastructure
boost to happen this year http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/05/economists-dont-expect-tax-reform-infrastructure-
boost-to-happen-this-year.html]
The Trump administration's plans to overhaul the tax system and spend big on infrastructure would give the U.S. economy a boost but the
measures aren't likely to happen this year, according to a national survey of business economists.
Roughly 4 in 5 members polled by the National Association for Business Economics said they don't expect to see an infrastructure spending package enacted until
next year or later. Nearly 3 in 5 said they don't expect to see a tax reform package before next year.
Overall, the group expects the pace of growth in gross domestic product to pick up later this year, peaking at 3.1 percent in the third quarter,
before easing back a bit. But their forecast calls for 2.2 percent growth for all of 2017 and 2.4 percent for all of next year.
That's roughly in line with the latest estimates from the Federal Reserve, but lower than the Trump administration's long-term annual growth target of
3 percent or better.
In its latest budget proposal, the White House has hedged that goal a bit, projecting economic growth of 2.3 percent this year, gradually rising over the next few years
before hitting 3 percent in 2020.
Overall, the group doesn't see a recession on the near-term horizon. More than 90 percent pegged the odds of a recession this year at less than
25 percent, and nearly 80 percent giving the same recession odds for next year.
The June NABE Outlook surveyed 52 professional economic forecasters between May 2 and May 16.
 Tax Reform Wont Pass A2: Will Pass Trump Statements
Trump statements are posturing theres not even a bill everyone is working on health care
Koeneman 6-2 [Briana Koeneman Digital Content Producer at Newsy, President Trump Praised A Tax Reform
Bill That Doesn't Exist 6-2-2017 http://www.newsy.com/stories/donald-trump-praised-tax-reform-bill-that-doesn-t-
exist/]
On Thursday, President Donald Trump had nothing but good things to say about a certain tax bill.
"Our tax bill is moving along in Congress, and I believe it's doing very well. I think a lot of people will be very pleasantly surprised,"
Trump said. "The Republicans are working very, very hard . We'd love to have support from the Democrats, but we may have to go it alone.
But it's going very well."
Problem is, that bill doesn't exist yet.
The Trump administration and Republican lawmakers have said they hope to pass a tax reform plan this year.
But no tax bill of any kind has been introduced in the House or the Senate. And the White House has only released a
one-page summary of its proposal.
GOP leaders have decided to focus on repealing and replacing former President Barack Obama's signature health care law before tackling
tax reform.
But even Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said he doesn't know if Senate Republicans will be able to get the votes needed to pass an Obamacare
replacement bill.
 Tax Reform A2: Impact Growth 2AC
Econs resilient shocks dont spill over
Posen, 16 Adam S. Posen, president of the Peterson Institute for International Economics and external voting
member of the Bank of Englands rate-setting Monetary Policy Committee, Chapter 1: Why We Need a Reality
Check, REALITY CHECK FOR THE GLOBAL ECONOMY, Peterson Institute for International Economics, PIIE
Briefing 16-3, March 2016
A combination of public policies and decentralized private-sector responses to the crisis have increased our economic
resilience , diminished the systemic spillovers between economies, and even created some room for additional
stimulus if needed. Large parts of the global financial system are better capitalized, monitored, and frankly more risk
averse than they were a decade ago, with less leverage. The riskier parts of todays global economy are less directly linked to
the centers growth and financing than when the troubles were within the United States and most of Europe in 2008. Trade imbalances
of many key economies are smaller, though growing, and thus accumulations of foreign debt vulnerabilities are also smaller than a decade
ago. Most central banks are now so committed to stabilization that they are attacked for being too loose or supportive
of markets, making them at least unlikely to repeat some policy errors from 200710 of delaying loosening or even excessive tightening.
Finally, corporate and household balance sheets are far more solid in the US and some other major economies than
they were a decade ago (though not universally), and even in China the perceptions of balance sheet weakness exceed the reality in scope
and scale.

U.S. not key

Molavi 11 Afshin Molavi, Senior Fellow and Co-Director of the World Economic Roundtable at the New
America Foundation, US Economic Power is Part of a Healthier Global Order, The National, 7-4,
http://www.thenational.ae/thenationalconversation/comment/us-economic-power-is-part-of-a-healthier-global-
order#full
Thus, the world faces the prospect of America slipping quietly into a "lost decade" of sluggish growth - of America sneezing and wheezing and coughing, but not facing a crisis
moment. What will this mean for the world? Japan's growth throughout the 1970s and 1980s bolstered many of their Asian trading partners.
Japan's demand was a boon. But Japan's lost decade in the 1990s did not stop the Asian tigers from rising. In some cases, countries such as South Korea and Taiwan even
benefited from the Japanese slowdown, stealing away market share in key industries. The same may happen with an American "lost decade". A World Bank report in late 2009 noted that
Latin American countries - the most exposed to American contagion - did not feel severe effects from the American crisis. The same
goes for other emerging markets. So, perhaps the world will shrug off a steady American economic decline over the
next five years. This is partly because the global economic pie is not a fixed size. As "the rest" rise, it grows. Thus,
America controlled a quarter of the world's GDP in 1970 - roughly the same as today. But the pie is much bigger.
Global GDP has tripled since 1970 and Asia today accounts for a quarter of global GDP . The pie is not only larger,
but it is more balanced . Will there even be a "lost decade" after all? American corporations are sitting on large piles of cash. The problems with the economy have as much
(perhaps more) to do with business confidence as with fundamentals. That could change. To be sure, the world is better off when America grows and produces and innovates. But if the declinists
the world will be too busy to notice: emerging
prove correct, then the clich of "when American sneezes" will truly be tested once and for all. Or perhaps
markets will be growing their middle classes, oil-rich Middle East states will be bolstering ties to Asia, and Chinese investments will flow
across Africa and Latin America. And that sneezing $14 trillion (Dh51.4 trillion) economy would still be the envy of most countries around the world. We can put the clich
to rest: an American sneeze might not breed a global cold after all .

No war empirics
-Specifically says nationalism/democracy/game theory/liberal institutionalist norms wont lead to war if they occur
-Says no diversionary theory because public w/n demand war
Jervis, 11 (Professor PolSci Columbia, 11 (Robert, December, Force in Our Times Survival, Vol 25 No 4, p 403-
425)
Even if war is still seen as evil, the security community could be dissolved if severe conflicts of interest were to arise. Could the more peaceful
world generate new interests that would bring the members of the community into sharp disputes? 45 A zero-sum sense of status would be one
example, perhaps linked to a steep rise in nationalism. More likely would be a worsening of the current economic difficulties, which
could itself produce greater nationalism, undermine democracy and bring back old-fashioned beggar-my-neighbor
economic policies. While these dangers are real, it is hard to believe that the conflicts could be great enough to lead the
members of the community to contemplate fighting each other. It is not so much that economic interdependence has proceeded to
the point where it could not be reversed states that were more internally interdependent than anything seen internationally have fought bloody
civil wars. Rather it is that even if the more extreme versions of free trade and economic liberalism become discredited, it
is hard to see how without building on a preexisting high level of political conflict leaders and mass opinion would
come to believe that their countries could prosper by impoverishing or even attacking others. Is it possible that problems
will not only become severe, but that people will entertain the thought that they have to be solved by war? While a pessimist could note that this
argument does not appear as outlandish as it did before the financial crisis, an optimist could reply (correctly, in my view) that the
very fact
that we have seen such a sharp economic down-turn without anyone suggesting that force of arms is the solution
shows that even if bad times bring about greater economic conflict, it will not make war thinkable.
 Tax Reform A2: Impact Growth No War 1AR
Collapse wont cause war empirics too costly and rarely considered. Nationalism,
norms collapse, miscalc wont escalate Jervis

No war
Their ev cant explain 08 (gambling for resurrection, diversion, prolif, lash out, nationalism,
ethnic exclusion, and protectionism all did not happen)
Drezner 14 (Daniel, Professor of International Relations (Tufts), Nonresident senior fellow at Brookings, former
international economist at the U.S. Treasury Departments Office of International Banking and Securities Markets,
The System Worked: Global Economic Governance during the Great Recession, B.A. in political economy
(Williams College), M.A. in economics and Ph.D. in political science (Stanford), World Politics, 66.1, January)

The final significant outcome addresses a dog that hasn't barked : the effect of the Great Recession on cross-border
conflict and violence. During the initial stages of the crisis, multiple analysts asserted that the financial crisis would lead states to increase their use
of force as a tool for staying in power.42 They voiced genuine concern that the global economic downturn would lead to an increase
in conflictwhether through greater internal repression, diversionary wars, arms races, or a ratcheting up of great power
conflict. Violence in the Middle East, border disputes in the South China Sea, and even the disruptions of the Occupy movement fueled impressions of a surge in
global public disorder. The aggregate data suggest otherwise , however. The Institute for Economics and Peace has concluded that
"the average level of peacefulness in 2012 is approximately the same as it was in 2007."43 Interstate violence in particular has declined
since the start of the financial crisis, as have military expenditures in most sampled countries. Other studies confirm that the Great
Recession has not triggered any increase in violent conflict , as Lotta Themner and Peter Wallensteen conclude: "[T]he pattern is
one of relative stability when we consider the trend for the past five years."44 The secular decline in violence that started with the end of the Cold War has not
been reversed. Rogers Brubaker observes that "the crisis has not to date generated the surge in protectionist nationalism or
ethnic exclusion that might have been expected."43

Instability burns out, and no backing for extremism reject their evidence, its internet fear-mongering
Barnett 9 (Thomas, Senior Strategic Researcher Naval War College, The New Rules: Security Remains Stable
Amid Financial Crisis, Asset Protection Network, 8-25, http://www.aprodex.com/the-new-rules--security-remains-
stable-amid-financial-crisis-398-bl.aspx)

When the global financial crisis struck roughly a year ago, the blogosphere was ablaze with all sorts of scary predictions of,
and commentary regarding, ensuing conflict and wars -- a rerun of the Great Depression leading to world war , as it were. Now,
as global economic news brightens and recovery -- surprisingly led by China and emerging markets -- is the talk of the day, it's interesting to look
back over the past year and realize how globalization's first truly worldwide
recession has had virtually no impact whatsoever
on the international security landscape. None of the more than three-dozen ongoing conflicts listed by GlobalSecurity.org can be
clearly attributed to the global recession. Indeed, the last new entry (civil conflict between Hamas and Fatah in the Palestine)
predates the economic crisis by a year, and three quarters of the chronic struggles began in the last century. Ditto for the 15 low-
intensity conflicts listed by Wikipedia (where the latest entry is the Mexican "drug war" begun in 2006). Certainly, the Russia-Georgia conflict
last August was specifically timed, but by most accounts the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics was the most important external trigger
(followed by the U.S. presidential campaign) for that sudden spike in an almost two-decade long struggle between Georgia and its two breakaway
regions. Looking over the various databases, then, we see a most familiar picture: the usual mix of civil conflicts, insurgencies, and liberation-
themed terrorist movements. Besides the recent Russia-Georgia dust-up, the only two potential state-on-state wars (North v.
South Korea, Israel v. Iran) are both tied to one side acquiring a nuclear weapon capacity -- a process wholly unrelated to global
economic trends. And with the U nited S tates effectively tied down by its two ongoing major interventions (Iraq and Afghanistan-
bleeding-into-Pakistan), our involvement elsewhere around the planet has been quite modest , both leading up to and following the
onset of the economic crisis: e.g., the usual counter-drug efforts in Latin America, the usual military exercises with allies across Asia, mixing it
up with pirates off Somalia's coast). Everywhere else we find serious instability we pretty much let it burn , occasionally pressing
the Chinese -- unsuccessfully -- to do something. Our new Africa Command, for example, hasn't led us to anything beyond advising and training
local forces. So, to sum up: No significant uptick in mass violence or unrest (remember the smattering of urban riots last year in
places like Greece, Moldova and Latvia?); The usual frequency maintained in civil conflicts (in all the usual places); Not a single state-
on-state war directly caused (and no great-power-on-great-power crises even triggered); No great improvement or
disruption in great-power cooperation regarding the emergence of new nuclear powers (despite all that diplomacy); A modest scaling
back of international policing efforts by the system's acknowledged Leviathan power (inevitable given the strain); and No serious efforts by any
rising great power to challenge that Leviathan or supplant its role. (The worst things we can cite are Moscow's occasional deployments of
strategic assets to the Western hemisphere and its weak efforts to outbid the United States on basing rights in Kyrgyzstan; but the best include
China and India stepping up their aid and investments in Afghanistan and Iraq.) Sure, we've finally seen global defense spending surpass the
previous world record set in the late 1980s, but even that's likely to wane given the stress on public budgets created by all this unprecedented
"stimulus" spending. If anything, the friendly cooperation on such stimulus packaging was the most notable great-power dynamic caused by the
crisis. Can we say that the world has suffered a distinct shift to political radicalism as a result of the economic crisis? Indeed, no.
The world's major economies remain governed by center-left or center-right political factions that remain decidedly friendly to both
markets and trade. In the short run, there were attempts across the board to insulate economies from immediate damage (in effect, as much
protectionism as allowed under current trade rules), but there was no great slide into "trade wars." Instead, the W orld T rade
O rganization is functioning as it was designed to function, and regional efforts toward free-trade agreements have not slowed. Can we say
Islamic radicalism was inflamed by the economic crisis? If it was, that shift was clearly overwhelmed by the Islamic world's growing
disenchantment with the brutality displayed by violent extremist groups such as al-Qaida. And looking forward, austere economic times
are just as likely to breed connecting evangelicalism as disconnecting fundamentalism. At the end of the day, the economic crisis did not prove to
be sufficiently frightening to provoke major economies into establishing global regulatory schemes, even as it has sparked a spirited -- and much
needed, as I argued last week -- discussion of the continuing viability of the U.S. dollar as the world's primary reserve currency. Naturally, plenty
of experts and pundits have attached great significance to this debate, seeing in it the beginning of "economic warfare" and the like between
"fading" America and "rising" China. And yet, in a world of globally integrated production chains and interconnected financial markets, such
"diverging interests" hardly constitute signposts for wars up ahead. Frankly, I don't welcome a world in which America's fiscal profligacy goes
undisciplined, so bring it on -- please! Add it all up and it's fair to say that this global financial crisis has proven the great resilience of America's
post-World War II international liberal trade order. Do I expect to read any analyses along those lines in the blogosphere any time soon?
Absolutely not. I expect the fantastic fear-mongering to proceed apace. That's what the Internet is for.
 Tax Reform A2: Impact Growth Resilient 1AR
Economy resilient---consumer spending and job growth
Crutsinger 16 MARTIN CRUTSINGER and PAUL WISEMAN, AP reporter, US economy looks resilient as
retailers, industry surge, Jul. 15, 2016, http://bigstory.ap.org/article/9e8527b30aed40628afcba6ebfbdffb6/us-
economy-looks-resilient-retailers-industry-surge
WASHINGTON (AP) Americans spent more money at retailers and factories revved up production in June,
offering encouraging signs of the U.S. economy's resilience in the face of global headwinds.
Industrial production shot up 0.6 percent, fueled by a big rebound in auto output. It was the best showing since last
August. Meanwhile, retail sales also rose 0.6 percent last month, three times the gain in May, with demand strong in
a number of areas.
Inflation pressures remained modest, with consumer prices climbing 0.2 percent in June. Prices are up just 1 percent
from a year ago, still well below the Federal Reserve's 2 percent target.
The new reports Friday came a week after the government's blockbuster jobs report, which showed the economy
created 287,000 jobs in June. It marked a major bounce back after a dismal gain of just 11,000 jobs the previous
month. May's result, coupled with a lackluster showing in April, had raised worries that the U.S. jobs machine was
starting to sputter.
Analysts said the strong job growth in June and solid consumer spending should provide good momentum for the
economy heading into the second half of the year.

Brexit proves
Rugaber 16 CHRISTOPHER S. RUGABER, AP Economics Writer,Robust Hiring Gain in June Points to a
Resilient US Economy, Jul. 8th, 2016, http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=40431184&sid=74
A burst of hiring in June provided a reassuring sign that the U.S. economy will likely withstand global weakness
that may be magnified by Britain's decision to leave the European Union.
Last month's gain 287,000 jobs, the most since October 2015 showed that employers shook off a hiring slump
in April and May and suggested that the economy will continue to grow steadily.
May's scant job gain of 11,000 and April's modest 144,000 increase had raised fears that the job market was
weakening after months of solid growth. The United Kingdom's "Brexit" vote late last month to bolt the European
Union escalated concerns that the global economy could slip into a recession and that the United States would be
affected.
The June hiring figures, released Friday, were calculated before the Brexit vote. But the robust job growth served as
a reminder that through much of the U.S. economy's seven-year recovery from the Great Recession, it has
repeatedly withstood crises and recessions overseas.
"We still rank among the best among the industrial economies," said Patrick Newport, an economist at IHS Global
Insight said. " We're about the only ones doing OK right now."
Investors registered their relief Friday by sending stock prices soaring. The Dow Jones industrial average closed up
about 251 points, or 1.4 percent.
The economy had expanded at just a 1.1 percent annual pace in the first three months of the year. But rising
consumer spending, a recovering housing market and further strong job gains could accelerate growth in the coming
months.

Government safety nets solve

Zakaria 9 (Fareed, Ph.D. in Political Science Harvard University and Editor Newsweek International, The
Secrets of Stability, Newsweek, 12-21, Lexis)
One year ago, the world seemed as if it might be coming apart. The global financial system, which had fueled a great expansion of capitalism and trade across the world, was crumbling. All the certainties of the age of -globalization--
about the virtues of free markets, trade, and technology--were being called into question. Faith in the American model had collapsed. The financial industry had crumbled. Once-roaring emerging markets like China, India, and Brazil
were sinking. Worldwide trade was shrinking to a degree not seen since the 1930s. Pundits whose bearishness had been vindicated predicted we were doomed to a long, painful bust, with cascading failures in sector after sector,
country after country. In a widely cited essay that appeared in The Atlantic this May, Simon Johnson, former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, wrote: "The conventional wisdom among the elite is still that the
current slump 'cannot be as bad as the Great Depression.' This view is wrong. What we face now could, in fact, be worse than the Great Depression." Others predicted that these economic shocks would lead to political instability and
violence in the worst-hit countries. At his confirmation hearing in February, the new U.S. director of national intelligence, Adm. Dennis Blair, cautioned the Senate that "the financial crisis and global recession are likely to produce a
wave of economic crises in emerging-market nations over the next year." Hillary Clinton endorsed this grim view. And she was hardly alone. Foreign Policy ran a cover story predicting serious unrest in several emerging markets. Of
one thing everyone was sure: nothing would ever be the same again. Not the financial industry, not capitalism, not globalization. One year later, how much has the world really changed? Well, Wall Street is home to two fewer
investment banks (three, if you count Merrill Lynch). Some regional banks have gone bust. There was some turmoil in Moldova and (entirely unrelated to the financial crisis) in Iran. Severe problems remain, like high unemployment

in the West, and we face new problems caused by responses to the crisis--soaring debt and fears of inflation. But overall, things look nothing like they did in the 19 30s .
The predictions of economic and political collapse have not materialized at all. A key measure of fear and fragility is
the ability of poor and unstable countries to borrow money on the debt markets. So consider this: the sovereign bonds of
tottering Pakistan have returned 168 percent so far this year. All this doesn't add up to a recovery yet, but it does reflect a return
to some level of normalcy. And that rebound has been so rapid that even the shrewdest observers remain puzzled. "The question I have
at the back of my head is 'Is that it?' " says Charles Kaye, the co-head of Warburg Pincus. "We had this huge crisis, and now we're back to
business as usual?" This revival did not happen because markets managed to stabilize themselves on their own. Rather, governments,
having learned the lessons of the Great Depression, were determined not to repeat the same mistakes once this crisis hit.
By massively expanding state support for the economy--through central banks and national treasuries--they buffered
the worst of the damage. (Whether they made new mistakes in the process remains to be seen.) The extensive social safety nets that
have been established across the industrialized world also cushioned the pain felt by many. Times are still tough, but things are
nowhere near as bad as in the 19 30s , when governments played a tiny role in national economies. It's true that the massive state
interventions of the past year may be fueling some new bubbles: the cheap cash and government guarantees provided to banks, companies, and
consumers have fueled some irrational exuberance in stock and bond markets. Yet these rallies also demonstrate the return of
confidence, and confidence is a very powerful economic force . When John Maynard Keynes described his own prescriptions for
economic growth, he believed government action could provide only a temporary fix until the real motor of the economy started cranking again--
the animal spirits of investors, consumers, and companies seeking risk and profit. Beyond all this, though, I believe there's a fundamental
reason why we have not faced global collapse in the last year. It is the same reason that we weathered the stock-
market crash of 19 87 , the recession of 19 92 , the Asian crisis of 19 97 , the Russian default of 19 98 , and the tech-
bubble collapse of 20 00 . The current global economic system is inherently more resilient than we think. The world
today is characterized by three major forces for stability, each reinforcing the other and each historical in nature.

Can withstand shocks

Zumbrun 12 Zumbrun & Varghese 5/9 2012, *Joshua Zumbrun and Romy Varghese are writers for Bloomberg
Businessweek, Feds Plosser Says U.S. Economy Proving Resilient to Shocks,
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-05-09/fed-s-plosser-says-u-dot-s-dot-economy-proving-resilient-to-
shocks, AJ
Philadelphia Federal Reserve Bank President Charles Plosser said the U.S. economy has proven remarkably resilient to
shocks that can damage growth, including surging oil prices and natural disasters. The economy has now grown for
11 consecutive quarters, Plosser said today according to remarks prepared for a speech at the Philadelphia Fed. Growth is not robust.
But growth in the past year has continued despite significant risks and external and internal headwinds. The U.S.
economy has a history of being remarkably resilient, said Plosser, who doesnt have a vote on policy this year. These shocks
held GDP growth to less than 1 percent in the first half of 2011, and many analysts were concerned that the
economy was heading toward a double dip. Yet, the economy proved resilient and growth picked up in the second
half of the year.
 Tax Reform A2: Impact Pharma 2AC

Impact is empirically denied -- tax reform fails for biopharma

StatNews, 2/10 -- Will pharma use a tax break to create new jobs? Thats not what happened last time,
https://www.statnews.com/2017/02/10/pharma-tax-break-jobs/
Drug makers are promising to create tens of thousands of American jobs if President Donald Trump follows through on his promise to
give them a big tax break if they repatriate cash theyve stashed overseas. But thats not what happened last time pharma got a tax holiday.
Instead, drug makers used the tens of billions they brought back to the US to enrich their CEOs and drive up their stock prices. Rather
than adding jobs, they laid off thousands of workers. In the end, the 2004 tax holiday cost the US government $3.3 billion in lost

revenue and did nothing to increase employment or investment in research, according to a Senate report. This is one
of the very few cases where we have a very clear experiment: Congress enacted a policy, and we have data and analyses showing
that it was a failure on the promises that were made , said Chye-Ching Huang, deputy director of the progressive Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Still, Trump wants to try it
all again. Right now, repatriation taxes can reach up to 35 percent . On the campaign trail, Trump said hed institute a one-time rate of 10 percent to encourage companies to bring their cash
home and invest domestically. The holiday in addition to Trumps promised tax cuts and regulatory reforms will help the drug industry add up to 350,000 jobs over the next 10 years, according to Stephen Ubl, CEO of the

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the industry lobbying group. But heres what happened after an even steeper repatriation tax cut in 2004: Pfizer repatriated
$35.5 billion more than any other company and then proceeded to cut nearly 12,000 jobs over the next three years. Payouts to its executives increased by
$13 billion during that period. Johnson & Johnson moved $10.7 billion into the US, and then shed more than 4,000 employees while hiking executive pay by $32 billion. Merck repatriated $15.9 billion, laid off 1,000
workers, and boosted executive pay by more than $20 billion. Only two major drug makers added jobs after repatriating: Schering-Plough and Wyeth, which collectively hired more than 7,500

people within three years of the holiday, according to the Senate report, released in 2011. But those gains were quickly negated. In 2009, Pfizer bought Wyeth for $68 billion and laid off more

than 20,000 workers. The same year, Merck acquired Schering-Plough for $41 billion and cut 15,000 people from its payroll. Theres little reason to assume a second repatriation

holiday would fare any differently, economists say.

Pharma growth locked in despite the patent cliff

Bioassociate 12 consulting firm, provides expertise-based consulting and research services to private investors,
investment banks, institutional investors and investment entities in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and life
science sectors, June 2012, The significance and apparent repercussions of the 2009-2015 pharmaceutical patent
cliff, http://www.bioassociate.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Bioassociate-The-significance-and-apparent-
reprecussions-of-the-2009-2015-pharmaceutical-patent-cliff.pdf
In terms of revenue, current global research-based market leaders include Pfizer, GSK, Novartis and Roche, which contribute
to the industry's total revenues of over US$ 800 billion a year (Table 1). Although for the most part market leaders are considered
specialized (mostly focused on prescription medication and animal health), individual business strategies of leading multinationals vary greatly.
The market leader Pfizer, for instance, only spends ~US$ 7.9 billion annually on internal R&D and its R&D-to-sales ratio trails at only 15%, in
contrast with the industry's average of 19%. Despite this, Pfizer continues to lead the market, owing to its immense strength in mediating
reputable M&A deals which contribute to its considerable inorganic growth. In contrast, Lilly - a highly specialized player, boasts a 19.8% R&D-
to-sales ratio and is hoping to cushion its patent cliff fall with 64 molecules currently in clinical trials, nearly half of which are biologies.
Despite the patent cliff and tougher price-focused governmental regulations, the ethical pharma industry
continues to grow at healthy rates of 5-8% a year and is predicted to firmly sustain these levels for the next five
years , largely due to entry into "pharmerging markets'' such as Brazil, Russia and China. The global pharma industry is
expected to expand to over US$ 1.1 trillion by 2014.

No pharma collapse patent cliff wrong

Jonathan Yates 13, founder of EarnedMediaUnlimited, author of thousands of articles for Seeking Alpha, The
Washington Post, AOL Daily Finance, Foreign Policy, and The Motley Fool, 3/25/13, Drug Companies Have
Rebounded From The Patent Cliff With Acquisitions Now On The Mind, http://seekingalpha.com/article/1298241-
drug-companies-have-rebounded-from-the-patent-cliff-with-acquisitions-now-on-the-mind
With the "Patent Cliff" proving to be every bit as overblown a threat to drug companies as the "Fiscal Cliff" was to the
country, investors have returned back to the pharmaceutical sector in full force .
It was not that long ago that the patent cliff, the period when a slew of lucrative drug patents would expire, such as Lipitor for Pfizer
(NYSE: PFE), led to Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS) downgrading multinational pharmaceutical companies such as AstraZeneca (NYSE: AZN),
Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline (NYSE: GSK), Novartis AG (NYSE: NVS), Novo Nordisk and Roche. In the report, "An Avalanche of Risk?
Downgrading to Cautious," it was warned that "the operating environment for pharma is worsening rapidly ."
But Big Pharma has recovered very nicely, despite the concerns of Morgan Stanley. Year to date, Pfizer is up more than
13%. Novatris AG is higher by 15.84% for 2013. Over the same period, GlaxoSmithKline has risen by 7.47% with AstraZeneca increasing
5.66%.
Even though these firms have rebounded, each is still facing strong competition from generic drug companies such as Teva (NYSE: TEVA).
Large pharmaceutical companies continue to be pressured to produce a new pipeline of drugs, either through research &
development or acquisitions. Based on activity in the market as it moves beyond the hollow specter of the patent cliff ,
there is a definite interest in buying up companies with promising efforts.
Firms making progress in the war against cancer such as Dendreon Corp. (NASDAQ: DNDN) and Advaxis (OTCQB: ADXS) always
draw attention. Dendreon has its prostate cancer drug Provenge already approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Advaxis is
developing the next generation of immunotherapies for cancer and infectious diseases.
Both of these companies have the potential that attracts the attention of individual investors and institutions. Sales of Provenge, an autologous
cellular immunotherapy for the treatment of certain types of prostate cancer, are projected to increase by some analysts. Advaxis has more than
15 constructs in various stages of development that are not only distinct, but many are in strategic collaborations with such heavyweights as the
National Cancer Institute, Cancer Research - UK, the Wistar Institute, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of British Columbia, the
Karolinska Institute, and others.
Advaxis' lead construct, ADXS-HPV, was honored as the Best Therapeutic Vaccine (approved or in development) at the 5th Annual Vaccine
Industry Excellence (ViE) Awards. Earlier this month, it was announced that Advaxis was nominated for the "Best Early-Stage Vaccine Biotech"
Vaccine Industry Excellence (ViE) Award. Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics created these awards to recognize the accomplishments and
contributions for the previous year in the vaccine industry. The VIE Awards are selected by the medical journal, Expert Reviews of Vaccines.
While honors and awards light up a press release, investors only care about the glow from the bottom line . For the global
market for immunotherapies from companies such as Advaxis and Dendreon, sales are estimated to be about $40 billion. For
cancer vaccines, sales are projected to rise to $8 billion. As detailed in a previous article at Seeking Alpha, there are concerns about
the financial stability of Dendreon, as Provenge is very expensive and costs need to be cut for the company to be viable for the future. In the
future, Advaxis is protected by 77 issued and pending patents. For a Big Phama concern moving beyond its brush with the patent
cliff, those are very compelling features.
 Tax Reform A2: Impact Pharma Disease 2AC

Disease wont cause extinction

Farquhar 17 Sebastian Farquhar, Leader of the Global Priorities Project (GPP) at the Centre for Effective
Altruism, et al., Existential Risk: Diplomacy and Governance, https://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/wp-
content/uploads/Existential-Risks-2017-01-23.pdf
1.1.3 Engineered pandemics
For most of human history, natural pandemics have posed the greatest risk of mass global fatalities.37 However,
there are some reasons to believe that natural pandemics are very unlikely to cause human extinction. Analysis of
the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) red list database has shown that of the 833 recorded
plant and animal species extinctions known to have occurred since 1500, less than 4% (31 species) were ascribed to
infectious disease.38 None of the mammals and amphibians on this list were globally dispersed, and other factors
aside from infectious disease also contributed to their extinction. It therefore seems that our own species, which is
very numerous, globally dispersed , and capable of a rational response to problems, is very unlikely to be killed off
by a natural pandemic. One underlying explanation for this is that highly lethal pathogens can kill their hosts before
they have a chance to spread, so there is a selective pressure for pathogens not to be highly lethal. Therefore,
pathogens are likely to co-evolve with their hosts rather than kill all possible hosts.39
 Tax Reform A2: Impact - Pharma Bioterror 2AC

No impact to bioterror
Synthetic biology is hard, terrorists wont do it empirics, scale up, storage, dissemination, tech, logistical, healthy
people, public health
Dvorsky 14 [George Dvorsky contributing editor at io9 and producer of the Sentient Developments blog and
podcast. Dvorsky currently serves as Chair of the Board for the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies 9-19-
2014 http://io9.com/are-the-threats-from-synthetic-bioweapons-being-exagger-1636829313]
The advent of synthetic biology and DNA synthesis has raised concern that amateurs will use these technologies to turn
pathogens into weapons of mass destruction. But as experts point out , this may be far easier said than done. As argued by
Catherine Jefferson, Filippa Lentzos, and Claire Marris all researchers in the Department of Social Science, Health, and Medicine at King's College London there are several
dominating narratives currently permeating scientific and policy discussions on the security threat posted by synthetic biology. They can be summarized like this:
Synthetic biology is making it easier for non-experts to manipulate dangerous pathogens and, therefore, making it easier for
terrorists to concoct bioweapons. Synthetic biology has led to the growth of a do-it-yourself biology community that could offer dual-use knowledge
and equipment to bioterrorists seeking to do harm. DNA synthesis has become cheaper and can be out-sourced, making it easier for terrorists to obtain the basic materials to create biological
threat agents. Non-experts could use synthetic biology to design radically new pathogens. Terrorists want to pursue
biological weapons for high-consequence, mass- casualty attacks. But these narratives, they say, rely on several
misleading assumptions : Synthetic biology is not easy , DIY biology is not particularly sophisticated, building a dangerous virus from
scratch is hard and even experts have a hard time enhancing disease pathogens. Perhaps alarmingly at least to me the authors
claim that the bioterror weapons of mass destruction is a myth: The first [dimension of this myth] involves the identities of terrorists and what their intentions are. The assumption is

that terrorists would seek to produce mass-casualty weapons and pursue capabilities on the scale of 20th century, state-level bioweapons programs.
Most leading biological disarmament and non-proliferation experts believe that the risk of a small-scale bioterrorism attack is very real and present. But they consider the

risk of sophisticated large-scale bioterrorism attacks to be quite small . This judgment is backed up by historical evidence . The three confirmed
attempts to use biological agents against humans in terrorist attacks in the past were small-scale, low-casualty events aimed at causing panic
and disruption rather than excessive death tolls. The second dimension involves capabilities and the level of skills and resources available to terrorists. The implicit assumption is that

producing a pathogenic organism equates to producing a weapon of mass destruction. It does not. Considerable knowledge
and resources are necessary for the processes of scaling up , storage , and dissemination . These processes present significant
technical and logistical barriers . They go on to argue that, even if a bioweapon were to be disseminated successfully, the outcome of the
attack could be affected by other factors, like the " the health of the people who are exposed and the speed and manner with which public

health authorities and medical professionals detect and respond to the resulting outbreak."
Note: Internally quoting Catherine Jefferson, Filippa Lentzos, and Claire Marris all researchers in the Department of Social Science, Health,
and Medicine at King's College London
 Tax Reform A2: Impact Pharma Resilient 1AR

Big pharma insulated from the impact of the patent cliff

Bioassociate 12 consulting firm, provides expertise-based consulting and research services to private investors,
investment banks, institutional investors and investment entities in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and life
science sectors, June 2012, The significance and apparent repercussions of the 2009-2015 pharmaceutical patent
cliff, http://www.bioassociate.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Bioassociate-The-significance-and-apparent-
reprecussions-of-the-2009-2015-pharmaceutical-patent-cliff.pdf
Despite the apparent doom and gloom, many investors remain faithful to the industry, as most agree that the
scepticism itself is likely to considerably undervalue some good players. 56% of investors still believe now is a
good time to invest, specifically in pipelines focused on autoimmune disease and oncology24. Moreover, there are
pharmaceutical companies which have not been strongly affected by the cliff, such as Abbott (which retains
exclusivity of its blockbuster Humira), whose share price has reflexively suffered during the time of gloom more
than it perhaps deserved.
From an optimistic point of view, even without robust pipelines, products which are already on the market will still
be generating revenue. Moreover, pipelines are being replenished, and, banally speaking, the only way after hitting
rock bottom is up. The pharma industry also benefits from relatively strong immunity against general economic
fluctuation: the iShares Dow Jones U.S. Pharmaceuticals Index, which measures the performance of the pharma
sector on the US equity market, has actually outperformed the Dow Jones industrial Average throughout the
economic turmoil by nearly 30%. Interestingly, it's most pronounced growth spurt occurred at the onset of the cliff,
and has positively surged in recent months as investors realized that the industry was perhaps better equipped to
bear the fall than they expected (Fig. 33).

Pharmas learned from the past---adaptation guarantees resilience

MBA 14, Michael Bailey Associates, consulting firm geared towards IT, Telecommunications, Finance,
Pharmaceutical and Oil and Gas, 8/8/14, What do patent expirations mean for the pharma industry?,
www.michaelbaileyassociates.com/news/pharmaceutical/what-do-patent-expirations-mean-for-the-pharma-industry
Well, maybe not. Lisa Urquhart of pharma analysts EP Vantage told Casey Research that although the figures
regarding patent expiration's and expected sales losses for the next couple of years look depressing, the situation is
actually not that bad .
"The efforts the industry has put in to change business models, which have included investing more in niche busters,
mean this time round things might not be as bad ," she explained. Indeed, we are seeing some rather interesting
trends emerging within big pharma in response to this new environment where generic competition is rife.
How are patent expiration's reshaping the industry?
There are two rather interesting things happening within big pharma as the loss of exclusivity on the production of
blockbuster drugs hits the industry's major players. The first is a greater focus on research and development as drug
makers look to replace the old with the new.
It seems the patent cliff is ushering the pharmaceutical industry into a new wave of product innovation, and this
time companies have learned the lessons of the past. Instead of ploughing money into a small number of big
blockbuster drugs, they are looking to diversify their product portfolios and create smaller volumes of specialist
drugs.
It's this focus on niche, specialised areas that is prompting the second major trend in pharmaceuticals at the moment,
and that is an increase in merger and acquisition activity. So far this year we've seen a number of takeovers, tie-up
and asset swaps as companies look to refocus their activities and concentrate on what they do best.
One example was the deal between Novartis and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), which saw Novartis purchase GSK's
cancer drugs and GSK acquire Novartis' vaccines business. This allowed both companies to build on their respective
expertise in the areas of oncology and immunisation. It also meant they could free up resources by getting rid of
assets in areas where they stood little chance of competing on a global scale.
This kind of restructuring could be what saves big pharma firms from suffering the kind of losses they did two years
ago, allowing them to weather the next phase of the patent cliff more easily. And of course, patent expirations are
also having huge benefits for generic drug makers, who are busy replenishing their portfolios with new products and
expanding into new markets and territories.
 Tax Reform A2: Impact Competitiveness 2AC

U.S. competitiveness is high and resilient

Rodriguez 16 (Michelle Drew, Michelle leads many of Deloittes Manufacturing Competitiveness research efforts as part of her
role as the Manufacturing Leader for Deloittes Center for Industry Insights. She is an accomplished professional with 15 years of
strategic and operational experience, having worked directly in the automotive industry as well as currently serving as an advisor to
global manufacturing executives. She and her team have worked on a number of efforts that explored the future trends impacting
the manufacturing industry, from the boardroom to the shop floor. She has most recently authored multiple research studies on the
topic of manufacturing. The foundation of the research Michelle leads is based on dozens of interviews with CEOs, CTOs,
governmental leaders, university presidents, national laboratory leaders, and labor union leaders as well as collaboration with
organizations such as World Economic Forum, Council on Competitiveness, NAM, and The Manufacturing Institute. She has a MBA
from the University of Michigan (Ross School of Business) and also holds a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering from the
University of Wisconsin. Innovation drives competitiveness. But what drives innovation? 7/25/16 https://innovation-in-
manufacturing.deloitte.com/2016/07/25/innovation-drives-competitiveness-but-what-drives-innovation/)

Research shows advanced manufacturing is more essential than ever to economic competitiveness and prosperity. But what is involved in driving, sustaining,
and applying the innovation that makes a company or country a leader in advanced manufacturing? In this post, Ill explore the drivers that make the US a leader in innovation. Research and development (R&D) certainly plays a role, but the real key may be an
intangible one: the innovation ecosystem. The US innovation ecosystem has evolved significantly over the last century, transitioning from business monopolies dominating R&D early last century, assertive government sponsorsh ip mid-century, to the current
environment, within a globally connected world in which small and big businesses collaborate with universities, venture capitalists, and research institutions to drive the innovation ecosystem. Meanwhile, the technological focus of R&D has followed a similar arc,
shifting from the creation of physical to digital products, to the more recent formation of new business models that combine the physical and digital worlds to create and capture new forms of value. With capital, intellectual property, and talent flowing across
borders with limited constraints, the United States faces fundamental questions of great importance to the future of its innovation ecosystem: How can it best cultivate the potential of advanced technologies to spur competitiveness? Can the United States continue to

Insights from our recent A

lead given the research spend and talent within other nations? No one entity houses all the brightest people or best ideas the answer lies with looking outside your traditional walls. dvanced

T I
echnologies study indicated that, when it comes to tangible factors such as R&D spend, the
nitiative: Manufacturing and Innovation

U S is a clear leader. We spend more on R&D

nited tates than any nation. We account for one-third of in raw dollars other 2 about

the globes R&D spending the next-largest is less than one-quarter

. In comparison, The other eight in share Chinas, at of the global total.

the top 10 barely surpass the US combined. This reaches across many industries In a
share when all strong set of R&D capabilities .

recent global study that assessed R&D leadership in 10 top sectors, the U S
3 ranked number one for nited tates was

seven of those 10 sectors. But we may not stay in the lead for long. Other countries are ramping up their spending. Some with far smaller R&D footprints like Japan and South Koreaalready outpace us in two measures of R&D intensity: spend as a
percentage of GDP and researchers per million inhabitants. As the graphic below shows, from 2000 through 2013, South Korea, China, and Taiwan dramatically expanded their R&D intensity in both respects, while the United States made little change over the
same period. And what about the USs global lead in raw-dollar R&D spending? Experts predict China is on a pace to pass us by 2019.4 China already focuses more of its R&D on commercializing new technologies, while the US focuses a significant core on basic

Other countries can

and applied research.5 The secret sauce of innovation R&D spend alone isnt a defensible advantage for the US. and doincrease their investments. And someday in the not too distant future they may very well

surpass us. Does that mean well lose our leadership? No. The enduring strength of US innovation, or of
any nations capacity to invent, is more complicated than the number of dollars spent on R&D alone.
What matters is the innovation ecosystem other functions to
the complex collaboration between private business, government, academia, finance, independent research, and

bring new products and services to market. The US An effective innovation ecosystem marshals top talent, allows ideas to flow, and lowers barriers to breakthroughs.

entrepreneurial spirit and substantial funding from venture capital firms are huge competitive
advantages and key differentiators for the country. It remains the center for disruptive innovation
thanks to its research infrastructure and low barriers to entrepreneurs and start-ups. Its also more
resilient with the sum being greater than the individual parts. Thats one of the hidden strengths of what
the US brings to the challenge: Key stakeholders within our ecosystem have evolved over time to become
less siloed and more collaborative its innovation ecosystem has become a
. With the increasing pace of digitalization across the manufacturing industry,

more closely connected system with stronger linkages between government, small business, big business, universities, venture capitalists, and research institutions that leverage and
benefit from the deeper knowledge and connectivity between each other. Whats next? The US innovation ecosystem must continue to evolve to maintain our competitive position. To stay ahead, key players in the ecosystem should regularly analyze our relative
position within the global innovation environment, identify challenges, and capitalize on our strengths. For example, the US is a pioneer in basic and applied research. Thats long been a strength. But spending in these areas has stagnated over the last decade and
the government contribution has shrunk as a percentage of the overall federal budget. This puts research performed at government-sponsored institutions at potential risk. Executives indicated that as basic and early applied research takes more time to de liver
results in terms of tangible products and technologies, and how/when/where the learnings will be precisely applied arent known, it thereby makes it more difficult for shorter term sector specific businesses to nurture it properly. To keep our competitive edge, the
government needs to maintain investment levels in the basic and early applied research to ensure a strong foundation for future success. While many other economies across the globe have increased their government R&D support, how should the innovation

a
ecosystem respond? We need to focus on building efficient and effective collaboration and tech transfer mechanisms between basic and applied research as well as through to scale-up commercialization. The health, adaptability, and success of

nations innovation ecosystem determines its competitiveness. When the ecosystem works, there is a
ultimately

continuous and self-reinforcing cycle in which breakthroughs bring new technologies and products to
market, sales and profits increase, and companies invest more in R&D. Our nations success hinges on the ability of industry, government, and research labs to
work together and engage in ongoing dialogue about creating an environment in the US that continues to promote competitive R&D work and innovations in advanced manufacturing.

Competitiveness isnt key to heg

Wohlforth et al 8 (William, Dartmouth government professor, 2008 World out of Balance,
International Relations and the Challenge of American Primacy, pg 32-5,ldg)
American primacy is also rooted in the county's position as the world's leading technological power. The United States remains dominant globally in overall R&D investments, high-technology production,
commercial innovation, and higher education (table 2.3). Despite the weight of this evidence, elite perceptions of U.S. power had shifted toward pessimism by the middle of the first decade of this century. As we
noted in chapter 1, this was partly the result of an Iraq-induced doubt about the utility of material predominance, a doubt redolent of the post-Vietnam mood. In retrospect, many assessments of U.S. economic and

imbalanced domestic
technological prowess from the 1990s were overly optimistic; by the next decade important potential vulnerabilities were evident. In particular, chronically

finances and accelerating public debt convinced some analysts that the United States once again
confronted a competitiveness crisis.23 If concerns continue to mount, this will count as the fourth such
crisis since 1945; the first three occurred during the 1950s (Sputnik), the 1970s (Vietnam and stagflation), and the 1980s (the Soviet threat and Japan's challenge). None of these
crises, however, shifted the international system's structure: multipolarity did not return in the 1960s,
1970s, or early 1990s, and each scare over competitiveness ended with the American position of primacy
retained or strengthened.24 Our review of the evidence of U.S. predominance is not meant to suggest that the United States lacks vulnerabilities or causes for concern. In fact, it confronts
a number of significant vulnerabilities; of course, this is also true of the other major powers.25 The point is that adverse trends for the United States will not cause a polarity shift in the near future. If we

take a long view of U.S. competitiveness and the prospects for relative declines in economic and technological dominance, one takeaway stands out: relative
power shifts slowly. The United States has accounted for a quarter to a third of global output for over a century. No other economy will match its
combination of wealth, size, technological capacity, and productivity in the foreseeable future (tables 2.2
and 2.3). The depth, scale, and projected longevity of the U.S. lead in each critical dimension of power are noteworthy. But what truly distinguishes the current distribution of capabilities is American
dominance in all of them simultaneously. The chief lesson of Kennedy's 500-year survey of leading powers is that nothing remotely similar ever occurred in the historical experience that informs modern
international relations theory. The implication is both simple and underappreciated: the counterbalancing constraint is inoperative and will remain so until the distribution of capabilities changes fundamentally.
The next section explains why.

Its not zero sum

Young 7 (John, Former Chair and CEO Hewlett Packard, Founder Council on Competitiveness,
George Fisher, Retired Chair and CEO Eastman Kodak Company, Paul Allaire, Chair Emeritus Xerox
Corporation "Competitiveness Index: Where America Stands"
http://www.compete.org/images/uploads/File/PDF%20Files/
Competitiveness_Index_Where_America_Stands_March_2007.pdf)
Competitiveness is not a zero-sum game The success of other economies is not a failure of .

U.S. competitiveness a job created there does not mean a job lost here new R&D there ,a lab built

does not mean one lost here a rise in exports does not necessarily mean a decline in
, another country's

ours As all nations improve their productivity, wages rise and markets expand, creating the
.

potential for rising prosperity for all. There is no fixed pie of demand but almost global to be divided,

unlimited human needs to be met .

 Tax Reform A2: Impact Competitiveness Resilient 1AR

competitiveness will be inevitably high- thats rodriguez

1. r&d spending-

2. resilience-

3. innovation ecosystem-

4. Industrial IOT adoption

Batra 16 (Raj, president of the Digital Factory Division for Siemens USA, and is responsible for overseeing all development,
marketing, sales, R&D, vertical industry and manufacturing aspects for DF in the United States. In addition to his responsibilities at
Siemens, which he joined in 1993, Batra is a member of the Board of Governors of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association
(NEMA) and a member of the Presidents Council of the Manufacturers Alliance for Productivity and Innovation (MAPI). Prior to
Siemens, Batra worked as a sales engineer and product manager developing automation solutions for discrete manufacturing and
process industries. HANNOVER MESSE: US Manufacturing Is Resilient, Innovative, Increasingly Digital 4/18/16
http://www.industryweek.com/digital-tools/hannover-messe-us-manufacturing-resilient-innovative-increasingly-digital)
Next week, the United States manufacturing sector will have the spotlight at the worlds biggest industrial fair, Hannover Messe. This is the first time since the inaugural German fair in 1947 that the United States
was chosen as the partner country and the timing could not be better. Hannover is a global demonstration of the digitalization of industry that is leading us toward the Industrial Internet of Things and a Fourth

America is indeed poised

Industrial Revolution. And the United States, represented by more than 400 companies, has an opportunity to show that were ready to embrace this revolution.

to drive the Industrial Internet of Things forward. With a proven track record in innovation, software
development, and university education, we are in a strong position to make rapid progress. But U.S.
manufacturers still have a long road ahead of them. Capital investments have been lagging for some time and our manufacturing infrastructure is becoming obsolete. The
technology that we hold in our hands every day bears little resemblance to the 1980s equipment seen in many factories. Even digitally mature manufacturers admit that parts of their operations still rely on PCs
with floppy disk drives running DOS. And perhaps no one captured the challenges facing U.S. manufacturers better than Gregg Sherrill, Chair of the Board of the National Association of Manufacturers and
Chairman and CEO of Tenneco Inc., at the recent Manufacturing in America event, held in Detroit. The speed of change, he said, is not linear. Companies dont just want to keep up; they want to be trend-
setters. To be trend-setters, manufacturers must leverage state-of-the-art industrial hardware and increasingly sophisticated industrial software. But the reality is, the U.S. manufacturing sector has a growing
gap as McKinsey & Company recently put it between industrys digital haves, have nots and have mores. While some are boldly setting trends, too many are hesitating and taking a wait-and-see

Still, Im optimistic that U.S. manufacturing will achieve IIoT for three reasons. First, the
approach to digitalization.

benefits of digitalization to both our economy and industry cannot be ignored. According to McKinsey, digitalization
offers the United States an opportunity to boost GDP by as much as $2.2 trillion by 2025. For industry, the rewards are
not only faster product releases, but increased productivity, reduced downtime, better utilization of assets and
materials, and much more flexibility. Second, modernizing our industrial base means creating better jobs. The world
of advanced manufacturing will not run itself. Thats why its incumbent upon industrial players to partner with government and academia to promote a mindset of life-long learning and continuous skill
development especially in science, technology, engineering and math fields, the STEM program. Students gain valuable, real-world experience using the technology that theyll encounter when they enter the
manufacturing workforce. Third, as early adopters demonstrate the benefits of digitalization, more industrial companies,
both large and small, will answer the digital call. Ive seen incredible progress by the early adopters in our
customer base. These manufacturers are in a position to harvest big data and shift more of the design, testing,
and engineering phases of production to the virtual world steps that can facilitate mass customization and cut time to market
by up to 50%. This is the essence of IIoT. U.S. manufacturing has already shown that its incredibly resilient .
Weve been battered by headwinds for nearly two years. The rise in the value of the dollar has put incredible
pressure on U.S. exports. North America has sustained most of the energy worlds layoffs, capex cuts, and
rig closures. But weve also seen incredible successes such as 15-year highs in auto sales last year, trillion dollar backlogs in aerospace, and the construction of
brand new factories. Now is the time to build on this momentum and achieve a real, sustainable manufacturing renaissance by embracing digitalization. Everyone is starting this

journey in a different place, but all are moving toward the same destination: IIoT, and an era in which U.S. industry is
more competitive than ever before.

5. Innovation absorption
Beckley 12 (Michael, Harvard International Security Program research fellow Chinas Century? Why
Americas Edge Will Endure 2012 International Security 36.3, lexis, ldg)
In theory, globalization should help developing countries obtain and absorb advanced technology. In practice, however, this may not occur because some of the knowledge and infrastructure necessary to absorb certain technologies cannot be specified in a blueprint
or contained within a machine. Instead they exist in peoples minds and can be obtained only through hands-on experience. The World Bank recently calculated that 80 percent of the wealth of the United States is made up of intangible as sets, most notably, its
system of property rights, its efficient judicial system, and the skills, knowledge, and trust embedded within its society. If this is the case, then a huge chunk of what separates the United States from China is not for sale and cannot be copied. Economies and militaries

Developing countries may

used to consist primarily of physical goods (e.g., conveyor belts and tanks), but today they are composed of systems that link physical goods to networks, research clusters, and command centers. 72

be able to purchase or steal certain aspects of these systems from abroad, but many lack the supporting
infrastructure, or absorptive capacity, necessary to integrate them into functioning wholes. 73 For example, in the 1960s,
Cummins Engine Company, a U.S. technological leader, formed joint ventures with a Japanese company and an Indian company to produce the same truck engine. The Japanese plant quickly reached U.S. quality and cost levels while the Indian plant turned out
second-rate engines at three to four times the cost. The reason, according to Jack Baranson, was the high degree of technical skill . . . required to convert techniques and produce new technical drawings and manufacturing specifications. 74 This case illustrates

skill can lead to significant productivity differences even when two countries have access to
how an intangible factor such as

identical hardware. Compared to developing countries such as China, the United States is primed for
technological absorption. Its property rights, social networks, capital markets, flexible labor laws, and
legions of m n c s not only help it innovate, but also absorb innovations created elsewhere
ulti ational ompanie . Declinists liken the U.S.
 the U S is
economic system to a leaky bucket oozing innovations out into the international system. But in the alternative perspective, nited tates more like a sponge , steadily increasing its mass by soaking up
ideas, technology, and people from the rest of the world . If this is the case, then the spread of technology around the globe may paradoxically favor a concentration of technological
and military capabilities in the United States.

6. Ease of innovation
Engardio 8 senior writer for Business Week, (Pete, Is US Innovation Headed Offshore?, 5/7/8, Business Week)
To those worried about America's ability to compete in the 21st century, the trend is alarming: Just
as key manufacturing industries fled offshore in the 1970s and '80s, U.S. companies are now
shifting more engineering and design work to low-cost nations such as China, India, and Russia . Surely,

innovation itself must follow Apparently not according to a new study published by the National
. ,

Academies, the Washington organization that advises the U.S. government on science and
technology policy in sectors from software and semiconductors to
. The 371-page report titled Innovation in Global Industries argues that,

biotech and logistics, America's lead in creating new products and services has
remained remarkably resilient over the past decadeeven as more research and
development by U.S. companies is done offshore . "This is a good sign," says Georgetown University Associate Strategy Professor Jeffrey T. Macher, who co-edited the study

most of the value added is going to U.S. firms, and they are able to
with David C. Mowery of the University of California at Berkeley. "It means

reinvest those profits in innovation." The report, a collection of papers by leading academics assessing the impact of globalization on inventive activity in 10 industries, won't reassure all
skeptics that the globalization of production and R&D is good for the U.S. One drawback is that most of the conclusions are based on old data: In some cases the most recent numbers are from 2002. Exporting the Benefits? And while the authors of
the report make compelling cases that U.S. companies are doing just fine, thank you, none of the writers addresses today's burning question: Is American tech supremacy thanks to heavy investments in R&D also benefiting U.S. workers? Or are
U.S. inventions mainly creating jobs overseas? A few years ago, most people took it for granted that what was good for companies was good for the gr eater economy. But the flat growth in living standards for most Americans during the last boom
has raised doubts over the benefits of globalization. "Innovation shouldn't be an end in itself for U.S. policy," says trade theorist Ralph E. Gomory, a research professor at New York University's Stern School of Business. "I think we have to address
whether a country can run on innovation. If you just do R&D to enhance economic activity in other countries, you are getting very little out of it." Gomory, a former top IBM (IBM) executive, retired in 2007 as president of the Alfred P. Sloan

The authors marshal a wealth of

Foundation, which funded the National Academies study. Still, given all the debate over offshoring, the report's central findings are interesting.

evidence to show that, thanks to innovation, globalization hasn't eroded U.S. leadership even in
some industries where there has been a substantial offshore shift in engineering and design.
Despite an explosion of outsourcing to India and Ireland, for example, America's software industry
still trumps the rest of the world in exports of packaged software and services, patent activity, and
venture capital investment. The U.S. also accounts for 90% of chip-design patentsthe same level
as 1991although Asian companies now do most of manufacturing. And when it comes to
biotechnology, the U.S. is way ahead The U.S. even remains a , luring more venture capital than all other countries combined. America First

heavyweight in personal computers , the study says, though China and Taiwan manufacture most of the hardware. That's because the real innovation and profits still belong to companies like
Microsoft (MSFT) and Intel (INTC), makers of the operating system and central processors, while U.S. brands command 40% of th e global market and still define breakthrough design.

7. Laundry list
Stelzer 14 (Irwin M, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute America the Resilient 10/18/14
http://www.hudson.org/research/10735-america-the-resilient)
Oh, woe! Ebola has come to America and 150 people from infected countries are landing here every day. ISIS is battering the Kurds, to whom we have not sent the weapons we promised, and will chase the Iraqi army out of Baghdad as soon as

growth
they finish taking over Kobani. Europe is headed into still another recession, its banks loaded down with bad loans as next weeks stress tests approach, Italy and France are basket cases, the mighty German machine is stalled , the
central bank paralyzed by the inability of EU members to persuade German chancellor Angela Merkel to have mercy on their slumping economies. Three of the four once-touted BRICs are in trouble. Brazil, the worlds seventh largest economy, is in recession.

Russia has bitten off a piece of Ukraine , whetting Vladimir Putins appetite for the Baltics despite an economy in chaos as a result of sanctions imposed by the West. China is in the midst of a property bust,
another purge of enemies of the state, and experiencing a growth rate that has shrunk from over 7 to 6 percent (official data) or 3 percent (outside experts). Japan is reeling from the effect of tax increases. Our political class has no idea what to do about any of these

Or dont The world might be

problems. Panic. Sell, sell. distracting attention from Americas underlying
. just too, too much with us,

strengths and enormous resilience. The notion of U.S. pre-

According to the latest report of Goldman Sachss Private Wealth Management Investment Strategy Group,

eminence has gained momentum in recent years . Since our 2020 Outlook we have held the view that the financial crisis has not dealt a fatal blow to the US as the preeminent

Its worth taking a look at what Goldman

economic and geopolitical power. calls the unparalleled strengths and the Sachs team

resilience of US institutions Those advantages account for a widening gap between per-capita
the US economy and .

GDP in America and in China and the eurozone. The easiest one to understand is the importance of our
abundant supply of energy That resource it is a testament
oil, low-cost natural gas, and coal. base might be there because America is blessed, or merely lucky, but full access to

to American technological skills. Fracking enables us to tap resources that until recently could not be reached economically, making America the worlds largest producer of oil and natural gas liquids, and ere long
converting the U.S. from a net oil and natural gas importer to an exporter. More important, our newly available abundance is driving down the price of gasoline, putting an average of $600 into the pockets of every household just as holiday-season promotions hit the
shops, among other things inviting the kiddies to pick and lay-away their must-have toys right now. And because of what Ed Morse, head of Global Commodity Research at Citigroup, calls the gritty robustness of our production base anyone who thinks $80 per
barrel crude will slow U.S. production are going to be unpleasantly surprised. More difficult to quantify is Americas leadership in the innovation derby. While Europe gropes for ways to rein in what has come to be called the disrupters, we accord them the status of

While the EU
heroes. Joseph Schumpeter, the great European economist who found a congenial home in America, at Harvard University, taught that a perennial gale of creative destruction is the essential fact about capitalism.

scrambles for ways to protect existing industries and technologies from the competition of the Googles,
Amazons, and Ubers, America accords them virtually free rein. Yes, there are powerful change-resisters in America, but in the long run they find that their only choices are to adapt or disappear. Historian John Steele Gordon puts it

Virtually every major development in technology in the twentieth century originated in the United
this way,

States or was principally industrialized and turned into consumer products here. No surprise that the
Chinese are stealing American intellectual property, rather than the other way around. Then there is
demography , which is widely said to be a nations destiny Eberstadt, a scholar at the American . Nicholas

Enterprise Institute and arguably the nations leading demographer, recently surveyed the worlds
Demographic Future, and writes in Foreign Affairs, The United States will avoid the demographic
stagnation and decline that faces most other OECD [high-income] countries Unlike all other affluent countries, the United States can expect a

The U.S. population is growing, infused by young immigrants, legal

growing pool of working-age people and it can expect a slower pace of population aging.
and illegal, many (but unfortunately not all) of whom are expected to make a net contribution to national
wealth Over 80 percent of Americans live in urban areas, compared with about 50 percent worldwide,
.

which suggests the much higher rate of innovation resulting from the low cost of interaction among
creative elites Not to be omitted
. Eberstadt notes, Urban centers are typically the hubs of economic growth. Think San Francisco and technology, Houston and oil, New York City and sheer dynamic energy.

from the list are Americas other assets: According to The Times Higher Education Rankings Supplements World University

seven of the worlds top ten universities and fifteen of the top twenty are here
a British publication that cannot be accused of pro-American bias

in the United States America remains

. The dollar remains and will long remain the worlds reserve currency, and the currency to which the world flees in times of crisis. what President Obama, who cannot be

called the one indispensable nation in world affairs

accused of lusting after a large global U.S. global footprint, in 2012 , a statement he is reluctantly realizing was truer than he then
imagined. Thanks to the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, America, in the words of Goldman Sachs analysts, possesses a relatively robust system of government with monetary and fiscal union and a centralized system of government with plenty of independence
at the state and local level. It hardly needs saying that we are not perfect. Political gridlock, executive-branch challenges to the separation of powers, too many discouraged workers and rising inequality are among the ills that have a majority of Americans believing

keep in mind the resilience of America what Winston Churchill called our gleaming flash of
we are on the wrong track. But ,

resolve when faced with crises of the sort we now confront.

8. Tech industry boom

Cassagnol 15 (Danielle, Writer for the CEA, New Tech to Drive CE Industry Growth in 2015, Projects
CEAs Midyear Sales and Forecasts Report 7/15/15
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20150715006129/en/Tech-Drive-CE-Industry-Growth-2015-
Projects#.VanNIflViko)
Consumer demand for emerging technology is redefining the consumer electronics (CE) landscape . According to the

retail revenues for the consumer electronics

U.S. Consumer Electronics Sales and Forecasts, the semi-annual industry report released today by the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA),

(CE) industry are now projected to grow 2.4 percent to reach $285 billion, led by 101 percent year- in 2015

over-year growth in emerging product categories. CEAs consensus forecast reflects U.S. factory sales to dealers and covers more than 100 CE products. The bi-annual report serves as a

The July U.S. Consumer Electronics Sales and Forecasts

benchmark for the CE industry, charting the size and growth of underlying categories. Overall Revenue Growth

report projects that total industry revenue will reach a high of $285 billion, accounting for retail markup,
or $222.7 billion wholesale in 2015, a steady, 2.4 percent increase from $217.6 billion in sales in 2014 . This

Looking ahead to 2016, CEA expects industry

midyear update is a slight downward adjustment from CEAs projection in January, following slow economic growth in the first half of the year.

sales to grow by 2.7 percent, with industry revenues reaching an all-time high of $228.8 billion. Consumer technology is
about constant and continuous innovation and that is what we are seeing in 2015, said CEA President and CEO, Gary Shapiro. As the technology industry naturally ebbs and flows, a new class of tech is generating lots of enthusiasm among consumers. Emerging
categories such as 4K Ultra HD, smart home and health and fitness technology, are the breakout stars driving the industry onward and upward. Emerging Categories CEAs forecast projects that revenues from emerging product categories will grow by 101 percent
year-over-year in 2015. These developing technology categories include 3D printers, 4K Ultra High-Definition (UHD) televisions, connected home technologies, unmanned aerial vehicles (drones), health and fitness technology, home robots, smart eyewear and smart

While the emerging product categories represent less than five percent of the entire CE industry
watches.

revenue forecast, they are expected to contribute roughly $10 billion to overall CE revenue in 2015 . Without these
categories, overall industry revenue would not sustain any growth in 2015. A few of the stand out products include: Health and fitness technology: Led by the popularity of activity tracking devices, health and fitness devices will lead unit sales among all wearables in
2015 with a projected 20.3 million units (a 21 percent increase from last year), with revenue reaching $1.8 billion in 2015 (an 18 percent increase year-over-year). Connected Home Technologies: Including smart thermostats, smart smoke detectors, IP cameras,
smart home systems, smart locks, connected switches, dimmers and outlets, the booming connected home technology industry is expected to reach $967 million in revenue in 2015, jumping 32 percent over last year. Drones: CEA market research expects 2015 to be a
defining year for drones, with the category ideally positioned for steady growth. According to CEA projections, the U.S. market will approach $105 million in revenue in 2015 (increasing by more than 52 percent from 2014) with unit sales expected to approach

The back half of the year should give way to improving financial conditions that will drive
700,000, an increase of 63 percent.

consumer spending, setting up a stronger second half for consumer tech, said Shawn DuBravac, Ph.D., chief economist of CEA and author of the New York
Times best-seller Digital Destiny: How the New Age of Data Will Transform the Way We Work, Live, and Communicate. The test that remains for 2015 is if the impressive growth driven by nascent, emerging categories, as well as subsector growth, can offset some
declines in mature categories and drive the tech industry towards sustained growth in 2015.
 Tax Reform A2: Impact Competitiveness Not Key Heg 1AR

competitiveness isnt key to heg- thats Wohlforth empirics prove- 4 competitiveness crises did nothing to
alter the international order or bring about relative US decline

Not reverse causal

Easterly 9 - William Easterly is Professor of Economics at New York University and Co-director of the NYU Development Research Institute,
which won the 2009 BBVA Frontiers of Knowledge in Development Cooperation Award. (Tiger Woods thoughtfully explodes Halo Effect myth in
development, http://aidwatchers.com/2009/12/tiger-woods-thoughtfully-offers-to-explode-%E2%80%9Chalo-effect%E2%80%9D-myth-in-
development/ 12/14/2009) STRYKER
The Halo Effect is the idea that someone that is really
Our expectation that celebrities will be model citizens, contrary to vast evidence, is based on the Halo Effect. , really good
at one thing will also be really good at other things. We thought because Tiger was so good at being a golfer, he also must be very good at to have and to hold, forsaking all others, keeping

the Halo Effect is a myth

thee only unto her as long as you both shall live What Tiger considerately did for our education was to show how . This blog has a undying affection for those psychological foibles that cause us to
strongly believe in mythical things, and the Halo Effect is a prime example (and the subject of a whole book on its destructive effects in business.) Why would marital fidelity and skillful putting have any correlation? OK fine and good, but many of you are asking:
What the Vegas Cocktail Waitress does this have to do with development? The Halo Effect was discussed in a previous blog, but when assaulting psychological biases, you can never repeat the attack enough. Not to mention that we all remember the psychology

So if we observe a country is good at technological innovation, we assume

literature more easily when illustrated by a guy with 10 mistresses. say,

that this country is also good at other good things like, say, visionary leadership , freedom from
corruption, and a culture of trust. Since the latter three are imprecise to measure (and the measures themselves may be contaminated by the

we lazily assume they are all good.

Halo Effect), there are plenty of examples of successful innovators with
But actually,

mediocre leaders, corruption, and distrustful populations. The US assumed world technological
leadership in the late 19th century with presidents Arthur and Hayes named Chester Rutherford B. , amidst legendary post-Civil War graft.

Innovators include both trusting Danes and suspicious Frenchmen . The false Halo Effect makes us think we understand development more than we really do, when

The Halo Effect puts heavy weight on some explanations like visionary
we think all good things go together in the good outcomes.

leadership that may be spurious , it leaves out the more complicated cases of UNEVEN
. More subtly

determinants of success: why is New York City the worlds premier city, when we cant even manage
decent airports The idea that EVERYTHING is a necessary condition for development is too
(with 3 separate failed tries)?

facile you DONT have to be good at everything all the time

. The principles of specialization and comparative advantage suggest .

Doesnt translate into power

Ferguson 3 (NiallTisch Professor of History at Harvard, Ziegler Professor at Harvard Business School,
Professor of Financial History at NYU, Senior Research Fellow of Jesus College, Oxford University, Senior
Fellow of the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Foreign Policy #134, 1-2/2003, pp. 18-22, Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace, Power, JSTOR)
But GDP doesnt stand for Great Diplomatic Power. If the institutions arent in place to translate
economic output into military hardwareand if the economy grows faster than public
interest in foreign affairsthen product is nothing more than potential power. America overtook Britain
in terms of GDP in the 1870s, but it was not until the First World War that it overtook Britain
as a global power. In any case, national growth rates in the next 20 years are unlikely to match those in the past three
decades. Depressed Japans will almost certainly be lower, while growth in the United States might conceivably be higher, if there is
any truth to the claim that U.S. productivity was permanently increased by the investments in information technology during the
1990s. And China will have trouble sustaining average annual growth rates of more than 5 percent in the coming decades. Already
the Asian behemoth is suffering some serious social growing pains as market forces rend asunder what was once a command
economy. Before 1914, Russia had the fastest growing economy in Europe. But the ensuing
social polarization was the main reason Russia collapsed in 1917