AT: Glenbrooks

Nothing Passing
Nothing will pass in the lame duck – only spending measures will come up
Newton-Small 11/16 (Jay, 2010, Time, “Congress's Lame Lame Duck”,
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/11/16/congresss-lame-lame-duck/, AV)

Remember last summer when Republicans were warning about the scary lame duck? The ruling
Democrats, warned GOP candidates and incumbents alike, are going to try and sneak through all manner of
controversial bills against the will of the American people. House Republicans even introduced not one but two resolutions calling
on Dems to not pass any legisltation that didn't have bipartisan support. Climate change! The Employee Free Choice Act! Don't Ask
Don't Tell! Money for global abortions! In reality, the lame duck entered like a lamb this week and looks to
leave like one next month. What will they get done? The new Congress has to elect their leaders and rules – the GOP ban
earmarks being the biggest news. The old Congress, still in office through the end of the year, must deal with
President George W. Bush's tax cuts before they expire in January. And they'll have to pass legislation to keep funding
the federal government in the new year. Virtually everything else – a list of nearly 30 bills from the
DREAM Act, which would help put some children of illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship, to the reauthorization of
the Federal Aviation Administration, to (yes) climate change and the ratification of the START nuclear
nonproliferation treaty – will likely either die or get shunted to the next Congress in January. “We need to keep the lame duck
simple,” said Senator Jim DeMint, a South Carolina Republican. “Most of our discussions will focus on making our current tax rates
permanent and then, hopefully, a continuing resolution to fund the government and then we'll all go home.”

Nothing’s passing besides tax cuts- Obama priority

Stockskill 11/15 (Tax cuts priority for lame duck session http://www.mcphersonsentinel.com/agriculture/x290097067/Tax-
cuts-priority-for-lame-duck-session

What was once thought to be a contentious and heated two weeks in Washington is likely to be fairly calm. Many reports have
outlined hopes and ambitions of various House members and committees but few believe Congress will achieve little
outside an agreement on the Bush tax cuts. During a press conference Monday with reporters, Rep. Jerry Moran, R-
Hays, said House Democrats will likely not try to push through a previously planned agenda. He does expect the
Bush tax cuts to be the main issue during the two-week session and believes the cuts will be
extended, but is not sure for how long. “I do expect the current tax laws to be extended but the question now is how long the
extension will be for the upper income bracket,” Moran said. Moran has and continues to support extending tax breaks
for all income levels noting that extending the tax breaks to all income levels benefits the economy and
business owners. President Obama and other Democrat leaders have continued to push back against
Republicans questioning how Republicans intend to pay for the tax cuts.

Congress is deadlocked, little chance of anything passing during lame duck

Diehl 11/2 (Jackson Diehl; Washington Post Staff Writer; “After 2010 elections, Obama will look abroad” 11/2/10
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/11/_not_that_much_of.html)

Not that much of the speculation about how President Obama will respond to the Democrats' likely losses in Tuesday's elections has
concerned foreign affairs -- which is surprising. True, international issues -- from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to
the Middle East peace process -- have hardly figured in congressional campaigns across the country. Yet
the conventional wisdom says the midterms' principal result will be a deadlocked Congress in
which Obama's major domestic initiatives will stand little chance of passing. That means that, like
more than a few presidents before him, he is likely to turn abroad in search of accomplishments to propel his
reelection campaign.

Both the GOP and democrats aren’t in the mood to pass anything during lame
duck
Fox News 11/9 (“Lame Duck Session in Danger of Lame Outcome” 11/9/10;
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/09/lame-duck-session-danger-lame-outcome/)

With the elections in the rearview mirror,

a lame-duck Congress is preparing to convene its final session – one that
might turn out to be quite short and unproductive despite a laundry list of items. That's because
Democrats, who took an election beating last week -- losing control of the House and barely hanging onto the Senate --
will likely be in no mood to wage any tough legislative battles. And Republicans, energized by
their historic gains, will likely be less willing to compromise on critical issues just two months
before seizing more power.
Obama Has No Pol Cap
Obama has zero political capital- there’s only a risk that taking actions like the
plan regenerate it.
Daily KOS 11/17 (“Political Death By A Thousand Cuts. http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/11/17/921164/-Political-
death-by-a-thousand-cuts)

this is getting to the point where Obama is looking weak in many,

It may be a petty, minor thing, but
many separate situations, and it's becoming a car wreck for the White House. Having him doing
public post-election soul searching; having him give repeated noises in the press about preemptively caving on whatever it is the
GOP might be asking for: it's a messaging/political disaster. He took a stout midterm loss and turned it into his
own midterm disaster. At some point someone in this White House has to start figuring out that, screw actual policy, they're
getting their asses kicked purely on the PR front, and Obama's not going to get reelected if he looks like a
quivering pushover. We know from the healthcare fiasco that there's a bunch of folks in this White House who care
more about protecting Obama's image than actually getting useful stuff done: well, image-hoarders, now
might be the perfect time to pay attention to what the nice news channels are telling you. Instead, this is
rapidly becoming another perfect example of being so miserly with your "limited" political
capital that you end up losing all of it. Obama is keeping his powder so dry that he's losing
battles without firing a shot. Long story short, if McConnell or Boehner can't find time to meet at the president's
convenience, Obama should just call off the meeting and be done with it. When you're President of the United States you
shouldn't be losing pissant little power plays .

No Bipart
Bipartisanship is nonexistent.
Press 11/5 (Bill Press; Progreso Weekly, political insider and media commentator on KABC-TV and KCOP-TV, former co-host of
MSNBC’s Buchanan and Press, CNN’s Crossfire and The Spin Room; <No Title> 11/5/10; http://progreso-weekly.com/2/index.php?
option=com_content&task=view&id=806&Itemid=1)

Barack Obama has only been president since Jan. 20, but he's already learned a powerful lesson: Bipartisanship is a myth. At
least, it's a myth at this time in Washington, with this gang of negative, out-of-touch, calcified Republicans led by the clueless John
Boehner. God knows he tried. Even before being sworn in as president, Obama traveled to Capitol
Hill to meet with House and Senate Republicans. In his first week in office, he invited Republican leaders to the
White House. But he didn't stop there. In a gesture seldom seem in partisan-bound Washington -- how often did George W. Bush go to
Congress to meet with Democrats? -- Obama drove up to Capitol Hill to have lunch with Republican members. Both in his
speeches and actions, Obama's extended the hand of bipartisanship to Republicans. And how did
they respond? By stabbing him in the back. When his $819 billion stimulus package came up on the
House floor, not one Republican voted for it. Not one. So much for bipartisanship. Obama's wasting his time
seeking bipartisanship. Not that it's not a worthy goal. In fact, that's just what the American people want: for
leaders of both parties to put aside their differences, sit down together, and get to work solving problems. And, clearly,
working in a bipartisan manner is what Obama wants. But not Republicans. They chose, instead,
to reject the will of the American people, ignore the grave economic crisis facing the nation, and slap, not
shake, the hand of friendship Barack Obama extended across the aisle.

Thumpers
a. Peace Process
Daily Star 11/11 ( Is Obama’s Loss Netanyahu’s Gain? http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?
edition_id=1&categ_id=5&article_id=121425#ixzz15eo5B4Ry )

This leaves the sagging “peace process” between Palestinians and Israelis. So far, the Obama
administration has shown considerable weakness and in fact has been outmaneuvered by Israeli
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. The Palestinian Authority was hoping that after mid-term elections Obama
would change gears, and so did several other Arab countries. This presumably was based on the assumption that
pressure on the Netanyahu government before the elections would turn the matter into an election issue to the detriment of Obama.
The question here revolves over whether Obama is willing and able to spend whatever political capital he
has left to bring about a settlement to the conflict that can be declared a success and may possibly help in a re-election
campaign. A solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was declared by more than one official, including General David Petreaus, to be
a national security issue. And on national security issues, the Congress has often balked at facing the president head-on. But even
if Obama takes this option there may be limits to the kind of pressure he can bring to bear on any Israeli
government given the influence of the Israel lobby.

b.SKFTA
WSJ 11/17 (U.S. Hit by Trade Setback http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703805004575607563000715350.html)
The presidents of the U.S. and South Korea were unable to overcome disputes over cars, cattle and
domestic politics, potentially killing the biggest bilateral trade deal the U.S. has taken up in more than a
decade. The failure to resolve issues by Barack Obama's self-imposed deadline was a blow to
the president, who has put export growth at the center of his jobs agenda and had invested
political capital in getting a deal by the Group of 20 summit in Seoul.

c. START
NPR 11/18 (“Obama Says START's Not About Politics But It Is.”
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2010/11/18/131421822/obama-says-start-s-not-about-politics-but-it-is)

While the president may not want the treaty to be about partisan politics, it most assuredly is.
The reason he wants a vote during the lame-duck session is because Senate Democrats currently have 57
seats not including the two independents who vote with them. Come January, Democrats will be down to 51 seats with
the Republican pick-up of six. Ratifying a treaty takes a two-thirds vote, or 67 votes, in the Senate. So Obama's best chance at
ratification is now. But his opportunity for passage appears to be slipping away along with his
political capital.

d. Auto bailouts
New Republic 11/18 (Business may be ungrateful, it’s not stupid. http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-
chait/79254/business-may-be-ungrateful-its-not-stupid)

Saving the American auto industry, which has been a huge drag on Obama’s political capital, is
a monumental achievement that few appreciate, unless you live in Michigan. After getting their taxpayer lifeline
from Obama, both General Motors and Chrysler are now making money by making cars. New plants are even scheduled to open.
More than 1 million jobs would have disappeared had the domestic auto sector been liquidated.

e. Affordable Care Act and midterm losses

Wolken 11/18 (Tucker. Bringing down the house. http://www.thebatt.com/opinion/bringing-down-the-house-1.1783589)
The Democrat leadership spent time in power trying to fulfill a liberal wish list instead of focusing on jobs.
They miscalculated the depth of the recession as their stimulus fell flat. They squandered the president's political
capital in a long unpopular process leading to an even less popular Affordable Care Act. This
served to lead Blue Dog Democrats like lambs to the slaughter in the elections. All this unpopularity left
the maimed Republican brand in the lucky position of being the other guy. The sweeping gains in congress are far
from a vote of confidence for the party that has had trouble articulating anything other than "No" since Obama took office. The
forgettable Pledge to America pandered to conservative ideals, but failed to articulate any specifics. Cutting
spending is always popular until people find out what they aren't going to get. The platform of cutting taxes and deregulation
has been canonized in Democrat rhetoric as the "failed policies of the past." In the process of
distancing themselves from the Bush Administration, Republicans failed to defend their policies, allowing Democrats to characterize
any policy as part of the Bush failures.

Obama will spend all of his capital on immigration.

Herbert 10/27 (David Gauvey Herbert; Staff Writer for National Journal; “Immigration” 10/27/10;
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/no_20100106_1838.php?print=true)

President Obama came into office with a lot of political capital, but after using much of it up on health care
reform it remains to be seen whether he has enough left to tackle immigration reform. The administration has
made progress on one promise: a pledge to crack down on employers who hire illegal immigrants. The feds began investigating 1,000
businesses in November, the biggest audit ever. Targeting those companies is politically popular in normal times, and it hasn't proved
controversial during a recession that has cost millions of citizens their jobs. By selecting Janet Napolitano, a border-state governor, for
secretary of Homeland Security, Obama also seemed to signal his interest in addressing immigration
problems.

Bailouts
Egan 11/2 (Timothy, 2010, “How Obama Saved Capitalism and Lost the Midterms”,
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/02/how-obama-saved-capitalism-and-lost-the-midterms/?partner=rss&emc=rss)
If I were one of the big corporate donors who bankrolled the Republican tide that carried into office more than 50
new Republicans in the House, I would be wary of what you just bought. For no matter your view of President
Obama, he effectively saved capitalism. And for that, he paid a terrible political price. Suppose you had
$100,000 to invest on the day Barack Obama was inaugurated. Why bet on a liberal Democrat? Here’s why: the presidency of George
W. Bush produced the worst stock market decline of any president in history. The net worth of American households collapsed as
Bush slipped away. And if you needed a loan to buy a house or stay in business, private sector borrowing was dead when he handed
over power. As of election day, Nov. 2, 2010, your $100,000 was worth about $177,000 if invested strictly in the NASDAQ average for
the entirety of the Obama administration, and $148,000 if bet on the Standard & Poors 500 major companies. This works out to
returns of 77 percent and 48 percent. But markets, though forward-looking, are not considered accurate measurements of the
economy, and the Great Recession skewed the Bush numbers. O.K. How about looking at the big financial institutions that keep the
motors of capitalism running — banks and auto companies? The banking system was resuscitated by $700 billion in
bailouts started by Bush (a fact unknown by a majority of Americans), and finished by Obama, with help from the Federal
Reserve. It worked. The government is expected to break even on a risky bet to stabilize the global free
market system. Had Obama followed the populist instincts of many in his party, the underpinnings of big
capitalism could have collapsed. He did this without nationalizing banks, as other Democrats had urged. Saving the
American auto industry, which has been a huge drag on Obama’s political capital, is a
monumental achievement that few appreciate, unless you live in Michigan. After getting their taxpayer lifeline from
Obama, both General Motors and Chrysler are now making money by making cars. New plants are even scheduled to open. More
than 1 million jobs would have disappeared had the domestic auto sector been liquidated.

AT: Thumpers (START Specific)/START

Top of Agenda
START is a the ONLY lame duck priority for Obama- it will pass, other things
won’t.
ABC 11/18 (Obama Passing START a Priority for the Lame Duck
Session.”http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/11/obama-passing-start-a-priority-for-lame-duck-session.html

President Obama said on Sunday that he has told Congress that passing the new START treaty during the lame
duck session is a “top priority.” “I reiterated my commitment to get the start treaty done during the lame duck
session,” the president said after a meeting with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. “And I’ve communicated to
Congress it is a top priority.” Obama and Medvedev signed the new treaty in April in Prague. The nuclear agreement requires
both countries to reduce their arsenals from 2,200 deployed warheads each to 1,550 over seven years, a 30 percent reduction from
the last treaty. The U.S. and Russia also agreed to reduce their long-range missiles and launchers to 700 for each country as well.
(More here: http://bit.ly/a2Tv3k) The Obama Administration wants the Senate to ratify the treaty before the new
Congress takes over in January – when the Democratic majority there shrinks by six. The White House is
concerned that if they wait until January, new members of Congress would succeed in blocking the treaty
because they see it as too friendly to Russia. The administration needs 67 votes for ratification so winning
Republicans support is essential

AT: SKFTA Thumper

Obama hasn’t spent any polcap on SKFTA
Engler 11/18 (Senior analyst with Foreign Policy In Focus and author of How to Rule the World: The Coming Battle Over the
Global Economy (Nation Books, 2008). http://www.indypendent.org/2010/11/13/is-obama-triangulating/)

After Obama’s first year in office, I gave the administration a “B” on trade policy, on the grounds that no
news is good news. As long as unfinished “free trade” deals remained bogged down in negotiations and
are not an administration priority, I am willing to judge the situation as no harm, no foul. But it’s a different story
if the White House starts investing any real political capital in advancing these deals.

AT: Tax Cuts Thumper

Tax cuts won’t be voted on- other things come first
Fox News 11/18 (“Democrats still struggle to extend Bush Tax
Cuts.”http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/11/18/democrats-still-struggle-extending-bush-tax-cuts#ixzz15gj7WPZe)

It's not clear when Senator Reid will try to bring up the tax cuts. He and the White House want
votes on many issues in the 15 or so remaining legislative days. Everything from "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" to
the Dream Act, which mandates in-state tuition for the children of illegal aliens, among other things. Democratic leaders
have been struggling to figure out what to do about the tax cuts for some time. And some grumbled
 after a meeting with the president at the White house this
about a lack of direction from the White House. But
morning, one Democratic leader said President Obama will let lawmakers take the lead.

AT: Econ Impacts - No Double Dip

Coming Now
No chance of a recession now – every indicator proves.
Stewart 10 (Hale, Writer for NYT 538, 9/6, “Potential for Double-Dip Recession Seems Small”,
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/06/potential-for-double-dip-recession-seems-small/)

Over the last few months there has been an increase in the concern and discussion over a possible double-dip
recession, particularly after unemployment reports over the summer showed that the nation was shedding tens of thousands of
jobs. However, a key element lacking in the talk of double-dip recessions is what actually caused past
recessions – that is, what are the primary reasons an economy slows to the point where its growth contracts
for at least two quarters – followed by an analysis of whether those conditions exist in the current economic environment. And
judging from a variety of indicators, the potential for a double-dip recession seem small. Perhaps
the most obvious economic indicator of a coming recession is rising interest rates, one of the primary policy tools
available to the Federal Reserve. According to generally accepted wisdom, the Fed is supposed to lower interest rates during a
recession to spur lending and loan demand, and then raise interest rates after the economy expands to prevent inflation from getting
out of hand. Here is a chart from the St. Louis Federal Reserve’s FRED system, which shows the weekly effective federal funds rate:
Notice that the line typically increases before the gray shaded areas that represent recessions, demonstrating that short-term
interest rates rise before a recession. Also of importance is that before the last true double-dip recession in the
early 1980s, short-term interest rates were incredibly high – a policy move championed and implemented by the Fed
chairman at the time, Paul Volcker, to kill inflation. Finally, the chart shows that short-term interest rates are the lowest
they’ve been in over 50 years, an event that typically occurs as the economy is exiting a
recession, not entering one. Another leading cause of recession is some type of financial crisis that
paralyzes a significant portion of the financial intermediary system. This is what happened in the Great Depression,
especially during the years 1929-33, when in fact there were three banking crises: the first in late 1930, the second in early 1931 and
the final in mid-1932. The savings and loan crisis of the late 1980s was a contributing factor to the early 1990s recession. And the
bursting of the housing bubble in 2007-08 led to a broad financial meltdown that prompted the latest recession. However,
according to the F.D.I.C.’s latest Quarterly Banking Profile, the banking industry is starting to heal. Earnings are up,
and charge-offs fell for the first time since 2006. This is not to say this part of the economy does not face issues; there
are still over 800 “problem” institutions that have a little over $400 billion in assets. However, the underlying trends
indicate that this sector of the economy is mending rather than getting worse. Commodity price
increases – especially in the oil market – are also leading causes of recessions. James Hamilton, an economics
professor at the University of California at San Diego who writes at Econbrowser, has done some of the most in-depth research on this
topic. He has noted that 10 of 11 recessions are preceded by an increase of some sort in oil prices. As he noted in a paper,
Nonlinearities and the Macroeconomic Effect of Oil Prices, Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait led to a quick doubling of the price of oil in 1990.
Oil also doubled in price during the 1990s and doubled again in 2007-08 before the latest recession. The reason for oil’s effect
on the economy is simple: oil is a commodity that the United States must use in large quantities for a
variety of necessary economic functions. In addition, oil prices above certain levels have an important
psychological impact on consumers, and can affect consumer sentiment and spending when certain levels
are reached. Currently oil prices are trading at roughly $70 to $84 a barrel, and gasoline has been around $2.80 a gallon for the
last six months. In short, oil prices and commodity prices in general are not at levels to cause a
recession. A final cause of recessions is a bursting of some financial bubble – a leading cause of the last two
recessions. In the 1990s, the S&P 500 increased from a little below 400 at the beginning of the decade to over 1,400 at the end of the
decade – a massive increase not seen before. During the latest expansion, home prices as measured by the Case-Shiller Price Index
increased from a reading near 100 in the year 2000 to over 180 in 2006 – a near doubling in prices in less than a decade. A
bursting bubble usually leads to depressed consumer sentiment, and therefore lower consumer spending. In addition,
lower housing and stock prices reduce the value of consumers’ balance sheets, making them feel less affluent – and less eager to
spend. Now, while the nation continues to feel the blunt aftermath of the bursting of the housing bubble,
there does not appear to be other segments of the economy that have the same overheated quality that
housing had a few years ago.

Tax Cuts Won’t Pass

Won’t pass- vote counts.
Rubin 11/18 (Richard, Bloomberg. Reid Wants Senate to Vote on Competing Proposals to Extend Income Tax Cuts.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-18/reid-wants-senate-to-vote-on-competing-proposals-to-extend-income-tax-cuts.html)

Harry Reid said he wants the chamber to vote on proposals from each party to extend
Senate Majority Leader
income-tax cuts that expire at the end of the year. Reid, talking to reporters today in Washington, didn’t say when such
votes might be held, though the votes are unlikely to come before Congress leaves for its Thanksgiving
recess. Democrats support extending the Bush-era tax cuts for couples with income up to $250,000 a
year, while Republicans want a permanent extension of the tax cuts for all income levels. “We have to make
sure that we do everything in our power to fixate on these tax cuts for the middle class,” Reid of Nevada said after Senate Democrats
discussed the issue in private for several hours. House Democrats, meanwhile, plan to take up President Barack
Obama’s plan to extend the Bush-era tax cuts for only the middle class when they return from
Thanksgiving recess, according to a Democratic congressional aide. It’s unclear whether that vote will
come before a planned Nov. 30 meeting at the White House for leaders of both parties. Votes on
competing proposals in the Senate would test whether either party has the 60 votes needed to
overcome procedural hurdles. Neither tax-cut proposal is likely to garner that many votes and
get through the Senate, based on comments from senators today.

Won’t pass- compromises rejected and vote counts

Reuters 11/18. (Democrats plan vote on middle class tax cuts. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AH3MW20101119)
The moves end days of hand-wringing by Democrats to find a common strategy before a December 31
deadline for expiration of tax cuts for nearly all Americans and a Republican takeover of the House of Representatives next
year. A clash over taxes augurs badly for any chance that the two parties will work together after
this month's elections on major issues like cutting the budget deficit and creating jobs. Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said he
believes he has President Barack Obama's support in pursuing tax cuts for everyone except the wealthy, after some concern
that Obama had been ready to deal with Republicans over cuts for the rich. "The main thing we've learned
is that we're united in recognizing that we have to protect the middle class," Reid told reporters. Democrats
will need to win the support of at least one Republican to reach the 60 vote threshold needed
to advance legislation in the 100-seat Senate. That appears unlikely at this point, Democrats have
said. Obama had signaled a willingness to compromise following Democrats' defeat in the November
elections, suggesting a permanent extension for the lower- and middle-class income groups and possibly a shorter-term extension
for wealthier Americans. But Republicans rejected this approach. They have been united in insisting
that Congress renew all tax cuts and have vowed to block efforts to consider cuts for different income groups
separately.

Tax Cuts Bad

Tax cuts not key to the economy – they can only hurt.
NYT 11/6 (“Plenty of Work for the Lame Duck: The $4 Trillion Question”,
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/opinion/07sun1.html)

Permanent cuts would bust the budget. Extending all of them would cost nearly $4 trillion over the
next decade — $3.2 trillion for the so-called middle-class cuts and $700 billion for the richest Americans. There is no
plausible level of spending cuts to offset the damage; the result would be chronic deficits and
debilitating debt. That is why we believe that for the sake of fiscal sanity any extensions of the Bush tax cuts
must be temporary and focused on spurring consumer spending while the economy is weak. We support a
one- or two-year extension of the cuts for low-, middle-, and upper-middle-income taxpayers, who spend
most of their income. Under this approach, unless you are at the top of the ladder, you will keep your Bush tax cuts in the near
term. The top 2 percent of households would take a hit, but hardly a body blow. A married couple making $325,000 a year, with two
school-age children, would see their taxes rise by $7,400, from $63,600 to $71,000, according to estimates by Deloitte Tax. If the
couple made $1 million, their taxes would rise from $236,200 to $289,400. A one-year extension of the cuts for the lower 98 percent
would add about $140 billion to the deficit, but the support to the economy is more important right now. Revenue
from letting the high-end tax cuts expire — an estimated $40 billion in 2011 alone — could be used for job-
creating measures in the near term and deficit reduction later on.

Tax Cuts Will Pass

The GOP is in a doublebind- tax cuts will pass because of Reid push
TPM 11/18 (Harry Reid Tries to Box in the GOP in on Tax Cuts Vote. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/harry-reid-
tries-to-box-gop-in-on-tax-cuts-vote.php)

Senate Majority LeaderHarry Reid says he's willing to do "whatever it takes" to extend the Bush tax cuts for
the middle class, up to and including allowing a vote on extending all the cuts, not just those on incomes below
$250,000. Speaking to reporters on Capitol Hill this afternoon after a Democratic caucus meeting that
focused on the Bush tax cuts -- which will expire in January unless something is done in the lame duck
session -- Reid said that he's willing to allow a vote on Republican Leader Mitch McConnell's plan to extend all the cuts in
exchange for many votes on dealing with the upper-income cuts while letting the middle class cuts continue. Such a bargain
would put Republicans in the politically tricky position of having to filibuster middle class tax
cuts, or abandon their goal of permanent tax cuts for wealthy Americans. "We want an
opportunity and -- and we mean plural -- to vote once, twice, whatever it takes to show the American
people that we support the middle class," Reid said. He said there could be "multiple variations" on how to proceed on the
cuts for wealthier Americans.

It will pass- Demint/Pence amendment

ABC 11/18 (Congressman Mike Pence, Sen. Jim DeMint Introduce Legislation To Make Bush-Era Tax Cuts Permanent.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/11/-mike-pence-jim-demint-introduce-legislation-to-make-bush-era-tax-cuts-permanent.html)

Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., left little room for compromise on the issue of extending the expiring income tax
cuts, suggesting that if they are not made permanent by the end of the year, Republicans should redouble
their efforts to do so in the new Congress. Pence said on Thursday that he was backing up that pledge with
legislation co-sponsored by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., to permanently extend the cuts for both
the middle class and wealthy Americans. “I really believe that the last thing we should do in the worst economy in 25
years is allow a tax increase on any American,” Pence told ABC’s Jonathan Karl and Rick Klein on “Top Line.” “And we shouldn't do it
in 6 weeks, we should do it in 24 months or 36 months, we ought to start the road to recovery by saying to the American people all
the current tax rates are the tax rates going forward, permanently. And then we can go to work on putting our fiscal house in order
and pursuing the kind of pro-growth policy that'll really create growth.” There are already several pieces of legislation
pending to extend the tax cuts that are set to expire at the end of the year, and other members of
Congress, like the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., have said they will
proceed with similar measures. Congress is expected to consider the tax cut issue when they return from
the Thanksgiving recess. “If we can't win it in the lame duck session, then I believe Republicans should
come back, first thing in January, and pass legislation to extend all the current tax rates, permanently,
send that to the President’s desk,” Pence said, “because we've got the American people on our side.” But the Indiana
Republican declined to say whether he would be willing to see some of the cuts expire on Jan. 1 if lawmakers cannot come to an
agreement on the issue during the lame duck session. In his appearance on “Top Line” on Thursday, Pence called on House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to schedule a debate on his bill before the end of the year. “Let's have a fair up
or down vote on extending all the current tax rates permanently,” he said, adding: “You bring the DeMint-Pence bill to
the floor that extends all the current tax rates permanently, I bet it'll pass.”

START Not Passing

START won’t pass – GOP opposition and vote counts
AP 11/16 (Associated Press, Desmond Butler, Tue Nov 16, 2010, “GOP senator deals setback to nuclear treaty,”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101116/ap_on_go_co/us_us_russia_nuclear)

WASHINGTON – An agreement between the United States and Russia to slash their nuclear arsenals was in
danger of collapse Tuesday after an influential Republican senator said it should not be voted on this year.
With a terse statement, Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., dealt a major setback to President Barack Obama's efforts to
improve ties with Russia and to his broader strategy for reducing nuclear arms worldwide. The treaty, known as
New START, had been seen as one of Obama's top foreign policy accomplishments. Without the support of Kyl, the
leading Republican voice on the treaty, Democrats have little hope of securing at least eight
Republican votes, the minimum they would need for ratification in the Senate. His stance, unless
reversed, would delay the vote until the newly elected Senate, with an expanded Republican minority, is
sworn in next year. Democrats would then need the support of at least 14 Republicans. The White House
has been trying to avoid a vote next year, knowing that ratification could slip out of reach in the face of
opposition to the treaty from most Republicans and an increasingly partisan political environment. At a
minimum, a 2011 vote would probably set the treaty back for months, because Republicans are likely to
demand new hearings in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee so that newly elected lawmakers could
be briefed.

START won’t pass – Kyl

Reuters 11/16 (Reuters, Andrew Quinn, Nov 16, 2010, “Analysis: Extradition, START rows darken U.S.-Russia ties,”
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AF5XE20101116)

Spies, senators and an alleged arms dealer dubbed the "Merchant of Death" all appear to be working
against one of President Barack Obama's few foreign policy success stories: the "reset" in relations with
Moscow. Russia's Foreign Ministry protested sharply after Viktor Bout was flown from Thailand to the United States on Tuesday,
ending a two-year battle over the 43-year-old former Soviet air force officer. The State Department, which pushed for Bout's
extradition, said it was confident it would have no effect on the two-year old U.S. drive to "reset" strained ties with Moscow. "We have
a broad and deep relationship with Russia," State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley told a news briefing. "Sometimes we have
tensions that crop up periodically and we work to manage those. I don't expect that this will have any impact on our relationship with
 But Bout's arrival comes at a sensitive moment in U.S.-Russia ties as Obama prepares to meet
Russia."
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev at a NATO summit amid doubts over the U.S. president's ability to
deliver Senate confirmation of the new START nuclear arms deal between the two countries. Those doubts
deepened on Tuesday when a key Republican senator voiced new reservations about the treaty, spurring
Vice President Joe Biden to warn that failure to pass it would threaten U.S. national security. "The new START
treaty is a fundamental part of our relationship with Russia," Biden said in a statement. Political analysts said the outlook was
worrying for U.S.-Russia relations. "The reset policy has been hailed as the administration's biggest success, but this steady drip of
negative news may begin to affect that perception," said Heather Conley, a Russia expert at the Center for Strategic and International
Studies, a Washington think-tank. "There is definitely a feeling that clouds are beginning to gather." The Russia
reset, which Obama launched after taking office in January 2008, has yielded dividends for both
Washington and Moscow as Russia joined the United States to put pressure on Iran over its nuclear
program and became a helpful partner for the U.S.-led war against Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan.
Russia, for its part, has won increased U.S. backing for its economic reforms, including its bid to join the World Trade Organization.
COLD WAR TENSIONS LINGER But reminders of past tensions between the two former Cold War foes are never
far from the surface. News this month that the head of Moscow's deep-cover spying operations defected
after betraying the network in June was a humiliating setback that spurred cloak-and-dagger headlines
around the world. The extradition of Bout, who was arrested in Bangkok in March 2008 in a U.S.-led sting operation, was another
unhappy surprise for Moscow, which had warned repeatedly that his case was politically motivated and could damage U.S.-Russia
ties. An inspiration for the Hollywood movie "Lord of War" starring Nicholas Cage, Bout faces U.S. accusations of trafficking arms
since the 1990s to dictators and conflict zones in Africa, South America and the Middle East. Samuel Charap, a Russia expert at the
Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, said Washington's determination to bring Bout to trial may sow fresh doubts about
the United States' commitment to the broader reset policy. A bigger worry, however, is continued Senate delay on
START, which Obama and Medevedev signed in April, committing to cut deployed nuclear warheads by
about 30 percent. "START is the cornerstone, and it is a demonstration to the Russians on whether Obama
can deliver, and whether the U.S. is really interested in pursuing shared interests cooperatively," Charap said.
While both Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have urged the Senate to ratify the measure
during its "lame duck" session in coming weeks, those hopes were hit hard on Tuesday when a key
Republican said that did not leave enough time to debate. The comments by Senator John Kyl, the
number two Republican in the Senate, could push a START vote to next year, when passage may be more
difficult because Democrats emerged with a smaller Senate majority following recent elections. "It is going to
be a real test of the president's political capital in Washington to get (START) done," said Conley of CSIS. "The question will be: does
the president have the ability to move his foreign policy agenda forward."

PGS means GOP kills START

Gertz 11/17 (Bill is geopolitics editor and a national security and investigative reporter for The Washington Times. He has
been with The Times since 1985. Mr. Gertz also writes a weekly column called Inside the Ring, a weekly column that chronicles the
U.S. national security bureaucracy. Mr. Gertz has been a guest lecturer at the FBI National Academy in Quantico, Va.; the Central
Intelligence Agency in Virginia; the National Defense University at Fort McNair in Washington; and the Brookings Institution in
Washington. He has participated in the National Security Studies Program at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced
International Studies and Syracuse University Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, “Inside the Ring”, The Washington
Times, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/nov/17/inside-the-ring-232185107/)

The four-star general's qualified endorsement did not define what "noteworthy constraints" are, but the
treaty limits on prompt global strike are one of the main reasons many Senate Republicans
this week balked at going ahead with debate on ratification of New START during the current
lame-duck session. Their worries were bolstered by a recent Congressional Research Service report that
stated, "Congress is likely to question how the New START Treaty ... would affect U.S. plans" for the
conventional global-strike mission. "Warheads deployed on boost-glide systems would not be affected by the treaty because
these are new types of strategic offensive arms," the report said. "But those deployed in existing types of reentry vehicles on existing
types of ballistic missiles, like the Navys [conventional-warhead Trident] program, would count against the treaty limits.

START won’t pass – GOP

Noonans 11/16 (John Noonans, 11/16/10, “Senator Kyl: START Will Not Pass During Lame Duck Session,”
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/senator-kyl-does-not-think-start-will-pass-during-lame-duck-sessions_517994.html_)

Much hash has been made about President Obama's refocus on foreign policy in the aftermath of an
election that wounded his party's political ranks. That initiative may have suffered an equally damaging
blow this morning, as Senator Jon Kyl -- the GOP lead on the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty -- said
that it was unlikely that Obama's prized nuclear weapons treaty will be passed during the
lame duck session of Congress. On his website this morning, Kyl announced: When Majority Leader Harry
Reid asked me if I thought the treaty could be considered in the lame duck session, I replied I did not think
so given the combination of other work Congress must do and the complex and unresolved issues related
to START and modernization. I appreciate the recent effort by the Administration to address some of the
issues that we have raised and I look forward to continuing to work with Senator Kerry, DOD, and DOE
officials. That would push START back to the 112th Congress, which convenes in January. President Obama
would then need to secure 7 additional GOP votes from new members, perhaps putting the treaty's
passage out of reach for an administration that just recently launched an aggressive, multi-front push to
ensure ratification during the lame duck session of Congress.

START won’t pass – Kyl

NBC 11/18 (NBC's Ken Strickland, “Republican: 'No chance' START happens in lame duck,”
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/11/18/5490615-republican-no-chance-start-happens-in-lame-duck)

In a brief comment to NBC News this afternoon, Republican Sen. Jon Kylof Arizona said, "I think there is no chance
that [the START] treaty can be completed in the lame duck session." Kyl was responding to a question
about whether there had been any progress made on negotiations for the START nuclear reduction treaty. Earlier this afternoon,
Kyl attended a meeting to discuss START at the request of Sen. John Kerry (D-MA). Also attending the meeting,
according to John McCain (R-AZ) were Republican Sens. McCain, Roger Wicker, Jim Inhofe, John Thune, and others. Kyl also
stressed that he was still willing to talk to whomever wanted to talk, hence his meeting today with Kerry.
He added that Kerry had been very "persistent" in his effort to continue discussions.
START - DUMA says no
DUMA says no – missile defense
Blank 11/18 (Stephen Blank, 11/18/10, “Moscow Shows Anxiety Over Passing the New START Treaty,”
http://georgiandaily.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20428&Itemid=132)

Duma’s foreign relations committee essentially recanted

On November 3, the day after the US midterm election, the
its recommendation of ratification and held the treaty back for debate, reflecting its apprehension over
ratification by the Senate and cited the Senate’s three points of understanding saying that the US is to
apply the treaty to combat railway-based missile systems, and that the treaty does not limit the
Pentagon’s missile defense efforts. It also emphasizes that the treaty does not cover non-nuclear weapons. All
three of these statements strike at key Russian objectives, but it is also clear that ratification is the main
concern (ITAR-TASS, November 3). Likewise, its Chairman, Konstantin Kosachev, expressed his personal concerns
about the treaty’s fate and the US Senate’s understandings (ITAR-TASS, November 3). Since Kosachev often speaks for
the Russian government, he clearly was not only voicing his private opinion. Indeed, some analysts like Sergei Karaganov, the
Chairman of the Moscow-based Presidium of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, fear that the US Senate may attach legal
conditions to the treaty that would force Russia to refuse to ratify it (RIA Novosti, November 3; Vedomosti, November 8).

Any compromise means the Duma won’t pass START.

Richter 11/5 (Paul, LATimes, 2010, “White House seeks deal with GOP to ensure ratification of New START treaty”,
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-fg-new-start-20101106,0,625448.story)

There also have been some worrisome developments in Russia. The international committee of the State Duma, the
lower house of parliament, last week withdrew its support for the treaty, citing concerns that the Senate's
interpretation seemed different from what diplomats had agreed upon. Although the move was mostly symbolic,
it was a warning that Russia could back away from the agreement if the Obama administration
bends too far in response to Republican pressure. With the treaty still in limbo, an additional arms treaty
with Russia that would sharply reduce nuclear arsenals is now a distant hope.

Cybersecurity Not Pass

Cybersecurity won’t pass - experts
Chabrow, 11/15/10 (Eric, Executive Editor of GovInfoSecurity.com “Congress Back: No Cyber Bill in Sight”
http://www.govinfosecurity.com/p_print.php?t=a&id=3102)

no one predicts that lawmakers will enact significant cybersecurity

Congress is back in Washington, yet
legislation during the lame-duck session before the 111th Congress fades into history in a few
weeks "There is little prospect of legislation in the lame duck; they just have too much else
important to accomplish and there is little appetite for difficult work," says Paul Rosenzweig, visiting
fellow at the Heritage Foundation and onetime deputy assistant secretary for policy at the Department of Homeland Security.Oe
knowledgeable congressional insider predicts, the chances of cybersecurity legislation to pass this year are
zilch. That sentiment was echoed by former Rep. Tom Davis, the last Republican to chair a congressional committee with
cybersecurity oversight, and forecasted by Sen. Thomas Carper, the Delaware Democrat who chairs a Senate panel with
cybersecurity oversight, who said before the midterm election that a big Republican victory would likely mean that any significant
action on cybersecurity would wait until the 112th Congress, when the GOP would have more sway. Carper, in the interview, said
Republicans would be less anxious to pass much in the lame-duck session. "They'll just say, 'Well, we'll just wait and come back in
January when there are stronger numbers, and then reengage.'"In the next Congress that convenes in January,
Republicans will take back control of the House of Representatives and will reduce the Democratic
majority in the Senate."Given the limited time for the lame duck session and other pressing issues - appropriations, extending the tax
cuts, the debt ceiling - it is hard to imagine that a standalone cyber bill has a chance," says Franklin Reeder, a founder of the not-for-
profit Center for Internet Security and former official in the Office of Management and Budget.That said, hope - for some - springs
eternal for some sort of cybersecurity bill to be enacted this year. Cybersecurity, a national defense issue, has wide bipartisan
support, and has avoided the partisan bickering between Republicans and Democrats heard on other issues.The best chance,
albeit a slim one, for passage of significant cybersecurity legislation this year would be
adoption of a House-approved Defense Department funding bill that contains significant IT
security provisions, including requirements for government agencies to move to continuous IT security monitoring and the
creation of a Senate-confirmed, White House cybersecurity director. "I believe that the National Defense Authorization Act is still in
play and I am hopeful that it passed before the end of the session," says Melissa Hathaway, senior adviser at Harvard Kennedy
School's Belfer Center and the former National Security Council official who last year led President Obama's cyberspace policy
review.But political squabbling could derail that bill. The House-passed version of the National Defense Authorization Act includes a
provision to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" law that bars gays from serving openly in the military. That proviso has resulted in a
Republican filibuster of the measure, and supporters haven't been able to muster the 60 votes needed to end the stalemate. Unless
Democrats agree to rid the bill of the "don't ask, don't tell" repeal provision, the defense measure that usually passes Congress every
year without much opposition could remain in the Senate hopper.The Senate version of the National Defense Authorization Act,
aimed primarily at the Defense Department, also would require the DoD to report to congress on cyberwarfare policy that includes a
review of legal, strategy and doctrinal issues; fund cybersecurity demonstration projects using commercial technology; develop a
tailored acquisition process for cyberspace; and create a strategy to address software vulnerabilities and supply-chain risk mitigation
strategies.Advocates for comprehensive cybersecurity reform could get a better result if lawmakers wait until next year to take action
rather than enacting a halfhearted measure in the waning days of the 111th Congress. "The dilemma is that, if limited FISMA (Federal
Information Security Management Act) reform is enacted in the lame duck session," Reeder says, "the sense of urgency to move
broader cybersecurity legislation in the 112th Congress will diminish and other important reforms, especially dealing with workforce
issues, could fall by the wayside."

Won’t Pass- Republican takeover of the house killed chances

Nagesh 11/16 (Gautham, reporter for TheHill.com “Tech industry presses Congress on R&D tax credit; cybersecurity bill
looks unlikely“http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/129377-tech-industry-presses-congress-on-rad-tax-credit-
cybersecurity)

Sen. TomCarper (D-Del.) has crafted a FISMA reform bill with bipartisan support that has been attached to the
ongoing effort to pass comprehensive civilian cybersecurity legislation. But sources tell The Hill that
attaching Carper's bill to a larger authorization or appropriations measure is more likely than passing
stand-alone cybersecurity legislation. The odds of a comprehensive cybersecurity bill passing have
diminished greatly with the Republicans taking control of the House. While House GOP leaders have been
mum on the subject, Senate Republicans including John McCain (Ariz.) have objected to what they view as attempts to regulate
cybersecurity for private-sector firms.

Net Neutrality Won’t Pass

Net Neutrality won’t pass- Midterm dems losses killed any chances
RedOrbit 11/8 (RedOrbit, a news source “GOP Victories Could Doom Net Neutrality Legislation” RedOrbit
http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/1945981/gop_victories_could_doom_net_neutrality_legislation/)

The results of last week's election could well spell the end of Congress's chances of passing a
'net neutrality' bill that would have ensured equal treatment for all types of Internet traffic.On
November 2, the Republican Party gained control of the House of Representatives from their Democratic rivals, and while leadership
in the Senate did not change hands, the GOP did pick up several new seats there as well. That, according to Richard Bennett of the
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), dooms proposed legislation that would have required Internet service
providers to eliminate discrimination of different types of Web traffic."All, or virtually all of 95 of the candidates
who signed on to the PCCC’s [the Progressive Change Campaign Committee] Net Neutrality
pledge were defeated… so there’s essentially no prospect of a net neutrality bill passing
anytime soon, although we may see some legislation clarifying the FCC’s authority if the
Commission makes a move to reclassify under Title II," Bennett wrote in a November 3 blog entry at the
Hightechforum.org."This election puts net neutrality on the back burner, and raises the importance of spectrum, intellectual property
protection, and Internet privacy," he added. "Or so it would appear; these things never turn out exactly as one expects, of course.
Members of Congress on both sides of the aisles are deeply concerned about the economy, the debt, and employment, and a focus
on the positives of technology over such negatives as net neutrality ought to help with all these things."Among those who
lost their bid for re-election this past week was Virginia Representative Rick Boucher, a net
neutrality advocate who served as the chairman for the House subcommittee on
Communications, Technology, and the Internet. Boucher served 14 terms before losing his seat to Republican opponent
Morgan Griffith, who had served as Virginia's House Majority Leader.However, according to Ed Black, president of the Computer and
Communications Industry Association (CCIA), the Congressional shift in power does not spell the end of IT-related legislation. As Black
told Chris Lefkow of AFP on Sunday, "Many tech issues are bipartisan," including those centering around cyber security and privacy
protection.

China Currency Not Passing

Currency negotiations failed at G20—And Obama is using discussions as a
political strategy
Brower 11/18 (Katie, Writer for Bloomsburg Business Week, Why Obama Keeps Mentioning China,
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_48/b4205042094905.htm)

President Barack Obama left the Group of 20 summit in Seoul without persuading China to let its currency
float more freely or take steps to trim its trade surplus. However, in recent months, Obama has been citing
China more as a model than a threat. It turns out that the high-speed Chinese economy is a good foil for a
politically challenged President. Whether the subject is education, infrastructure, clean energy, or high tech, Obama often
points to China's investments and warns that the U.S. must do the same or fall behind. "We should be able to
agree now that it makes no sense for China to have better rail systems than us," Obama said at a news conference the day after the
midterm elections. "And we just learned that China now has the fastest supercomputer on earth. That used to be us." In an Oct. 26
address to Democratic donors in Rhode Island, the President criticized Republican budget plans that he said would cut federal
education funding by 20 percent. "Do you think China is cutting it by 20 percent?" he asked. "They're playing for
first place, and we need to play for first place." Charles Freeman, a China specialist at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies, says the Administration recognizes the value "of a near-peer competitor, both for domestic purposes and to
focus foreign policy."

China Currency won’t pass- Brady says focus is on trade

Barkley 11/8 (Tom, Writer for Dow Jones Newswires, “Key House Republican Plans Aggressive Push For Trade Deals”
http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=201011081426dowjonesdjonline000337&title=key-house-
republican-plans-aggressive-push-for-trade-deals)

A leading Republican lawmaker on trade issues vowed Monday an "aggressive" push in the House to
expand into new markets, starting with the passage of stalled free-trade agreements. Signaling a shift in the trade
agenda as the House moves into Republican hands, Rep. Kevin Brady (R.Texas) said in an interview that a
China currency bill would have little chance of seeing daylight, however. Brady, likely to head the Ways and Means
trade subcommittee when Congress convenes next year, said trade represents one of the few areas of opportunity for
a "fresh start" between President Barack Obama and Republicans. But just in case Obama is unwilling or unable to demonstrate
new leadership on trade, Brady will ensure that the issue remains in the spotlight.

China Currency – No Impact

China Currency doesn’t cause war— No effect on economies
Wong 11/13 (May, Writer for Channel NewsAsia Singapore, US-China currency issue won't lead to war: PM Lee,
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1093288/1/.html)

Singapore's Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has said that the US-China currency issue will not amount to a
war but frictions can be expected. He was addressing business executives on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
(APEC) summit in Yokohama where leaders from 21 APEC economies meet to free up trade among members. Speaking to over 1,000
participants at the CEO summit, Prime Minister Lee said the US-China currency subject is politically difficult. He
said if the US succeeds in raising the renminbi rate, it still won't solve America's economic problems. He
said: "From the Chinese point of view, supposing the exchange rate had to move up, moderately, gradually, as it did between 2005
and 2007, that's not going to kill the Chinese economy. "It may even be good for the Chinese economy
because it'll put some pressure on the export sector to upgrade, you'll spread the benefits of growth to the non-export industries
inland, we'll foster restructuring in the economy. It's part of the adjustment - as the economy becomes more productive as you move
up, the exchange rate moves up. "So it's not something that's win, lose, do or die. And I think in that
environment, frictions, you must expect, but war, I don't think it's on the cards."

No impact - China bashing won’t get out of control.

AFP 8 (6/22/2008, http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hjYxYPat679CouKzkuC--lvK8Mpg)
China has also challenged longstanding US military dominance in Asia, and some experts
say that in five years, the Asian
giant with an exploding manufacturing sector may be able assemble the "building blocks" of a military
superpower. President George W. Bush and his recent predecessors all determined that they had to make the
relationship between the world's most developed nation and biggest developing economy work, the experts
said, and senators Obama and McCain would also very quickly come to that conclusion. "When you are dealing
with an economic superpower of that magnitude one does not give the impression of a desire for a
confrontation unless one is pushed to the wall," said John Tkacik, a former China expert at the State Department. "And
China is simply too big an economic actor to confront head on if one doesn't have to," he said.

RES Not Passing

RES won’t pass-economy and conservative policies
Trabish 11/16 (Herman, writer for GreenTechMedia contributor to Wired and author, 11/16/10, “From Renewable Energy to
Clean Energy in the New Washington”, http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/from-renewable-energy-to-clean-energy-in-the-
new-washington/)

The struggle on the part of renewable energy advocates for a federal Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) hit the
wall in the 2010 election. Such a standard would create needed long-term demand certainty for renewables by
requiring regulated U.S. utilities to obtain a specified portion of their power from renewable sources over the
coming decade. But the economy and the rise of fossil fuel-funded conservatives now make that renewables
standard a low priority in Washington. Pessimists foresee little hope for renewable energy. Optimists insist its
logic remains undeniable. Realists follow the money. Following the money will lead, D.C. insiders say, to a Clean Energy
Standard (CES).
Won’t pass-from a renewable energy insider
Trabish 11/16 (Herman, writer for GreenTechMedia contributor to Wired and author, 11/16/10, “From Renewable Energy to
Clean Energy in the New Washington”, http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/from-renewable-energy-to-clean-energy-in-the-
new-washington/)

In the same week, Richard Glick, the Vice President for Government Affairs with Iberdrola Renewable Energies,
USA -- a leading renewables developer -- made a completely different observation. “The change in the House
leadership has pretty much signaled the death knell for the renewables standard,” Glick told a Chadbourne and Parke
webinar audience. “We need to start thinking more broadly in the renewable electricity industry about working
with some other technologies such as nuclear and clean coal on a Clean Energy Standard that might be
beneficial to all of these technologies. There seems to be enough support for that among Republicans in the Senate
and the House that if there is some sort of legislation on energy that’s moving forward in the next Congress,” Glick said, “we
have a decent shot at getting a Clean Energy Standard.” “If you add these other technologies, I think you’re going
to have to increase the numbers that we’ve been taking about under the RES,” Glick added, referring to
Senator Graham’s proposal. “I think you need something in the 25-to-30-percent range.”

RES won’t pass

The Washington Independent 11/15 (11/15/10, “Lame duck preview: The last hurrah for a democratic
Congress”, http://washingtonindependent.com/103340/lame-duck-preview-the-last-hurrah-for-a-democratic-congress)

Even if the lame-duck session likely represents the best opportunity for Democrats to pass key pieces of
energy legislation before a more Republican Congress comes to town, it seems unlikely that anything significant will
move. The House, for its part, has already passed a cap-and-trade bill and an oil spill response bill, and all eyes are now on the
Senate. But it looks like major energy action in the chamber will have to wait until next year, if it happens
at all. One clean energy advocate with close ties to Congress downplayed the likelihood that energy legislation
will pass during the lame duck. “Little will happen, probably,” he said. The only energy-related bill that is likely to
see the light of day during the lame-duck session is a proposal to encourage the production of electric and natural gas vehicles.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has scheduled a cloture vote for Wednesday on the bill, the Promoting Natural Gas and
Electric Vehicles Act of 2010. The bill has bipartisan support. Asked about the prospects for energy legislation during the lame duck in
the Senate, Regan Lachapelle, a spokeswoman for Reid, said, “We filed cloture on a motion to proceed to a natural gas bill before we
left. Other than that, we have many items that are possible for consideration during the lame duck.” Lachapelle did not elaborate on
the pieces of legislation to which she was referring. Backers of a renewable energy standard, which would require that a
certain percentage of the country’s electricity come from renewable sources like wind and solar, are keeping their fingers
crossed that such a proposal can move in the lame-duck session. “We’re optimistic about the lame duck,” said one RES proponent
who was not authorized to talk on the record. Reid and Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-
N.M.) spoke on the phone Tuesday about the possibility of moving an RES during the lame duck. Bingaman’s spokesman, Bill Wicker,
would not discuss the call. “This was a private conversation between two Members, so I have to respect that,” he said in an email.
“But we all should know more about the lame duck before much longer.” But a senior Senate aide with knowledge of the
conversation downplayed the possibility that an RES would be brought up for a vote during the lame-duck
session. “They had a good conversation and agreed it will be challenging to get 60 votes for expedited
consideration of an RES during the limited time left in the session,” the aide said of discussion between Reid and
Bingaman. Indeed, RES supporters would need to secure the support of two to four Republicans in addition to
the four who already support the bill in order to get 60 votes.

RES won’t pass-it’s morphing into CES

Madison 11/8 (Chris, writer for NorthAmericanWindpower, 11/8/10, “Wind Industry Shifting Gears for Changing Landscape”,
http://nawindpower.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.6846)

Prospects are worse for the passage of a renewable electricity standard (RES). Instead, interest is turning to
a "clean energy standard," which would apply to conventional fuels as well as renewables, and which key wind
lobbyists, in the past, dismissed as unacceptable. Now the lobbyists are changing their tune. "[The renewable energy
industry] needs to think more broadly and needs to work with other technologies," Iberdrola Renewables' Rich Glick said last week. In
a sense, the industry's political problems were visible before the 2010 elections. When he came into office,
President Obama made green energy and the control of greenhouse gases top-priority items. Although he had the support of
Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate, achieving results proved much tougher than expected - neither an RES nor
climate change legislation was passed. Congress did include tax incentives in the stimulus bill that did, indeed, stimulate
new wind development at a crucial time. But progress on green energy stopped there.

RES Fails
RES fails.
Steele 11/12 (Charles, 11/12/10, founder of Working People for Fair Energy and former Alabama state Senate, “Will Congress
try to pass a renewable energy standard during the lame-duck session?”)
It’s clear that a nationwide renewable energy standard simply won’t work. The majority of states will suffer, as
consumers will be forced to eat the added cost of obtaining 20 percent of their energy from expensive
renewable sources, especially if a particular state doesn’t have access to those resources. Furthermore, some state
governments have already tried to implement their own renewable energy standards or other energy plans that
allow them to utilize their state’s resources in the best way possible. The federal government certainly should not
interfere, especially not with an arbitrary standard that applies equally to every state. It simply won’t work, and
the effects on energy cost and reliability will be disastrous. Hopefully, with just a few weeks (or less) remaining in
this Congress, our elected officials will realize that the American people don’t want and simply can’t afford
increased energy costs and continued job losses. And, hopefully, if Congress does anything in the remaining weeks, it
will do something to help people get through the recession, rather than debilitate the economy even more.

RES too weak.

SFNM 10/10 (The Santa Fe New Mexican, “Editorial: Jeff, Tom on right track to modest energy reform”,
http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews/articleid/4570727#)

Environmentalists will argue that the renewable-energy and gas-reduction standards are far too soft --
and they're right. A few states, including New Mexico, will be exempt from the renewable-energy goals because
ours are already higher than those being proposed in this latest bill. As for greenhouse gases, that's part of
an ongoing fight, with the petroleum industry and the coal-burning utilities saying the state has no
business setting standards that ought to be left to Congress, where the fossil-fuel folks run the show -- and only
grudgingly will yield any power to Bingaman et al.

RES doesn’t solve-ineffective at curbing emissions

Hopf 10 (Jim, 10/18/10, senior nuclear engineer at EnergySolutions, http://theenergycollective.com/ansorg/45516/nuclear-and-
renewable-energy-standard)

Now that more comprehensive climate change policies such as cap-and-trade are on indefinite hold, congress is considering a
national Renewable Energy Standard (RES) in an effort to do something on energy issues. The RES would require that 15
percent of all U.S. electrical generation be provided by “renewable” sources by 2020. Currently, the definition of “renewable energy”
does not include nuclear. Similar policies are already in place in many states, such as California. As a means to achieve
reductions in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, air pollution, or foreign energy imports, an RES is about the worst
policy one could possibly come up with. It is subjective, unfair, and is a very inefficient means for
achieving the above goals. Nuclear advocates in particular should be offended by these policies since
nuclear has all the benefits that renewables do with respect to the above goals, but is arbitrarily excluded
from the RES. The fact that sources that have a greater negative impact on the environmental than
nuclear (such as trash and wood burning, and ethanol) are included in the RES while nuclear is not is
particularly galling. With respect to CO2 emissions, as well as overall environmental impacts, nuclear’s impact is similar to
renewables, and negligible compared with fossil fuels. Thus, there is no legitimate basis for treating them differently in any energy
policy. There are many ways to reduce CO2 emissions and/or other air pollutants from the electricity sector, including conservation,
renewables, nuclear, switching from coal to gas, increasing the thermal efficiency of power plants, and installing pollution control
equipment (sequestration, in the case of CO2). An RES would encourage one–and only one–of the above methods. It does nothing
at all to encourage any of the others. It instead requires that the one–the renewables option–be used,
regardless of its cost or practicality relative to the other methods. By contrast, policies that simply limit or tax
the undesired pollutants (such as cap-and-trade for CO2) even-handedly encourage all means of emissions
reduction. This even-handedness allows an objective, merit-based competition between reduction options
and results in the maximum emissions reduction for the lowest cost.

RES is too weak to solve anything

The Energy Collective 9/28 (“RES: Symbolism or Substance?”, 9/28/10,
http://theenergycollective.com/wattheadguest/44306/res-symbolism-or-substance)

Amongst those who have fought for energy reform, the announcement that Senators Jeff Bingaman (D-
N.M.) and Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) are pursuing a stand-alone renewable energy standard (RES) should be
cause for both cautious celebration and deep concern. While a RES could be an effective tool to help catalyze a market for
clean-energy, this particular bill falls short of the ambitious legislation needed to ensure that America is
competitive in the global clean-energy economy. In talking about this piece of legislation it is important
that we distinguish between the effects of the policy and the symbolism of its potential passage. Although
the final language hasn't been released, Bingaman's bill will likely set out of the goal of 15% of renewable production by 2021 with up
to 4% coming from efficiency. This proposal is essentially a paired down version of Bingaman's contribution to
the 2009 American Clean Energy Leadership Act (ACELA), which called for a stiffer 20% renewable
production goal.
RES Bad - Econ
RES kills the economy-needless spending with no revenue
Carroll 10 (Conn, Assistant Director for The Heritage Foundation’s Strategic Communications and Edtior of The Foundry,
10/21/10, “Morning Bell: Renewable Electricity Standards Kill Jobs Too”, http://blog.heritage.org/2010/10/21/morning-bell-renewable-
electricity-standards-kill-jobs-too/)

There simply is no upside to a RES. In fact, in some ways it is even worse than cap and trade. Heritage analyst
David Kreutzer explains: “Electric power is one of the most critical inputs to a modern economy. Thus, it is no surprise that
forcing the cost of electricity to rise dampens economic activity. The cost increase for electricity can be viewed as a
particularly damaging energy tax, because a renewable mandate, unlike the case of a normal tax, provides no revenue to
at least partially offset the higher cost. By way of comparison, the highway use tax on gasoline raises the price of gasoline,
but it also generates revenues for building and maintaining roads and bridges. On the other hand, a renewable energy
standard raises costs in the form of less efficient production, which provides no economic benefit.”

SKFTA Won’t Pass

South Korea Trade Deal won’t pass— unpopular with Democrats and public—
costs jobs
Cooper 11/16 (Helene, Writer for The New York Times, Obama Sails Trade Sea, Where Friends Are Foes,
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/17/world/17trade.html)

In announcing last week that he could not reach an expected free-trade pact with South Korea, Mr. Obama
cited a possibly skeptical Congress as a potential hurdle, saying he did not want to negotiate a pact he could not sell on
Capitol Hill, where Democrats have frozen consideration of free-trade deals with South Korea, Panama and Colombia. But Mr. Obama
also promised that in the next several weeks, his negotiators would keep trying to overcome the disputes with South Korea over
autos and beef that stalled the pact last week. If the president is successful, he may be setting himself up for a big fight
with Democrats. Even if the Koreans agree to gradually drop a ban on imports of American beef from older cattle and agree to a
slower phase-out of American tariffs on imports of Korean cars while eliminating safety and environmental rules that help keep the
Korean market one of the world’s most closed, “the Korea trade pact is not O.K., and it won’t be a trade agreement that I’ll
want to vote for,” said Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio. He also suggested that the Colombia and Panama trade
pacts would fare no better with liberals; Mr. Brown said all three agreements would cost Americans jobs. “If they try to
jam these trade agreements through,” he said, “it’s clearly out of step with what the American public wants.”

SKFA Won’t Pass- No progress made at G20 and agreements have been broken
Hashimoto 11/15 (Mike, Editor of the The Dallas Morning News, The Big Story: Obama goes to Asia and brings home more
troubles, http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/11/the-big-story-o-16.html)

Fresh off an election "shellacking," President Barack Obama took a 10-day trip to Asia. He danced a little in India , spoke to many in
Indonesia and ran into choppy diplomatic waters at the G-20 summit in Seoul. And then he came home to find
things no better than he left them. Writing at ForeignPolicy.com, Phil Levy calls the failure to close out a free-trade deal with
South Korea "catastrophic": The well-established opposition just brings us to the stunning, perhaps unprecedented
diplomatic incompetence just displayed by the White House. The concerns and obstacles that impede a new KORUS
agreement were fully apparent in June when Obama announced he would have an agreement in time for the Seoul G-20 meetings
(now underway). The announcement was remarkable at the time because so much of the U.S. president's statements on trade have
been vague, aspirational, and timeless. This was a promise to have a specific agreement concluded by a specific
date. At the Heritage Foundation, Bruce Klingner says even the most ardent Obama supporter should be embarrassed. Writing for
The New York Post, Daniel J. Mitchell says the world's problem goes beyond one free-trade agreement. Time.com's Massimo Calabresi
finds a connection and a reminder in the recent release of George W. Bush's Decision Points, and at NationalJournal.com, Michael
Hirsh calls Obama's trip America's Rodney Dangerfield moment: The backdrop to all of these setbacks has been a gradual loss of
prestige. The last decade has seen multiple disasters and missed opportunities emanating from Washington--
the diversion away from Afghanistan to Iraq ; the long period of fiscal, regulatory, and financial recklessness; and the squandering of
global leadership over climate change and the carbon-based global economy. As a result, other countries are no longer looking to
Washington as a model, and Obama simply hasn't done enough to change minds, to deliver sufficient substance
to go with his soaring rhetoric

South Korea deal could be delayed for over a year— chances for passage low
Palmer 11/11 (Dough, Writer for Reuters, Analysis: Quick action needed to fix KORUS car crash,
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AA5M420101111)

A free trade pact with South Korea could languish for another year or longer unless the two sides recover from a
Thursday setback and quickly put together a deal to mollify concerns raised by Ford Motor Co (F.N) and its supporters in the
Congress. The failure to resolve differences over autos while President Barack Obama was in Seoul for a
Group of 20 summit raises questions about whether a deal is politically possible, said Ernest Bower, an Asian
policy expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. That is a "reason for grave concern" because progress
on the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, or KORUS, is vital to U.S. credibility in talks on a broader trade pact called
the TransPacific Partnership, Bower said. "Without KORUS, partners in the TransPacific Partnership negotiation won't believe the
United States has the political will to complete and pass an agreement," he added. The wider pact includes the United States,
Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam, Australia, Chile, Peru, Brunei and New Zealand, and is seen as a stepping stone to a broader free trade
agreement encompassing all 21 member economies of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum. The U.S.-Korea pact had
already been stalled for three years because of objections from U.S. auto and beef producers.

SKFTA Won’t Pass- Negotiations must come first

He-Suk 11/18 (Choi, Writer for The Korean Herald, Major renegotiations not on the table for Korea-U.S. FTA: Seoul,
http://www.koreaherald.com/national/Detail.jsp?newsMLId=20101118000820)

The Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement will not be subjected to full-on renegotiations, Deputy Trade Minister Choi Seok-young
said Thursday. “It will not be a full renegotiation, but negotiations with some give and take in a very limited
field are unavoidable to handle issues put forward by the U.S.,” Choi said. “The basic principle for the negotiations
is reaching a balance of benefits. Within the automotive field, there are areas where a balance can be reached, and for those that
can’t, I think a balance should be reached in other areas.” Concerning the schedule for further negotiations,
Choi said that details have not been finalized, and did not elaborate on demands put forward by Korea in response to the
U.S. demands. According to Kim, the U.S. sought an extension on phasing out the tariffs on Korean made automobiles exported to the
U.S. and easing Korean automobile regulations on U.S.-made cars during the recent trade ministers talks. Kim also said that the U.S.
delegation had negotiated for the establishment of separate safeguard rules specifically for the automotive industry, which can be
implemented to protect the U.S. auto industry. The U.S. trade delegation is also said to have called for the tariff refund system on
automobile parts to be abolished. The system refunds tariffs placed on auto parts imported into Korea when the imported parts are
used in automobiles that are subsequently exported. The U.S. is also calling for Seoul to change its beef import regulations. Korea
only allows U.S. beef products produced from cattle less than 30 months old to be imported into Korea. Korea has repeatedly
refused to discuss the issue as part of the wider FTA issue.

SKFTA – No Obama Push

Obama won’t push SKFTA
Griswold 11/3 (Daniel, Cato, “What the 2010 Election Will Mean for Trade”, http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/what-the-2010-
election-will-mean-for-trade/)

The new Congress will be more likely to consider and pass pending trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia,
and Panama. The Obama administration has endorsed all three in the abstract, but has done little to
actually push Congress to approve them. These three agreements offer an opportunity for the White House to work
with the new Congress in a bipartisan way to promote exports and deepen ties with friendly nations.

SKFTA Can’t Solve Relations

SKFTA wont affect relations with South Korea
Cooper et al. 9 (William H. Cooper, Coordinator Specialist in International Trade and Finance Mark E. Manyin Specialist in
Asian Affairs Remy Jurenas Specialist in Agricultural Policy Michaela D. Platzer Specialist in Industrial Organization and Business. 4/20,
“The Proposed U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA): Provisions and Implications” http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-
bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA501319&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf)

Many observers have argued that in addition to its economic implications, the KORUS FTA would have diplomatic and security
implications. For example, they have suggested that it would help to deepen the U.S.-South Korean alliance. The United States
and South Korea have been allies since the United States intervened on the Korean Peninsula in 1950 and
fought to repel a North Korean takeover of South Korea. Over 33,000 U.S. troops were killed and over
100,000 were wounded during the three-year conflict.7 South Korea subsequently has assisted U.S.
deployments in other conflicts, most recently by deploying over 3,000 troops to play a non- combat role in
Iraq. However, some counter this by positing that the KORUS FTA need not be seen as a necessary, let alone
sufficient, condition for enhancing the U.S.-ROK alliance. Mutual interests on critical issues pertaining to North Korea
and the rest of the region will continue to require close cooperation between the two countries in the national security sphere.
Indeed, in many respects, the KORUS FTA’s fate may have more profound implications for U.S. trade policy and
East Asia policy than for U.S.-South Korean relations. For instance, some have also suggested that a KORUS FTA would
help to solidify the U.S. presence in East Asia to counterbalance the increasing influence of China while failure to pass it could harm
the alliance.
SKFTA Not Key to Asian Stability
Although US is key to maintain the balance of power in Asia, its alliance with
South Korea is becoming less important
Japan Times, 1/1/09, Growing challenges to Asian stability, http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20090101a3.html
The United States will remain a key player in Asia through its security arrangements and other strategic
ties with an array of regional states. Its policies and actions will continue to have an important influence on the strategic
calculus of the important Asian actors. However, not since Japan rose to world-power status during the reign of
Emperor Meiji in the second half of the 19th century has another non-Western power emerged with such
potential to alter the world order as China today. As the latest assessment by the U.S. intelligence community predicts,
China stands to more profoundly affect global geopolitics than any other country. China, according to the
National Intelligence Council, is "poised to have more impact on the world over the next 20 years than any other country." China's
ascent, however, is dividing Asia, not bringing Asian states closer. Economic powerhouse Japan — whose economy is
larger than that of China, India and Russia combined — is intent on shoring up its security and ensuring that Beijing
does not call the shots in East Asia. Japan is set to reassert itself in world affairs by shedding decades of
pacifism anchored in a U.S.-imposed Constitution. Another key actor in Asian geopolitics, India, is unwilling to cede
its leadership role in the Indian Ocean rim region, despite China's creeping influence in southern Asia
through growing transportation, trade, port-building and defense links. Under Obama, America's main strategic
objectives in the Asia-Pacific are unlikely to change. Indeed, the central U.S. interest in the Asia-Pacific remains what it has been
since 1898 when America took the Philippines as spoils of the naval war with Spain — the maintenance of a balance of power. During
the first half of the Cold War, the U.S. chose to maintain the balance by forging security alliances with Japan and
South Korea, and also by keeping forward bases in Asia. By the time the Cold War entered its second phase, America's "ping-pong
diplomacy" led to President Richard Nixon's historic handshake with Mao Zedong in 1972 in an "opening" designed to reinforce the
balance by employing a newly assertive, nuclear-armed China to countervail Soviet power in the Asia-Pacific region. While South
Korea's importance in the U.S.-led hub-and-spoke alliance system will continue to decline, doubts are
bound to grow in Japan and Taiwan over the reliability of Washington's commitment to their security.
SKFTA – Cant solve Econ
South Korea can’t solve econ- job problems and the Big Three
Yoo 9 (Soh-Jung, staff writer for the Korea Herald. “Seoul Rules Out US Korea FTA revision.”
http://www.koreaherald.co.kr/NEWKHSITE/data/html_dir/2009/11/21/200911210026.asp)

Rep. Chung Sye-kyun, chief of the main opposition Democratic Party, criticized that "it
is a mistake for the government to
suggest a stance that it may accept a call for renegotiation of the Korea-U.S. FTA." U.S. labor unions and other
groups argue that free trade leads to millions of job losses, particularly in the manufacturing sector. Seoul and
Washington signed the Korea-U.S. FTA in June 2007, making history as a landmark deal that would be the largest trade accord for the
United States since its North American Free Trade Agreement took effect with Canada and Mexico in 1994. Analysts say the Korea-
U.S. FTA could boost annual bilateral trade by about $20 billion from the current $83 billion. Experts here say the deal as it stands is
balanced for both sides and meets all the needs of the American auto and beef industries, and even more. Seoul argues that it
had to accept potential negative repercussions on the economy, especially in the agriculture sector. Experts
say Obama's biggest challenge is persuading the Democrat-controlled Congress, which has urged for more action on labor and
environmental protection with trading partners. Kim Do-hoon, an economist at the Korea Institute for Industrial Economics and Trade,
suggested that Obama's Achilles' heel is that he opposed the Korea-U.S. trade pact during his election
campaign last year, as he sought to win support of labor groups. "The Korean government has opened up the
domestic car market to the fullest satisfaction of the U.S. in the FTA," Kim told The Korea Herald. "There is no more to open up in this
sector, so I think it is only fair to say that the auto issue is more of a subject of political rhetoric for the
Obama administration aimed at catering to the sensitive labor group." Seoul officials and industry experts stress
that the pact calls for Korea to immediately remove an 8 percent tariff on American autos, while the United States will be able to
phase out its remaining 2.5 percent tariff on gasoline and diesel-powered cars over three years. The accord also calls for the
United States to phase out a 25 percent levy on pickup trucks over 10 years. Defenders also underline that
the deal includes an expedited dispute settlement procedure that allows U.S. tariffs on Korean cars to
"snap back" into place if the expected market liberalization does not take place. Ford, Chrysler and the United Autoworkers Union
say the deal fails to remove non-tariff barriers that they believe have been preventing American cars from
entering the Korean market. efenders like Kim Do-hoon argue that Korea has addressed all the U.S. concerns in the deal,
including Seoul's auto-safety and environmental standards, in addition to the immediate tariff removal. im noted that issues over
Korea's domestic auto taxation regulations are part of the U.S. dissatisfaction. “Our auto taxation system is of a domestic issue and
not deliberately aimed at being a non-tariff barrier, so it could be that this is acting as a misunderstanding," the expert said. He
added that Korea's auto registration tax and special consumption tax for big-sized cars have been progressively on the rise as a
measure to contain the growing demand for bigger cars by Korean consumers. "This is a domestic issue, a policy-related
measure aimed at encouraging consumption of smaller cars to reflect our national challenges, whether it
be environmental or traffic-related." Kim explained. "I don't think the U.S. should mistake our local taxation regulations as an
intentional means by the Korean government to prevent American automakers from making business here." Seoul is hoping for U.S.
congressional approval by the end of June next year. If not, the November 2010 congressional elections could further delay
ratification until 2011 at the earliest. "The U.S. outcry is not based on the real circumstances and is more of a form
of rhetoric; and I believe President Lee Myung-bak suggested Korea's willingness to discuss auto issues, if necessary, because our
country is confident about the whole deal," Kim, the economist said in a telephone interview. "The U.S. auto industry should focus on
building its global competitiveness, as it won't help to blame their weak demand in the Korean market on misinterpreted issues facing
the domestic Korean market."

Impact inevitable
Epoch Times 2/8, A Fresh Look at Our Changing World. Includes international, national, business, China, sports,
entertainment news, 2-8-10, http://www.allvoices.com/news/5191051-asean-nations-wary-of-free-trade-agreement-with-china

China free trade agreement (FTA)

was seen as inevitable in the Asian region, but many South Asian nations
believe that the agreement would hurt their local economies more than it would help. Association of
Southeast Asian Nations, includes Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand.

Peace Process Passing

Peace will happen- Netanyahu and Obama administration committed despite
recent foot-dragging
NYT 11/12 (New York Times, “Politics over Peace” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/13/opinion/13sat1.html?
_r=1&scp=10&sq=&st=nyt)

Benjamin Netanyahu, spent a lot of time trying to

Early in his most recent tenure, Israel’s prime minister,
persuade President Obama and others that he was serious about making peace with the
Palestinians. Only a hard-liner, like him, could pull it off. If only.With the peace process crumbling, Secretary
of State Hillary Rodham Clinton met with Mr. Netanyahu for seven hours on Thursday. She went in insisting that she
still believes that Mr. Netanyahu and the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, are “very
committed to a two-state solution.” There was no sign of a breakthrough.If Mr. Netanyahu is willing to make the hard
choices necessary for peace, it’s not evident these days. What is evident is that he has decided that mugging for his hard-line
coalition is more important than working with President Obama to craft a peace deal — and counting on his newly empowered
Republican allies on Capitol Hill to back him up, no matter what he does.Since last week’s American elections, Mr. Netanyahu’s
government has published plans for 1,000 new housing units in a contested part of Jerusalem. That same day, on a trip to the United
States, Mr. Netanyahu implicitly faulted Mr. Obama for not threatening to attack Iran. “If the international community, led by the
United States, hopes to stop Iran’s nuclear program without resorting to military action, it will have to convince Iran that it is prepared
to take such action,” he told the Jewish Federations of North America.
President Obama hasn’t taken anything off the table, while working hard to persuade countries around the world to impose
increasingly tough sanctions on Iran. We don’t know if sanctions will ever be enough to stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but we know
Tehran is feeling the heat. We also know knee-jerk threats about force would rally international sympathy to Iran and strengthen the
mullahs’ hands at home.What Mr. Netanyahu does not seem to realize is that a peace deal with the Palestinians is not a favor to
President Obama. It is vital to Israel’s long-term security. If he squanders this moment, the only ones who can celebrate are the
extremists.Both Palestinians and Israelis need to do more to salvage the negotiations. Mr. Netanyahu has refused President Obama’s
request to extend a moratorium on construction in the Jewish settlements for a modest 60 days. Mr. Abbas has refused to meet until
the building stops. Still, we think the burden is on Mr. Netanyahu to get things moving again. Resuming the moratorium will in no way
harm Israel’s security or national interest.The Obama administration deserves credit for not throwing up
its hands. In her marathon session with Mr. Netanyahu, Mrs. Clinton plugged away on a
package of generous (overly so, to our minds) incentives and security guarantees that might
induce him to revive the moratorium and get back to the bargaining table. She also met with Egypt’s
foreign minister to rally more Arab support for the peace process and announced $150 million in additional aid to help the Palestinian
Authority build its capability to govern.Mr. Netanyahu is to meet with certain members of his cabinet on Saturday and then the full
cabinet on Sunday, reportedly to discuss his trip. It’s time for him to stop playing games, reinstate the
moratorium, get back to negotiations and engage seriously in a peace deal.

Peace between Israel and Palestine will happen- Netanyahu committed to compromise
on settlements and US optimistic
CNN 11/17 (“Netanyahu signals progress on settlement talks”
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/11/17/mideast.settlement.talks/)

Jerusalem (CNN) --Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hopes to wrap up talks soon with the
U.S. administration and present to his cabinet a proposed agreement on settlement building
"that will reflect the understandings that were achieved with Secretary of State [Hillary]
Clinton," his office said in a statement Wednesday.The statement did not specify what those understandings may be."If the U.S.
document will be formed according to these principles, than [sic] this will be an excellent agreement for the state of Israel and the
P.M. will push for a positive decision in the cabinet," the statement said. It added that Jerusalem was not part of the discussion. "The
Israeli position has been clear all along that building in Jerusalem was, is and will continue." The statement came a day
after a State Department spokesman said the United States was committed to enticing Israeli
and Palestinian leaders back into peace talks, which stalled Monday over failure to reach
agreement on a West Bank settlement freeze agreement."We're prepared to do everything we
can to create the conditions for both the Palestinians, the Israelis to have confidence to return
to direct negotiations," State Department Spokesman P.J. Crowley told reporters Tuesday. On Monday, an Israeli government
source said that Netanyahu was insisting on a number of conditions for a settlement freeze before presenting any agreement to the
cabinet. The source said the problem was Palestinian objections to understandings reached in talks between Netanyahu and Clinton
in New York.Netanyahu, the source said, wanted written guarantees the Israelis could continue building in Jerusalem, that the freeze
would expire in 90 days and would not be extended and that the United States would not allow any initiative that would go beyond
the negotiations. Crowley said Tuesday that he still believes that an agreement can be reached
within the 12-month period that Clinton outlined in August.The proposal could be a difficult sell for right-wing
members of Israel's coalition government.As part of the proposed deal, Israeli government sources said, U.S. President Barack Obama
would ask Congress to approve the sale of 20 advanced fighter planes to Israel.Mustafa Barghouti, an independent Palestinian
legislator, described the proposal as "nonsense.""Why should Israel receive incentives for stopping violations of international law?" he
asked Tuesday. "And why is the freeze only for 90 days if everyone agrees that settlements are a violation of international law and
are the main obstacle to peace?" The absence of limits on Israeli construction in East Jerusalem has been a source of major conflict
between Palestinians and Israelis.

Peace Process Not Passing

No peace process - extremism
Blomfield, 11/15 (Adrian, reporter for the Daily Telegraph “Extremists could destroy Middle East Peace Process”
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Extremists+could+destroy+Middle+East+peace+process/3831405/story.html

Hopes for a Middle East peace deal are being threatened by a rise in Jewish extremism and a planned
Hamas terrorist campaign in the West Bank, a senior Israeli intelligence official claimed. The emergence of twin
dangers from opposite ends of the political spectrum came at a moment of guarded optimism for the peace process after the Israeli
cabinet was presented with a U.S. proposal to defuse a row over Jewish settlement building.Hamas, the Islamist group that
controls Gaza, has rapidly expanded its infrastructure in the West Bank with the intention of
using the territory to strike at Israel, the official said. "They are planning a wave of very big
attacks on Israel," he told Western correspondents in a briefing.Hamas has largely confined itself to launching rockets from
Gaza, but the group claimed responsibility for the killing of four Jewish settlers in the West Bank at the beginning of
September.Israel's intelligence services are equally worried by settler extremism in the West Bank. Radical Jews in the territory,
which has been under Israeli occupation for 43 years, have carried out a growing number of violent acts against both Palestinians and
Israeli security forces.

Peace Process Fails- partisanship

Sandeep, 11/12 (reporter fro Pisqa, “Middle East: interview marathon Clinton-Netanyahu no breakthrough on the peace
process“http://www.pisqa.com/11/middle-east-interview-marathon-clinton-netanyahu-no-breakthrough-on-the-peace-process/)

The discussion focused on “creating the conditions for a resumption of direct negotiations aimed at achieving a two-state solution,”
said a brief joint statement issued after the meeting in New York.The paper stresses that the security needs of the
Jewish state “will be fully taken into account in any future peace agreement.” The final communique
does not directly address the issue of Jewish settlements, which caused further controversy in recent days.It was not intended as
maintenance, described as “productive and friendly,” so long.Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Netanyahu have alternated
head-to-face meetings and extended their close associates, who will “work closely in the
coming days” to help the resumption of talks.Secretary of State had expressed the wish at the
beginning of the meeting to “find a way forward”, ensuring that Mr. Netanyahu and
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas was “very committed to a two-state solution.”According to
the Israeli leader, the meeting was to focus on “how to resume and continue the process to find a historic agreement, peace and
security between us and the Palestinians.”It was the first meeting between the two leaders since the defeat of President Barack
Obama in the November 2 U.S. laws. Analysts polled by AFP, this factor could encourage Mr. Netanyahu to stand up to Washington’s
demands to stop new settlements.“The situation this week is not fundamentally different than it was two weeks ago” before the
elections, however, had said on Wednesday a senior U.S. official on condition of anonymity. “Our difficulties lie in the politics over
there (in Israel), not in policy here,” had pointed to this source, in an allusion to the coalition between Mr. Netanyahu and
the Israeli extreme right.The Israeli-Palestinian direct dialogue was resumed on September 2 in
Washington, after twenty months of intense U.S. efforts.The process should lead to a peace
agreement within a year. But it already appears on the verge of collapse, after Israel’s refusal
to extend a freeze on settlements in the occupied West Bank.This week, the announcement of
the construction of 1,300 Jewish homes in the predominantly Arab East Jerusalem has further
exacerbated the situation, althoughIsrael has said that no moratorium
on building Jewish question was never the Holy City. In response, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas plans to
appeal to the Security Council of the UN. On Thursday, he said to take a “commitment” of Barack Obamaevocation, the U.S. president
last September, a hope that Palestine will become a UNmember by September 2011.The U.S. position remains for the time that
negotiations between the parties is the only way.

Peace Process Fails

No potential solution to a Israel-Palestine deal: two state solution fails and one
state solution is horrible
Kampeas 2009 (Avoiding Two States, Getting One State. http://blogs.jta.org/politics/article/2009/05/26/1005430/avoiding-
two-states-getting-one-state)
The point made by Agha and Malley is two-fold: 1) Israel
and its allies apply to the Palestinians the notion that
statehood is an endgame, as it was for the pre-state Zionists. The authors suggest that for the Palestinians
statehood is, instead, one of several means that have been considered to redress historical wounds -- and that those
wounds (displacement, marginalization) are far more important than trappings that satisfy western notions of national fulfillment. 2)
Nothing gets done unless you demarginalize the marginalized. Much of the article addresses the need to bring in the
Palestinian refugees; but -- and this is what is dangerous -- the writers make the same point about the settlers: The US should
reach out to skeptical constituencies that would make a difference but are left indifferent by current talk of
a two-state agreement. One example is the settlers, an active and dynamic Israeli group yet one that the outside world typically
treats as modern-day lepers. A more inclusive political process could recognize their views and concerns,
consider their interests, and invite them to take part in discussions. How does one consider the needs of the settlers
and those of the refugees in the same vision? A small core of Palestinian and Israeli intellectuals have, for a number of years,
proposed this solution: a single state. It's an elegant proposition, which might explain its growing appeal. If you can't come
to
an agreement on separating the West Bank from Israel, on making Jerusalem the capital of two states,
then don't. Live together. It's also nuts: Belgium, with two secularized Catholic constituencies separated only by language, still
has togetherness issues. Yugoslavia split up, in part, because Serbo-Croatian-speaking Christians couldn't get
along with ... Serbo-Croatian-speaking Christians. And on and on. We live in a world atomizing further and
further into nation states, partly because it is the least worst means of keeping the peace. Talk of a Jewish-
Arab federation is delusional. Make no mistake, one state is not what Malley and Agha are proposing: Instead, they are saying
that a peaceful solution must accommodate two polities that don't necessarily embrace two states. They have
a point, which is why I think that Israel and the pro-Israel community need to make it abundantly clear, and now, why two states is
preferable. In doing so, no substantial sector should be marginalized, on either side. Too often I've heard settlers -- and I mean the
individuals, the families -- vilified as deliberately obstructionist by dovish sectors in Israel and in the U.S. pro-Israel community.
Framing a two-state solution solution for this sector might involve prepating them for the pain of a phsyical
move -- but it should be done without making them feel like villains and fools.

The real problem would be getting all 57 Arab nations that hate Israel to get
into talks
Abdallah 9 (King of Saudi Arabia. “This Is Not A Two State Solution- This is a 57 State Solution.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6260385.ece)

Four or five decades! There are two major factors. We are sick and tired of the process. We are talking about
direct negotiations. That is a major point. We are approaching this in a regional context. You could say through
the Arab peace proposal. The Americans see this as we do and I think the Europeans. Britain is playing a very vital pro-active
role, more than I have ever seen in the ten years of my experience in bringing people together. What we are talking about is
not Israelis and Palestinians sitting at the table, but Israelis sitting with Palestinians, Israelis sitting with
Syrians, Israelis sitting with Lebanese. And with the Arabs and the Muslim world lined up to open direct
negotiations with Israelis at the same time. So it’s the work that needs to be done over the next couple of months that has
a regional answer to this — that is not a two-state solution, it is a 57-state solution. That is the tipping point that
shakes up Israeli politicians and the Israeli public. Do you want to stay Fortress Israel for the next ten years? The
calamity that that would bring to all of us, including the West? This has become a global problem. We are
saying to the Israelis that this is an issue that is far bigger than you Israelis and the Palestinians. This is where I think the Obama
Administration gets it. I am very, very concerned about having a conference in six months' time, and another one in a year’s time,
that doesn’t work. I think we’re going to have to do a lot of shuttle diplomacy, get people to a table in the next
couple of months to get a solution. If you consider that a third of the world does not recognise Israel — 57
nations of the United Nations do not recognise Israel, a third of the world — their international relationships can’t be all
that good. More countries recognise North Korea than Israel. That is a very strong statement when we are
offering a third of the world to meet them with open arms. The future is not the Jordan river or the Golan Heights or
Sinai, the future is Morocco in the Atlantic to Indonesia in the Pacific. I think that’s the prize.

Peace Solution Bad- Final Solution

We control the direction of the risk calculus- if Israel perceives a Muslim
takeout they start launching nukes all over the world and killing everyone
David Hirst 2003 (s a veteran Middle East correspondent based in Beirut. “The Gun and the Olive Branch, September 21 in the
Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/sep/21/israelandthepalestinians.bookextracts)

The threatening of wild, irrational violence, in response to political pressure, has been an Israeli impulse from the
very earliest days. It was first authoritatively documented, in the 1950s, by Moshe Sharett, the dovish Prime Minister, who wrote
of his Defence Minister, Pinhas Lavon, that he 'constantly preached for acts of madness' or 'going crazy' if ever
Israel were crossed. Without a 'just, comprehensive and lasting' peace which only America can bring to
pass, Israel will remain at least as likely a candidate as Iran, and a far more enduring one, for the role of 'nuclear-
crazy' state. Iran can never be threatened in its very existence. Israel can. Indeed, such a threat could
even grow out of the current intifada. That, at least, is the pessimistic opinion of Martin van Creveld, professor of military
history at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. 'If it went on much longer,' he said, 'the Israeli government [would] lose
control of the people. In campaigns like this, the anti-terror forces lose, because they don't win, and the
rebels win by not losing. I regard a total Israeli defeat as unavoidable. That will mean the collapse of the
Israeli state and society. We'll destroy ourselves.' In this situation, he went on, more and more Israelis were coming to
regard the 'transfer' of the Palestinians as the only salvation; resort to it was growing 'more probable' with each passing day. Sharon
'wants to escalate the conflict and knows that nothing else will succeed'. But would the world permit such ethnic
cleansing? 'That depends on who does it and how quickly it happens. We possess several hundred atomic warheads and
rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals
are targets for our air force. Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to
bother." I consider it all hopeless at this point. We shall have to try to prevent things from coming to that, if at all
possible. Our armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the
capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes
under.'
Two State Solution Bad- M.E. War
The Two State Solution leads to more islamofascism and eventually a giant
race war in the Middle East
Eric L. Rozenmen 03 (former executive editor of B'nai B'rith's International Jewish Monthly, has written for Middle East
Quarterly, Policy Review, Middle East Insight and other publications. “Anatomy of an Illusion.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/854778/posts)

The "two-state solution" to the Arab-Israeli conflict -- actually a three-state solvent in which an irredentist Palestine,
unstable itself, would destabilize Jordan and Israel -- was stillborn in the 1970s. Renewed advocacy of it late last year by "the quartet"
of the United States, Russia, the European Union and United Nations prior to Palestinian reform and without realistic prospects
thereof contradicted President Bush's June 24 vision of a post-Arafat, non-violent, democratic West Bank and
Gaza Strip. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's acceptance, albeit qualified, of a twenty-third Arab country on soil he
himself long considered Israel's strategic and national heartland confirmed a dangerous sense of inevitability for the
two-state plan. But if armies can't resist the power of an idea whose time has come, then diplomats
cannot enforce a vision inherently out of focus. A fundamental flaw in the two-state plan is oscillation of
Palestinian Arab politics between the thuggish corruption of Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority and the
murderous bigotry of Sheik Ahmed Yassin's Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas). A November public opinion poll showed
that while 76 percent of West Bank and Gaza Strip residents supported a mutual cessation of hostilities between Arabs and Israelis,
only eight percent supported a Palestinian school curriculum teaching that Israel was legitimate and that peace could be reached
without Arab control of all the former British Mandate for Palestine (Israel, Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza Strip). So President
Bush's "vision of two states, Israel and Palestine, side-by-side and at peace" remains inapplicable. Worse,
attempting to reach it via "the road map" drawn by the United States with its other quartet partners -- Russia, the United Nations and
the European Union -- would prove to be a highway to hell. Like the Oslo "peace process," attempting actually
to follow the road map and force such a state into existence during the next three years (Bush's timeline)
appears likely to provoke more, not less violence. Short of a U.S.-led trusteeship for the territories, proposed in
December by former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk, echoing Allied occupation of post-World War II West Germany and Japan,
a peaceful Palestinian Arab democracy in the West Bank and Gaza Strip seems improbable. Yet America that assures one
ally, Turkey, that it will not permit an independent Kurdistan to arise from the ruins of a post-Saddam Iraq,
that sent troops half-way around the world to root out Afghanistan's Taliban and their al Qaeda guests,
would endanger a second ally, Israel, with creation of an Arafatia or Hamastan. Elements do exist for a
compromise Israeli-Palestinian settlement. To recognize them one should first clarify what doomed the "two-state"
approach. As adopted implicitly by the administrations of Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton, this "vision" supported the
1993 - 2000 Oslo process. President George W. Bush's explicit endorsement is meant to resurrect that process from the ruins into
which Arafat and the Palestinian leadership consigned it. But Oslo, a response to the 1987 - 1992 intifada, ended by
encouraging the much greater violence of the al-Aksa intifada that began in September, 2000 and in its first 27
months resulted in 680 Israeli dead, mostly civilian, and 1,700 Palestinian dead, mostly combatants or violent
demonstrators. Attempting to force the two-state solution now could likely transform the Palestinians' "war of
independence and return" into a regional war.

Extomctopm
Nassar 2 (Bahig, co-ordinating center of non governmental organizations, and Afro-Asian People's Solidary Organization,
keynote paper for Cordoba Dialogue on Peace and Human Rights in Europe and the Middle East, 11/15
www.inesglobal.org/bahignassar.html)

Wars in the Middle East are of a new type. Formerly, the possession of nuclear weapons by the United
States and the Soviet Union had prevented them, under the balance of the nuclear terror from launching
war against each other. In the Middle East, the possession of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass
destruction leads to military clashes and wars - Instead of eliminating weapons of mass destruction, the United States and
Israel are using military force to prevent others from acquiring them, while they insist on maintaining their own weapons to pose
deadly threats to their nations. But the production, proliferation and threat or use of weapons of mass destruction
(nuclear chemical and biological) are among the major global problems which could lead, if left unchecked,
to the extinction of life on earth. Different from the limited character of former wars. The current wars in
the Middle East manipulate global problems and escalate their dangers instead of solving them.

The two state solution leads to a Middle East nuke war between proliferating
states that draws in the US and leads to extinction.
Phillips 9 (Melanie, a British journalist and author. She is best known for her controversial column about political and social
issues which currently appears in the Daily Mail. Awarded the Orwell Prize for journalism in 1996, she is the author of All Must Have
Prizes, an acclaimed study of Britain's educational and moral crisis. “The Two State Solution. http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?
p=1549)
War crimes, eh? Throwing civilians off the top of buildings? Attacking the wounded in hospitals? Using
press insignia as camouflage for attacks, thus putting all journalists at risk? Dozens and dozens of civilians
murdered, including children? So where’s the call for a boycott of the Palestinians? To those for whom
Israel is the cosmic villain of our times — even though it has never behaved in such a barbaric fashion —
the implications of these terrible events in Gaza are simply unprocessable. Their extreme discomfiture is evident in
their silence. If Israel kills Palestinians in its attempt to defend its civilians from being blown up in pizza
parlours or pulverised by rocket attack, the media descends into an instant frenzy of (unjust and distorted)
condemnation. But presented with this orgy of Palestinian violence in Gaza, there is little more than an embarrassed shuffling of
feet. The Independent ventures bravely into these treacherous waters by blaming everyone other than the Palestinians for reducing
them to economic desperation — this despite the fact that since sanctions were imposed on Hamas, the amount
of funding going into Gaza has actually doubled, if not trebled. What it is to be a newspaper of moral principle, eh?
The fact is that what is happening in Gaza is the savage retort to all those who believe that a Palestinian state is the answer. When
handed the reins of self-government, this is how the Palestinians behave. Hundreds of rockets fired upon Israel, and their own people
thrown off the top of tall buildings and murdered in hospital. As of today, a Palestinian state is simply impossible. Gaza
and the West Bank have become two different political entities. As the Jerusalem Post reports: ‘The two-state solution
has finally worked,’ a Palestinian journalist in the Gaza Strip commented sarcastically. ‘Today, all our enemies have good reason to
celebrate.’ In fact, Israel is certainly not celebrating. Anarchy on its doorstep in Gaza is a nightmare, not least
because such chaos spells al Qaeda; indeed, there are good reasons for thinking that al Qaeda are in Gaza
already, as this article for the Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs makes clear. Such chaos presents Israel with yet
another fearsome dilemma. With Hezbollah rearming in Lebanon, Syria making preparations for war and
Iran racing to develop nuclear weapons, the last thing Israel needs is to reoccupy Gaza. But it may feel it has no
alternative, given the already strong public pressure to Do Something to stop the rocket attacks from Gaza onto Sderot, and their
likely escalation to Ashkelon and maybe other Israeli cities. Yet occupation is a trap that Israel must do everything in its power to
avoid, not least because it would unite Gaza behind Hamas and against Israel — doubtless the very reason for the rocket attacks in
the first place. Moreover, having Hamastan and al Qaeda on their doorstep presents such a threat to Egypt,
Jordan and Saudi Arabia that this could be a moment for a remarkable strategic rebalancing throughout
the Middle East. Israel’s fight is suddenly not merely the west’s own fight but that of swathes of the Arab
world itself. In the past, Israel has done the dirty work of an international community which has been happy
to stand back as it does so — including certain Arab states which have quietly rejoiced as it has gone in
against the Palestinians, only to take advantage of the breathing space it thus provided for them by promptly resuming their
century-old war of attrition against Jewish peoplehood. Israel should no longer furnish the political kindling for its own sacrifice in this
way. The Arab states themselves must finally be forced to deal with the monster they have created. As ever,
Israel is today between yet another murderous rock and a genocidal hard place. And as ever, the international
community which has put it there by refusing to acknowledge the real nature of this terrible conflict — and that includes Israel’s so-
called friends in America and Britain — continues to make Israel’s position more, not less difficult. From Europe to Washington, siren
voices call for ‘engagement’ with Hamas on the grounds that this will bring the wild men in from the cold.
Since Hamas is committed to the genocide of the Jews, it is puzzling to know precisely what there is to
engage about. Look, whisper these European and American useful idiots, there are people in Hamas
talking about a ten-year ceasefire! They’re even talking about removing their endorsement of the Protocols of the Elders of
Zion from their Charter!! Such ignorance and naivety make one want to weep. The most likely outcome of such noises-off
is that Hamas will very reasonably conclude that the more rockets they fire at Israel and the more
Palestinians they throw off the top of tall buildings, the more the Europeans — whose response to brute power is
invariably to prostrate themselves before it —will seize any excuse to convince themselves that, yes, these are people with whom we
can do business. Even more astoundingly, America and Israel have inadvertently — but all too predictably —
helped arm the very people they are now fighting. With Israel acting as the middle-man, America has been
sending weapons to Fatah to equip it in its war with Hamas. Leaving aside the small matter that Fatah, too,
remains committed to the destruction of Israel and that its own terrorist affiliates have persistently
attacked Israeli targets, we can now see from the Jerusalem Post the truly imbecilic consequence

VEETC (Ethanol Incentives) Won’t Pass

Ethanol won’t pass – vote counts and experts.
Bjerga 11/4 (Alan, “Biofuels May Struggle in Lame-Duck Congress, Stallman Says”, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-
04/biofuels-may-struggle-in-lame-duck-congress-stallman-says.html)

The head of the largest U.S. farmer group said winning renewal for incentives for corn-based ethanol
and biodiesel production may be a struggle in a lame-duck session of Congress. Democrats and
Republicans don’t necessarily agree on the programs, including a 45-cent-a-gallon tax credit for ethanol blenders,
Robert Stallman, the president of the American Farm Bureau Federation, told reporters today in Washington. Lame-duck
sessions, which happen after an election and before a new Congress takes office, tend only to successfully
tackle areas in which the parties have lots of common ground, he said. “Only those things will pass a lame
duck where the Republicans agree with the Democrats’ position,” he said. “I’m not sure that’s the case.”
Republicans took over the House of Representatives and narrowed the Democratic Senate majority in the Nov. 2 elections.
Victories by candidates who pledged to cut government spending may make subsidies more difficult to
defend, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, the top Republican on the Senate Agriculture Committee, said last week. Keeping the
ethanol credit will be “an uphill battle,” Robert Dinneen, the chief executive officer of the Renewable Fuels
Association, a trade group that includes Archer Daniels Midland Co. and Pacific Ethanol Inc., said yesterday. Stallman also said
the defeat of at least 13 Democratic members of the House Agriculture Committee leaves “a big hole” in
farm-policy expertise as Congress begins debating a new farm bill, and agricultural spending may not be
reduced as much as some budget-cutters would like. The current, $300 billion, five-year bill, which is set to expire in
2013, authorizes all farm-program spending as well as food stamps and projects that support poor families and rural development. It
benefits companies including Bunge Ltd. and Cargill Inc. by encouraging production, which lowers the cost of raw materials.
“Campaign rhetoric is one thing,” Stallman said. “But I didn’t see a lot of candidates on the campaign trail
talking in specifics about what they were willing to cut.”

VEETC won’t pass – lame duck and insiders.

Jessen 11/1 (Holly, 2010, “VEETC waiting game continues”, http://ethanolproducer.com/article.jsp?article_id=7054)
The ethanol industry has been playing the waiting game for months, with very little news about the
Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit. Set to expire at the end of the year, VEETC, or as it is commonly known, the blender’s
credit, has yet to be renewed. That’s a scary prospect for many in the ethanol industry, especially considering
what has happened to the biodiesel industry after its tax incentive expired at the end of 2009 and attempts to get it extended have
failed repeatedly. Many biodiesel plants have been idled or slowed production, and many jobs were lost. The Renewable Fuels
Association told EPM the organization is continuing to work with lawmakers in an effort to get the extension
passed before it expires at the end of the year. “We remain hopeful that an extension of VEETC will occur
in the lame duck session of Congress in November,” said Matt Hartwig, communications director. “We are also
realistic that it’s an uphill battle.”

VEETC won’t pass – GOP opposition.

Caruba 10/26 (Alan, 2010, “Time to End the Ethanol Rip-Off”, http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/29211)
When Republicans take control of the House and possibly the Senate as well, they will have not just an
opportunity, but a mandate to end support for ethanol and biodiesel, two of the worst ideas ever foisted on drivers.
Need it be said that the ethanol scam began with former President Jimmy Carter? He also thought that solar and wind power
was a great idea. Ethanol, though, is particularly pernicious because, simply put, it is corrosive to engines. It
takes a bite out of every driver’s wallet every time they fill up with a federally required ethanol-gasoline
mixture, and it actually reduces the mileage you will get from every gallon. As a recent issue of Business Week
magazine points out “Today the U.S. offers a 45 cent per gallon tax credit to refiners that blend ethanol with gasoline. The
government also requires gasoline makers to use a steadily increasing amount of the additive, and it imposes an import tariff to deter
foreign competition.” If you wonder why such stupidity is permitted, Business Week points out that it is a $27 billion industry today.
Last year the tax credit was worth more than $4.7 billion.

VEETC – Not at the Top

No PC will be spent on the VEETC
Davis 10/18 (John, 2010, “Lame Ducks Could Renew Biodiesel, Ethanol Tax Breaks”,
http://domesticfuel.com/2010/10/18/lame-ducks-could-renew-biodiesel-ethanol-tax-breaks/)

Frohlich adds that the lack of support from the Obama Administration, despite paying lip service to
supporting green fuels, has been frustrating. “It seems like it’s great for a press event or a soundbite, [but]
they can’t see the forest for the trees.” He says 24,000 jobs could be either saved or created with the renewal of the
biodiesel tax credit … at a time when this country desperately needs to put people back to work. “It’s kind of one of those
things where you’re left scratching your head wondering why something so fundamental and rudimentary
Congress seems to ignore.”

VEETC – No Impact
No risk of industry collapse – profits and experts.
Lyutse 11/2 (Sasha, 2010, “The proof is in the profits: it's time to end corn ethanol subsidies”,
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/slyutse/the_proof_is_in_the_profits_it.html)

healthy profits have been the result of increased ethanol demand, rising prices for
According to the article,
dried distillers grains, a byproduct of the fermentation process by which corn is made into ethanol that
livestock farmers use as feed, and big declines in the price of natural gas, used to power the ethanol
production process. “If you’re not making money in ethanol right now”, Bloomberg quotes a market analyst as
saying, “you have a problem with your production process”. Now let’s be clear. There is absolutely nothing
wrong with making profits. What’s wrong is a mature industry like corn ethanol continuing to lobby
aggressively for more taxpayer support after three decades of subsidies, with dire warnings of plummeting
corn ethanol prices and domestic production levels if tax credits are not extended, at the same time as top
ethanol manufacturers continue to report hundreds of millions in profits. But even Valero knows that
corn ethanol tax credits are unnecessary. I blogged in July about how the company’s Executive Vice
President for Corporate Development and Strategic Planning, Gene Edwards, boldly went where few in the industry
are willing to go, telling investors that removing the VEETC—the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit, the government’s
largest biofuels incentive, which today pays blender of ethanol $0.45 cents for every gallon of ethanol they blend in with gasoline and
will cost taxpayers $6 billion next year alone—would have no impact on ethanol prices or domestic
production, and assuring them that they would “not see blending decrease by one barrel” if the tax
credit was allowed to expire at year-end. This was a telling admission at the time from a major industry
insider, but industry-wide profits, it seems, speak for themselves. With the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) in place,
which study after study has found is the primary driver behind domestic corn ethanol production, margins for ethanol production
improving on every front, and blending margins already favoring blending ethanol with gasoline, it’s clear that the corn ethanol
lobby’s case gets harder and harder to make—at least with a straight face. The proof is in the profits: the
time has come to let the wasteful VEETC expire at year-end and for the corn ethanol industry
to stand on its own two feet.

Immigration Reform Not Passing

Immigration reform won’t pass- new Republican majority
Robins 11/16 (Stephanie, writer for USMoneyTalk, 11/16/10, “Immigration Reform: Rising Controversy Gets Heated and
Reheated”, http://www.usmoneytalk.com/finance/immigration-reform-rising-controversy-gets-heated-and-reheated-911/

Now that the healthcare debate has subsided with the passage of ObamaCare, President Obama selected Janet Napolitano to work
with congress to push a new reform bill by the beginning of 2011, but with the election on November 2 giving
Republicans control of congress, members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus are meeting with Obama this week to
discuss using the lame duck session of congress to solidify a new proposal. Immigration advocates fear that with a
Republican majority even specialized legislation like the DREAM ACT, which prevents undocumented
students and military service members from being deported, may be in trouble. Senate majority leader Harry
Reid of Nevada has promised to champion the bill during the upcoming session. Democratic lawmakers believe that the
DREAM ACT won’t be given a chance under the shadow of broader reform and after the new class of house
members get sworn in it’s possible that new immigration law won’t happen for two or three years. Nancy
Pelosi and Reid could barely drum up the sixty votes needed to include the DREAM ACT which makes
passage of a larger bill during the lame duck session very unlikely. Ultimately, states may be left to decide
if they should take matters into their own hands and follow Arizona’s example.

Won’t pass-Republicans want enforcement not reform

Zifcak 11/16 (Nicholas, Epoch Times Staff Writer, 11/16/10, “Comprehensive Reform of Immigration Not Expected”,
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/46049/)

Republican rule in the House will likely push comprehensive immigration reform to the back burner. According
to immigration experts, key committee posts on the immigration subcommittee and homeland security
committee will likely be filled with Republicans more interested in enforcing immigration law than
reforming options for legal entry. From the perspective of immigration reform, the result of the midterm
elections was the "worst of all possible outcomes," says attorney Stephen Yale-Loehr, an adjunct professor
of law at Cornell University Law School and legal scholar who coauthored a 20-volume immigration law treatise. He spoke about
immigration at the National Press Club on Monday along with Cornell Law School assistant professor Aziz Rana.

Won’t pass-time and agenda constraints

Baird 11/15 (Rebekah, writer for the Daily Bruin,11/15/10, “Republicans unlikely to pass DREAM Act in lame duck session”,
http://www.dailybruin.com/index.php/article/2010/11/republicans_unlikely_to_pass_dream_act_in_lame_duck_session)

On the heels of an extensive Republican victory in the midterm election, there is little hope that a pathway
to citizenship for undocumented students will be approved in the near future, two UCLA professors said. The
Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act would provide undocumented students who complete high school an
opportunity to obtain citizenship. The bipartisan bill went without a vote in September after Republicans
filibustered the National Defense Authorization Act, to which the DREAM Act was attached as an
amendment. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has promised to put the DREAM Act on the floor during Congress’ lame
duck session, which begins this week. The lame duck session refers to the meeting of Congress after an election of successors but
before new members begin their term on Jan. 3. But chances that the act will pass during the session could be slim
because of the session’s time constraints and limited agenda, said Mark Peterson, a public policy and
political science professor.

Won’t pass-gridlock and hostile committees

Quinones 11/14 (Manuel, writer for CNC News, 11/14/10, “Immigration Reform Outlook in New Congress: Bleak”,
http://www.capitolnewsconnection.org/news/immigration-reform-outlook-new-congress-bleak)

The result of the recent midterm elections means the likelihood of Congress passing broad, comprehensive
immigration reform is all but dead in the near future. Marc Rosenblum with the non-partisan Migration
Policy Institute said, “It definitely changes the story line.” Pro-immigration advocates have been clamoring for an
overhaul of America’s immigration system and President Barack Obama promised to push for one. It would include a path to
legalization for certain illegal immigrants, increased enforcement and a revamp of the current guest worker program. “What we
see looking forward in both chambers is, that’s sort of off the table,” Rosenblum said of comprehensive reform.
“We’re more likely to see enforcement-only measures in the House and more strict oversight to reign in
how the Department of Homeland Security enforces immigration policy.” Advocates have spent the last
two years hoping for a bipartisan compromise on the issue. But one never came. Despite large Democratic
majorities, lawmakers were bogged down with other priorities and Republicans became increasingly opposed to negotiating with the
majority on key issues like immigration. “That’s something that’s had a lot of bipartisan support in the past,” Rosenblum said. Now
reform supporters have to contend with a new crop of Republicans in Congress—many hard-line
conservatives opposed to anything that could be labeled amnesty. If committee chairmen are any
indication, the 112th Congress won't be friendly to pro-immigrant advocates. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, a Tea
Party conservative staunchly opposed to any path to legalization for illegal immigrants, could become
chairman of the House Immigration Subcommittee. Meanwhile, Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, is seen as a shoe-in for
chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. “If his past co-sponsorships related to immigration are any indication, I’d suggest that
we’d probably be looking more at the kind of standard Republican style enforcement first approach," said Walter Wilson, a political
science professor at the University of Texas - San Antonio.

Won’t pass-public doesn’t support

Williams 11/17 (Phillip, writer for USMoneyTalk, 11/17/10, “Immigration Reform: It Should Be Dead-Why Isn’t It”,
http://www.usmoneytalk.com/finance/immigration-reform-it-should-be-dead-why-isnt-it-911/)

Immigration reform is one area where the insiders of Washington do not understand the mood of the
public. The public wants people to stop coming in illegally, which can be achieved through enforcement of
existing laws. Suggesting reform rather than improving enforcement options plays to a small portion of the
base and will appeal to people who do not bother to look into what the bills actually mean. As far as the actual measure, the two
year college requirement should be removed to allow citizenship.

Immigration Reform – Can’t Solve

Competitiveness
Immigration Reform isn’t enough to solve for competitiveness; doesn’t solve
for brain drain
Wadhwa 10 (Vivek, a Visiting Scholar at the School of Information at UC-Berkeley, Director of Research for the Center for
Entrepreneurship and Research Commercialization at the Pratt School of Engineering at Duke University, and Senior Research
Associate for the Labor and Worklife Program at Harvard Law School. 7/3, ”Dear Mr.President: Immigration Reform Won’t Be Enough
to Stop The Brain Drain” Tech Crunch http://techcrunch.com/2010/07/03/dear-mr-president-immigration-reform-won’t-be-enough-to-
stop-the-brain-drain/)

In a speech at the American University last Thursday, President Obama highlighted the
incredible economic rewards that America has gained from its immigrants. He spoke of new waves of
immigrants—from places like Ireland, Italy, Poland, and China—challenging the generations before them, and consequently being
subjected to “rank discrimination and ugly stereotypes”. Yet the immigrants kept coming to America. That’s because it was the only
land of opportunity. The President wants lawmakers to fix the immigration system so that America
can remain globally competitive. But I don’t think it’s that simple. America is no longer the
only magnet for the world’s best and brightest. Fixing immigration policy is an important
start, but it won’t be enough to stop the brain drain of highly educated and skilled workers
that the U.S. is presently experiencing.Just last week, there were two notable visitors to Silicon Valley—Russian
President, Dimitry Medvedev, and Chile’s minister of Economy, Juan Andres Fontaine. President Medvedev wanted the brilliant
Russian-born and -educated programmers who write some of the Valley’s most sophisticated software to know that they are welcome
back home INCLUDEPICTURE
"\\\\localhost\\Users\\Geneva\\Documents\\School\\Debate\\2011\\Assignments\\:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:\\Users\\Geneva\\Documents\\School\\De
bate\\2011\\Assignments\\http:\\i.ixnp.com\\images\\v6.43\\t.gif" \* MERGEFORMATINET and that he is setting up a science park
INCLUDEPICTURE
"\\\\localhost\\Users\\Geneva\\Documents\\School\\Debate\\2011\\Assignments\\:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:\\Users\\Geneva\\Documents\\School\\De
bate\\2011\\Assignments\\http:\\i.ixnp.com\\images\\v6.43\\t.gif" \* MERGEFORMATINET for them. Minister Fontaine wants to turn
Chile into a tech hub and is following my advice INCLUDEPICTURE
"\\\\localhost\\Users\\Geneva\\Documents\\School\\Debate\\2011\\Assignments\\:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:\\Users\\Geneva\\Documents\\School\\De
bate\\2011\\Assignments\\http:\\i.ixnp.com\\images\\v6.43\\t.gif" \* MERGEFORMATINET on how to make this happen: by attracting
immigrants; building a diverse culture that encourages risk-taking and openness; and creating networks of mentors. Over drinks
(some excellent Chilean wine), the minister told me of a new program that Chile is piloting to lure bootstrappers. Chile will grant
$40,000 and provide some really cheap office space and accommodation to budding entrepreneurs from anywhere in the world. All
they have to do is to build their products in one of the most beautiful locations on the planet. Chile is betting that once these
entrepreneurs get there, they will never want to leave.

State Immigration Reform solves

State Level Immigration Improves the Economy
Ramos 10 (Kristian, Staff Policy analyst for Immigration Reform, leading center-left think tank and advocacy organization in
Washington DC, 9/1, “On a State Level Immigration Boosts Wages and Employment New Study Shows” NDN.org
http://ndn.org/blog/2010/09/immigrantion-boost-wages-and-employment-new-study-shows)

common refrain from anti-immigration

21st Century America Project Hispanic / Latino Immigration A
organizations is that immigrants weaken the wages of American workers and do damage to
the economy. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, on a state level the
opposite is true:Immigration actually boost wages and increase productivity overall for states
that have large populations of immigrant workers. The report written by Giovanni Peri, entitled The Effects of
Immigrants on U.S. Employment and Productivity examined the following: The effects of immigration on the total
output and income of the U.S. economy can be studied by comparing output per worker and
employment in states that have had large immigrant inflows with data from states that have
few new foreign-born workers. Statistical analysis of state-level data shows that immigrants
expand the economy's productive capacity by stimulating investment and promoting
specialization. The paper also examined the short and long term effect of immigration on the economy: Immigration effects on
employment, income, and productivity vary by occupation, job, and industry. Nonetheless, it is possible to total these effects to get
an aggregate economic impact.Here we attempt to quantify the aggregate gains and losses for the U.S. economy from immigration. If
the average impact on employment and income per worker is positive, this implies an aggregate “surplus” from immigration. In other
words, the total gains accruing to some U.S.-born workers are larger than the total losses suffered by others. A lot of great
information here, highly reccomend reading from start to finish. The economic data presented here helps to contextualize the current
debate over immigrants and wages.

DREAM Not Passing

Chances of passage are slim – not on lame duck agenda
Baird 11/15 (Rebekah, 2010, “Republicans unlikely to pass DREAM Act in lame duck session”,
http://www.dailybruin.com/index.php/article/2010/11/republicans_unlikely_to_pass_dream_act_in_lame_duck_session, AV)

On the heels of an extensive Republican victory in the midterm election, there is little hope that a pathway
to citizenship for undocumented students will be approved in the near future, two UCLA professors said. The
Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act would provide undocumented students who complete high school an
opportunity to obtain citizenship. The bipartisan bill went without a vote in September after Republicans filibustered the National
Defense Authorization Act, to which the DREAM Act was attached as an amendment. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.)
has promised to put the DREAM Act on the floor during Congress’ lame duck session, which begins this week.
The lame duck session refers to the meeting of Congress after an election of successors but before new members begin their term on
Jan. 3. But chances that the act will pass during the session could be slim because of the
session’s time constraints and limited agenda, said Mark Peterson, a public policy and political
science professor. The lame duck session will most likely be dominated by negotiations over legislation
regarding the inheritance tax and the future of the Bush-era tax cuts, which means party members
probably won’t make the DREAM Act a priority, Peterson said. “Harry Reid has a personal need in a way to at least make the
effort at his end, because he pulled out with significant support from Latino voters,” Peterson said. “(Reid) sets the agenda, but
others can pretty much disrupt it if they want to.” Peterson noted that though some Republicans might be
willing to work on the issue, they may not feel it is a winning situation for their side and will choose instead
to focus the time of the lame duck session on legislation dealing with taxes and economic issues.

Won’t pass – GOP will delay to next year to gain credit

Baird 11/15 (Rebekah, 2010, “Republicans unlikely to pass DREAM Act in lame duck session”,
http://www.dailybruin.com/index.php/article/2010/11/republicans_unlikely_to_pass_dream_act_in_lame_duck_session, AV)

Many of the new ranks of Republican members of the House will not consider the DREAM Act before enacting
immigration reform legislation that would secure the borders first, he added. Gussin said he believes Republicans
might make use of a strategy in which they stall the act during the lame duck session, then
pass it afterward, allowing them to take credit for its passage and increase their popularity
among Latino voters. Whether Republicans could get enough party members on board for such a strategy is another issue
but not impossible, Gussin said. “I think that if they’re going to be strategic, they’ll go ahead and pass the
DREAM Act” he said. “Based on principle alone they would probably reject it.” Gussin noted that Republicans used
similar tactics of voting against some of their traditional principles earlier this year when they voted
against bills proposed by the Democratic party that they actually agreed with, such as a bill that would
give tax cuts to small businesses. “It worked, and they won big in the House,” Gussin said. “I can’t see them
abandoning the strategy of being strategic rather than principled after such a tremendous success.”

Child Nutrition Bill Not Passing

Child Nutrition Bill not passing—House not voting on it, and dont have two-
thirds majority in senate
Hendel 11/16 (John staff writer for the Atlantic’s food channel “Inside the Last-Minute Fight to Pass the Child Nutrition Act”
http://www.theatlantic.com/food/archive/2010/11/inside-the-last-minute-fight-to-pass-the-child-nutrition-act/66666/)

"It's
this opportunity or we lose it," said Representative George Miller, a California Democrat and sponsor of the
Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act (PDF), which was introduced in Congress in June of this year. "I'm afraid of this
dying in the lame duck days of Congress." Miller spoke yesterday to 1,300 listeners in a virtual town hall hosted by Feeding
America and featuring Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, Feeding America CEO Vicki Escarra, and Top Chef's Tom Colicchio. The
forum reached out to thousands of party faithful in a last-ditch effort to save Miller's tenuous $4.5-billion bill, which promises more
funding for school meal programs and improved nutritional standards. The town hall repeatedly encouraged listeners to call their
representatives to push them to vote for the bill. "How can you possibly educate a child when they go to school on an empty
stomach?" Colicchio said. "It shouldn't be a political issue." A version of the act passed the Senate months ago, but it has
floundered in the House, and Miller predicted that the House is not likely to vote on it until after Thanksgiving.
Vilsack pointed out the difficulty of trying to pass the bill quickly under suspension of the rules—a
procedure used to pass uncontroversial bills which would require a difficult two-thirds majority. While "not
confident" in receiving two thirds, Vilsack remarked, the bill's supporters believe they can pass the bill during the week of
November 29, which would, he said, also allow for "healthy debate."

Child Nutrition Bill not passing—republicans tack on amendments and trades

off with food stamps
Hendel 11/16 (John staff writer for the Atlantic’s food channel “Inside the Last-Minute Fight to Pass the Child Nutrition Act”
http://www.theatlantic.com/food/archive/2010/11/inside-the-last-minute-fight-to-pass-the-child-nutrition-act/66666/)

One obstacle that stands in their way is the possibility that Republicans might add an undesirable amendment to the
bill—what Miller called a "poison pill." Miller urged people to redouble their efforts and look past any last-minute additions
intended to sabotage the bill's passage. Even concerns from Democrats have come close to sinking the bill: Many
Democrats opposed it once they learned it would receive its money from the government's food-stamp
program—a move, Colicchio himself said, which is "essentially robbing dinner to pay for lunch." This
funding plan still stands. But Miller and Vilsack have tried to reassure supporters that food stamps remain a Democratic priority, a
move that has brought many Democrats back on board in the past week.

Child Nutrition not passing---defecit hawks

Philpott 11/16 (Tom Philpott is Grist’s senior food and agriculture writer. “Why deficit hysteria isn’t good for food-system
reform” http://www.grist.org/article/food-2010-11-16-why-deficit-hysteria-isnt-good-for-food-system-reform)

CNR reauthorization in January, it contained an increase of less than 20 cents

When Obama rolled out his proposal for
per day per kid -- not enough even for an extra apple per day. I reacted at the time like this: This is depressing news,
because the (less than!) two dimes Obama is flipping to cafeteria operators would seem to represent a ceiling on any budget
increases. In other words, I can imagine any number of "fiscally responsible" Congress critters trying to whittle down this Dickensian
allotment; but I can't picture anyone in either chamber who has the clout to push through a more substantial
increase. Sure enough, by the time the proposal got through the Senate, that modest increase had been hacked to 6
cents -- to be offset by an equal cut in food-stamp spending. The House may take up CNR in its lame-duck session; but
The Hill warns that conservative lawmakers may fight it as a show of force in their insane battle against
deficits. Whether or not the lunch bill passes during the lame-duck session -- no doubt, anything the new Congress comes up
with will be even stingier -- deficit hawkery has ensured that generations of children will learn in the school cafeteria
that the tarted-up junk churned out by Tyson is worthy food. Pinching pennies now, billions in health care expenditures
later.

Child Nutrition not passing—splits among advocates and republicans

Fulton 11/9 April Fulton staff writer for NPR “Child Nutrition Act Pits School Lunch Money Against Food Stamps”
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/11/09/131188233/child-nutrition-act-pits-school-lunch-money-against-food-stamps
Cloudy. That's how we'd describe the prospects for passage of the massive bill funding school lunch and other
child nutrition programs this year. Efforts to move the bill have been stalled in Congress for months, due in
part to splits among the advocates over how the Healthy and Hunger-Free Kids Act should be paid for. The
bill's name is "an incredible irony," says Mariana Chilton of Witnesses to Hunger. Chilton and other anti-hunger groups
oppose the Senate version because it would take future increases slated for the food stamps program and
instead put them towards improving school lunch funding and nutrition. But as Margo Wootan, director of nutrition
policy at the Center for Science in the Public Interest tells NPR's Pam Fessler today, that's just not a winning strategy. CSPI is one of
more than 1,000 groups, including unions, anti-hunger organizations, and the food industry, that will be sending a letter in the next
few days urging the House to accept the Senate bill when Congress comes back next week. The supporters who signed the letter
"realize they can take this really terrific bill now or wait until the next Congress when they have to compete with the farm bill
reauthorization," she tells Fessler. Plus, you can almost guarantee that the newly-minted, take charge House Republicans
will be looking for ways to cut spending if the battle drags on into the new year.

Food Safety Not Passing

Food Safety won’t pass – political issues
Fulton 11/18 (April, NPR, “Senate Lurches Ahead On Food Safety Bill, But Hurdles Remain”,
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/11/18/131407187/senate-lurches-ahead-on-food-safety-bill-but-hurdles-remain)

to strengthen food safety, the Senate voted overwhelmingly

More than a year after the House passed a bill
Wednesday to move ahead with its version. But, as is just about always the case with the Senate, it’s just
not moving very fast. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said Thursday the bill "has to get done" and threatened to keep
senators in Washington this weekend to work on it. "Nobody in America should have to worry that their salad or sandwich is going to
kill them," he said in an opening speech on the Senate floor today. Recent food-related outbreaks of illness and nationwide recalls
involving lettuce and half a billion eggs have upped the pressure on lawmakers to get something done quickly. The bill, like the one
passed by the House already, would give the Food and Drug Administration more power to regulate food and
food producers. One key stumbling block has been removed. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) dropped her efforts to
include a ban on the controversial plastics ingredient known as BPA in the bill. Still, there's plenty of other legislative
sausage-making happening behind closed doors right now. If there's an agreement on how to deal with an earmark
ban, which is now tied to the Senate food bill, the legislation could pass by the end of this week. But if the Senate passes it,
that's not the end of the story. The House would need to weigh in by either passing the Senate bill as is or
calling for a conference to reconcile it with the House's more generous version. First, the BPA update. Feinstein
worked for months to get a ban on the chemical from sippy cups and baby bottles attached to the food safety bill now being
considered by the Senate. But she relented Wednesday afternoon when it became clear the chemical industry would get Republicans
to block it. "The chemical council says no and I guess the other side of the aisle bows," she said in a floor speech Wednesday night,
announcing the end of her efforts. "There is no good reason to expose our children to this chemical." But she vowed to keep fighting.
More than 200 reports have linked extensive exposure to BPA to health problems ranging from cancer to early puberty, and it has
been banned in several states, she said. Exactly how risky the chemical is hasn't been officially decided, however, and the FDA is still
figuring out what to do about it. The American Chemistry Council told us in an e-mail that it doesn't support any bans that would
interfere with the FDA’s process or authority: Throughout this process we have been constructively engaged with Congress, and have
consistently advocated for respecting the scientific assessment of the experts at FDA who have the capacity and expertise to make
food safety contact decisions. ACC relies on the consensus of 11 government agencies across the world that current exposures to
BPA are 1,000 times below levels established as safe. Another sticking point that seems to be on the way to a fix is an exemption
from some regulatory requirements for small farmers. Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) has been pushing for an amendment to the
bill that would exempt farmers who sell directly to consumers within a 400 mile radius and who make less
than $500,000 a year. But he says he's willing to compromise on those numbers to get a provision inserted in the bill, and talks
continue. "We're working on that," Tester told Shots Wednesday. "In fact, I don’t have a problem bringing those miles down at all, it's
a matter of getting the votes. I don’t have a problem bringing that dollar figure down. It’s a matter of getting those votes." Bill
substance aside, unrelated political issues could still delay the bill. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), who has held up the
food safety bill in the past, has vowed to fight to get an amendment attached to this bill that would ban earmarks.

Won’t pass – amendment negotiations.

Roos 11/18 (Robert, News Editor of CIDRAP News, “Outlook unclear as Senate debates food safety bill”,
http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/fs/food-disease/news/nov1810food.html)

A debate on comprehensive food safety legislation continued in the US Senate today, but the bill's chances
of passage remained murky as behind-the-scenes negotiations over amendments to the bill were
sputtering, according to a Senate staff member. The bill would allow the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to order food
recalls, require it to inspect food facilities more often, and give it better access to food facility records. It also would require food
establishments to analyze their contamination risks and take preventive steps, and it would increase regulation of imported food.
Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., yesterday filed a proposed amendment to the bill that would ban all "earmark" spending measures
through 2013, along with a separate amendment that would completely rewrite the bill, according to a CQ Today report. Coburn
had blocked debate on the bill before the election recess, but the Senate voted yesterday to invoke
cloture, opening the way for floor debate. Today a Senate staff member who asked for anonymity told
CIDRAP News that Coburn's earmark amendment had led to a stalemate over how much time to allow for
debate on the bill. "We're at an impasse over Coburn's earmark provision—we're unable to reach a time
agreement on the bill as a result of Coburn's earmark threat and without a time agreement this whole
process has reached a standstill," he commented by e-mail. "It's unclear if or when this will be dealt with, and if
or when the bill will proceed toward passage."

NASA funding bill won't pass

NASA funding wont pass—recent fiscal report recommends complete cuts
Matson 11/12 John Matson Nov 12 staff writer for scientific American “Deficit commission proposes axing commercial
spaceflight without knowing what it is” http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=deficit-commission-proposes-axing-c-
2010-11-12

On November 10 the co-chairs of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, a body created by President
Obama to find solutions to the nation's budgetary woes, released a draft list of "illustrative" cuts that could save
taxpayers $200 billion a year by 2015. Among the 58-point list (pdf) produced by Alan Simpson, a former Republican senator
from Wyoming, and Erskine Bowles, the president of the University of North Carolina system who served as President Bill Clinton's
chief of staff, was this proposal: Eliminate funding for commercial spaceflight. The National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) plans to spend $6 billion over the next five years to spur the development of American
commercial spaceflight. This subsidy to the private sector is costly, and while commercial spaceflight is a
worthy goal, it is unclear why the federal government should be subsidizing the training of the potential
crews of such flights. Eliminating this program would save $1.2 billion in 2015.

NASA funding bill is dead—republicans and democrats both want it eliminated

Roop 11/2 (Lee Roop Huntsville Times staff writer “NASA's commercial space progam draws deficit-cutters' fire”
http://blog.al.com/space-news/2010/11/nasas_6_billion_commercial_spa.html)

Washington's first bipartisan post-election proposal for cutting the federal deficit takes direct aim at
NASA's commercial space program. Local NASA watchers aren't worried yet, for several reasons, but they aren't ignoring the
proposal, either. "It's clearly not a good sign for NASA's proposed commercial space initiative as Congress gets
ready to take up the budget appropriations bills," said one aerospace industry executive. NASA's new space program,
which has a strong commercial space component, is halfway to reality. The outgoing Congress has authorized, but not funded it.
Funding isn't expected to come until after the new Congress takes office in January . Wednesday's deficit-cutting proposal came from
the co-chairs of the presidentially appointed and bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. The co-chairs
are former U.S. Sen. Alan Simpson, R-Wyo., and Erskine Bowles, former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton. "Eliminate
funding for commercial spaceflight," the chairmen recommended. "The National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) plans to spend $6 billion over the next five years to spur the development of American commercial spaceflight.
"This subsidy to the private sector is costly, and while commercial spaceflight is a worthy goal, it is unclear
why the federal government should be subsidizing the training of the potential crews of such flights.
Eliminating this program would save $1.2 billion in 2015."

NASA funding wont pass—spending freeze

Jansen 11/11 (Bart Jansen Florida Today staff writer “Senate to review NASA funding”
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20101111/NEWS02/11110313/1006/news01/Senate+to+review+NASA+funding)

Republicans control of the House beginning next year, will make spending
The concern is that the Nov. 2 election, which gave
decisions even more unpredictable than usual during the lame-duck session of Congress that begins Monday.
NASA enjoys bipartisan support in Congress. But Republican leaders in both chambers have suggested freezing
spending for government agencies. That could hinder Obama's proposal to boost NASA's funding by about $300
million -- to a total $19 billion -- for fiscal 2011, which began Oct. 1.

DADT Not Passing

Won’t be repealed, GOP is waiting out the lame duck session and other issues
come before it
Oliphant et al. 11/11 (James Oliphant, David Cloud and Lisa Mascaro; Tribune Washington Bureau; “Chances for 'don't
ask' repeal fading in Congress” 11/11/10; http://www.latimes.com/sc-dc-1112-dont-ask-20101111,0,5913867.story)

Chances appear increasingly remote that Congress will lift the military's ban on openly gay
service members this year, even though a coming Pentagon report is unlikely to conclude that repealing the "don't ask,
don't tell" policy would disrupt the Armed Forces. Lawmakers return next week to a lame-duck session with
an agenda crowded by spending and tax issues amid indications that a measure to lift the ban
will be pushed farther down the to-do list. At the same time, Republicans opposed to the repeal
know that they simply need to wait out the clock until the new session of Congress, which begins in
January. At that point, with the GOP in control of the House and wielding additional leverage in the Senate, there
will be little chance of repeal.

DADT won’t be repealed in lame duck – key senators disapprove and no

willingness in Congress
Philip 11/14 (Abby Philip; Staff Writer for Politico; “Cornyn, Warner skeptical of 'DADT' repeal in lame duck” 11/14/10;
http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/1110/Cornyn_Warner_skeptical_about_Dont_Ask_Dont_Tell_repeal_in_lame_duck.html)

President Barack Obama’s plan to push through a repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law banning gays from serving
openly in the military during the upcoming lame-duck session of Congress met with skepticism from two leading
senators on Sunday. Both Republican John Cornyn of Texas and Democrat Mark Warner of Virginia
questioned whether repealing the policy in a cramped lame-duck session was possible. House and
Senate leaders have said during the past week that they intend to address the policy when Congress returns from recess this week,
and Obama said only lawmakers can dismantle the 17-year-old law. On CNN’s “State of the Union,” Cornyn said that the time — and
the political will — needed to repeal the controversial law will be in short supply during the
year-end session. “I don’t think there’s a lot of time, and I don’t think there’s a lot of appetite to jam stuff
through,” Cornyn said. Congress, he said, has only two real responsibilities when it reconvenes this week:
passing a spending resolution to keep the government functioning into next year and dealing with the expiration of
the Bush-era tax cuts. Warner said he supports the DADT repeal and was pleased to see reports that the Pentagon study of the
issue shows that repealing the policy would have little effect on the military’s combat readiness. But, he said, repeal in the
lame-duck session is an open question. “Who knows what’s going to happen in the lame
duck,” he said.

DADT repeal won’t happen

Johnson 11/17 (Chris Johnson; Staff Writer for Washington Blade; “’Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal ‘barely hanging on’”
11/17/10; http://www.washingtonblade.com/2010/11/17/%E2%80%98don%E2%80%99t-ask-don%E2%80%99t-tell%E2%80%99-
repeal-%E2%80%98barely-hanging-on%E2%80%99/)

The prospects for repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” this year continue to fade as LGBT advocates
pressure the White House and Congress in hopes that lawmakers will take action before they adjourn for the year. One Senate
Democratic aide, who spoke to the Washington Blade on condition of anonymity, said repeal — currently pending before the
U.S. Senate as part of the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill — is “barely hanging on with life support.” “The
only way to resuscitate this effort and get a ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ vote is for President Obama and [Defense
Secretary Robert] Gates to start pushing directly, something we on the Hill had expected the president and
Gates to do long ago,” the aide said.

DADT won’t be repealed – Republicans delaying the vote by asking for review
Barnes 11/15 (James A. Barnes; National Journal; “Republicans signal delay on 'don't ask, don't tell' repeal” 11/15/10;
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1110/111510nj2.htm)

Two prominent Senate Republicans indicated Sunday that it is unlikely that the ban on gays serving
openly in the military known as "don't ask, don't tell" will be overturned in the upcoming lame-duck
session of Congress. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the ranking GOP member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said on
the NBC News program Meet the Press that he opposes using the lame-duck session to debate a repeal of the law.
Referring to the Pentagon study on the imact of removing restrictions on gay military service, McCain said, "I think once this study
comes out in the beginning of December, we should at least have a chance to review it and maybe have hearings on it." Moreover,
McCain said that he wants an additional study conducted on the impact that ending the ban would have on
"battlefield effectiveness and morale" of the military. On the CNN program State of the Union, Sen. John Cornyn of
Texas, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, pointed out that the lame-duck session has to deal
with pending appropriations bills for the current fiscal year and the decision on whether or not to extend
the Bush tax cuts. "I don't think there's a lot of time and a lot of appetite to jam things through,"
said Cornyn in response to a question about repealing DADT. "I expect we're going to have a continued debate
about this when we see" the Defense report.

DADT Passing: U O/W

DADT repeal inevitable- if it isn’t in the lame duck the courts will do it
Politico 11/10 (Robert Gates: 'Don't ask' repeal inevitable
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44937.html#ixzz14wUjB0zd)

I would say that leaving ‘don't ask, don’t tell’ behind us is inevitable,” Gates said during a joint interview
with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Australia that aired Tuesday night on ABC’s “Nightline.” “The question is whether it is
done by legislation that allows us to do it in a thoughtful and careful way or whether it is struck down by
the courts.” The defense secretary warned that leaving the decision to the federal courts, which are considering a challenge to the
17-year-old ban, would limit the Pentagon’s ability to carry out changes and cause greater confusion for those in uniform. Because of
recent court decisions, Gates said, the policy changed four times in a two-week period in October. “We have the least
flexibility, we have the least opportunity to do this intelligently and carefully, and with the kind of
preparation that is necessary, if the courts take this action as opposed to there being legislation,” Gates said.
Echoing the position of President Barack Obama, Gates has urged Congress to repeal the ban during its lame-duck
session, which will begin next week, something gay-rights advocates see as the best chance before
Republicans take over the House and have more seats in the Senate in January. But prospects for repeal
remain bleak with continued GOP opposition and a narrow window on the legislative calendar.

DADT – No Impact
DADT repeal will have no impact on unit cohesion or readiness
MMFA 10 (MediaMatters For America, a web-based, not-for-profit, progressive research and information center dedicated to
comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media “Quick Fact: Perkins advances
myth that DADT repeal could hurt morale, unit cohesion, readiness” 3/1, MediaMatters
http://mediamatters.org/research/201003010002 Accessed)

FACT: Experts say claims that "don't ask, don't tell" preserves "unit cohesion" are not supported
by studies or experienceUnit cohesion argument "not supported by any scientific studies." In
an essay published in the fourth quarter 2009 issue of Joint Force Quarterly -- which is
"published for the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, by the Institute for National Strategic
Studies, National Defense University" -- Col. Om Prakash wrote of DADT, "[T]he stated premise
of the law -- to protect unit cohesion and combat effectiveness -- is not supported by any
scientific studies." The essay won the 2009 Secretary of Defense National Security Essay Competition.At least 25
nations -- including many U.S. allies -- allow military service by openly gay men and lesbians.
According to the Palm Center, a think tank at the University of California-Santa Barbara that
studies sexuality and the military, as of February 2010, 25 nations allowed military service by
openly gay men and lesbians, including U.S. allies Australia and Israel and the following NATO
member countries: Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany,
Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia, Spain, and the United
Kingdom.GAO: Other countries say allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly "has not
created problems in the military." In a June 1993 report to Congress, the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
studied four countries that allow gay men and lesbians to serve in the military -- Canada, Israel, Germany, and Sweden -- and found
that military officials said "the presence of homosexuals has not created problems in the
military because homosexuality is not an issue in the military or in society at large." It also
found that "[m]ilitary officials from each country said that, on the basis of their experience,
the inclusion of homosexuals in their militaries has not adversely affected unit readiness,
effectiveness, cohesion, or morale." GAO wrote that it chose those four countries to study because they "generally
reflect Western cultural values yet still provide a range of ethnic diversity" and have similarly sized militaries.Palm Center: "No
consulted expert anywhere in the world concluded that lifting the ban on openly gay service
caused an overall decline in the military." In a February 2010 report, the Palm Center reviewed the experience of the
25 nations whose militaries allow gay men and lesbians to serve and found: "Research has uniformly shown that transitions to
policies of equal treatment without regard to sexual orientation have been highly successful and have had no negative impact on
morale, recruitment, retention, readiness or overall combat effectiveness. No consulted expert anywhere in the world concluded that
lifting the ban on openly gay service caused an overall decline in the military."None of the 104 experts interviewed
for study believed decisions to allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly in UK, Canada,
Israel, or Australia undermined cohesion. In a 2003 article for Parameters, the U.S. Army War College Quarterly,
Aaron Belkin wrote that the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military (since renamed the Palm Center) had conducted a
study of the impact of the decisions to allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military in the United Kingdom, Israel,
Canada, and Australia, and found: "Not a single one of the 104 experts interviewed believed that the
Australian, Canadian, Israeli, or British decisions to lift their gay bans undermined military
performance, readiness, or cohesion."Participants in creation of DADT admit "unit cohesion"
argument was "based on nothing." In a March 2009 Huffington Post piece, the Palm Center's Nathaniel Frank wrote of
the process that led to the creation of DADT in the early 1990s:One group staffer provided a wealth of research to the flag officers in
charge, but said it was never even considered. He said the policy was created "behind closed doors" by people who were totally
closed to lifting the ban, and that it relied on anti-gay stereotypes and resistance to outside forces.Charles Moskos, the renowned
military sociologist and close friend of Sen. Sam Nunn, advised the MWG [Military Working Group], and was ultimately credited as the
academic architect of "don't ask, don't tell." While he said publicly that the problem with openly gay service was that it would
threaten "unit cohesion," he told me privately something quite different: "Fuck unit cohesion," he said, "I don't care about that." For
Moskos, the last serious defender of "don't ask, don't tell," the ban was about the "moral right" of straight people not to be forced into
intimate quarters with gays. Shortly before he died last summer, he admitted that he clung to his policy, in part, because he was
afraid of disappointing his friends if he "turncoated."

DADT repeal won’t affect readiness

Center for American Progress ’10 (Public Policy think tank, “Myth vs. Fact: Repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/03/dadt_myth_fact.html Accessed September 6, 2010)

Myth: Allowing openly gay service will reduce recruitment and retention rates. Fact: Openly gay service has never been
shown to reduce recruitment or retention significantly. After the United Kingdom lifted its ban in
2000, Palm Center researchers found later the same year that “no one has heard of any
difficulties related to recruitment or training completion rates; recruitment levels are
characterized as ‘quite buoyant.’” The RAND Corporation’s 1993 study found that the Canadian Forces had
suffered “no resignations (despite previous threats to quit), no problems with recruitment.”

DADT Bad - Readiness

DADT hurts readiness
DOR 10 (8/25 “Repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” Dakota OutRight, http://dakotaoutright.org/repeal-dont-ask-dont-tell/)
“DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL” HURTS MILITARY READINESS. The U.S. must recruit and retain the greatest number of the best and
brightest — especially while we are fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Pentagon reports that 75% of young Americans are
ineligible to serve in our military because of inadequate education, criminal records or weight problems. Conduct waivers have been
given for recruits with records of bomb threats, sex crimes and negligent or vehicular homicide. And yet, qualified, smart,
law-abiding and fit youths who want to serve are being excluded merely because of their
sexual orientation. According to the GAO, as of 2003, the military had discharged more than 750
mission-critical service members and more than 320 with skills in important languages such as
Arabic, Korean and Farsi (GAO, Military Personnel: Financial Costs and Loss of Critical Skills Due to DOD’s Homosexual
Conduct Policy Cannot Be Completely Estimated). AMERICA’S ALLIES SUPPORT OPEN MILITARY SERVICE. More than two dozen
countries allow gays to serve openly. The US and Turkey are the only two original NATO countries that still have bans in place.
Studies of the militaries in Australia, Israel, Great Britain and Canada have shown open service
to have no adverse effect on enrollment or retention. “DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL” IS EXPENSIVE. The same GAO
study identified almost $200 million in costs for the first ten years of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” while concluding that the total costs
could not be estimated. A follow-up study by an expert commission put these costs at more than $363 million. PENTAGON,
GOVERNMENT STUDIES SUPPORT OPEN SERVICE. In 1993, RAND Corp. concluded that openly gay people in
the U.S. military do not negatively impact unit cohesion, morale, good order or military
readiness. An update of this study should be completed in the next 90 days. Several other
military-commissioned and GAO studies have concluded that open service does not undermine
military readiness, troop morale or national security.