Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Economy UQ
High Workforce
Econ high now workforce growing
Schwartz 7/2 senior staff writer for the New York Times, Recipient of the
Nathaniel Nash Award
(Nelson D. Schwartz, 7-2-2015, "U.S. Economy Adds 223,000 Jobs; Unemployment
at 5.3%," http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/03/business/economy/jobs-report-hiringunemployment-june.html?_r=0, Date Accessed: 7-6-2015) //NM
Not too hot, not too cold. But not, alas, just right. The economy added a healthy 223,000
jobs last month, the Labor Department reported Thursday, but with other indicators showing wages flat and
many Americans remaining on the sidelines, the overall economic picture for workers was not nearly as bright.
Although the unemployment rate fell to 5.3 percent, the lowest in seven
years, that was driven largely by an exodus from the work force, rather
than more people finding jobs. Moreover, the strong payroll gains for April and May, which had led
many analysts to conclude that the economy might finally be gaining momentum, were revised downward by
discouraging, average hourly earnings didnt budge in June despite the drop in the unemployment rate from 5.5
percent in May, disappointing hopes that wages were finally increasing for most workers. It was a strong sign that
plenty of slack remains in the job market, and that companies do not yet feel much pressure to raise pay to attract
participation this year. The latest jobs report is likely to sharpen debate among Federal Reserve officials about when
officials
have pointed to the healthy pace of job growth as a reason to raise rates
later this year. They say a stronger labor market will inevitably result in faster inflation, and the Fed needs
to start moving in anticipation of that trend. Some officials, however, point to the weak pace of
wage growth, which also continued in June, as evidence that concerns
about inflation are premature.
to start raising the Feds benchmark interest rate. Janet L. Yellen, the Feds chairwoman, and other
The latest average is also consistent with the June averages in 2013 and 2014. Gallup's daily spending measure
asks Americans to estimate the total amount they spent "yesterday" in restaurants, gas stations, stores or online -not counting home, vehicle or other major purchases, or normal monthly bills -- to provide an indication of
above the June figures Gallup recorded between 2009 and 2012. Spending each June has typically dipped slightly
compared with May, making the $1 decline this year consistent with the average $3 decline each June from 2009
through 2014. Spending between June and July, however, has usually increased a little, so it could increase this
month as well. From a recent vantage point, the lack of increase in spending could be related to Americans'
stagnant view of the economy as a whole. Gas prices dipped slightly during the second half of June, so the lower
costs could mean Americans are recalibrating their spending in accordance with the relief they're feeling at the
The recent Fourth of July weekend was slated to have the lowest
holiday weekend gas prices in five years. Given the usual bump in July spending, the national
pump.
holiday had the potential to kick off a heightened level of month-long spending. Results for this Gallup poll are
based on telephone interviews conducted June 1-30, 2015, on the Gallup U.S. Daily survey, with a random sample
of 14,685 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. For results based on the
total sample of national adults, the margin of sampling error is 1 percentage point at the 95% confidence level.
The margin of error for the spending mean is $5. All reported margins of sampling error include computed design
effects for weighting. Each sample of national adults includes a minimum quota of 50% cellphone respondents and
50% landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas by time zone within region. Landline and cellular
telephone numbers are selected using random-digit-dial methods.
Low Greece
Greek debt is disrupting US markets
Kim 7/6 ABC digital reporter
(Susanna, 7-6-2015, "How Greece's Economy Affects Americans ,"
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/greeces-economy-affect-us/story?id=32252631,
Date Accessed: 7-6-2015) //NM
Greece's economic crisis contributed to a dip in U.S. stocks today , but
Americans may have learned their lesson from their past exposure to the nation. After the Greek
people voted "no" for creditors' austerity measure , a "Grexit," or a Greek exit
from the European Union, may or may not happen. With two previous bailouts for Greece
on the books, many investors have limited their exposure to Greek debt,
leaving many Americans' 401(k)s relatively untouched. Greece: Here's What Happens
Next Rice University economist Ted Loch-Temzelides acknowledges there's concern, but he said he doesn't believe
Americans will be affected in any noticeable way by Greek's crisis. " Markets
and they react briefly to unusual news like this," he said. "However, the Greek risk has
already been priced in and I do not anticipate any further consequences for the U.S." Investor uncertainty over
Greece this year started as early as January, when Greek elections rocked markets as the far-left Syriza party came
into power. Greece isn't a major exporter to the U.S., though the country provides about 25 percent of the European
Union's olive oil. The Association of Cretan Olive Municipalities told Olive Oil Timeslast month that Greece's
referendum announcement and bank holiday stopped bulk olive oil transactions. The association did not respond to
a request for comment from ABC News. But other economists fear the larger macroeconomic effects of a "Grexit."
" Turmoil
the U.S. ," said Lindsey Piegza, Stifel's chief economist. She added, "Equity markets are likely to
stumble under the blanket of not knowing what is next ." First, there is
uncertainty over what could happen to the U.S. dollar . "Fears of what a Grexit means
and the possible contagion to other indebted countries is likely to cause volatility first and foremost, with
upward pressure on the U.S. dollar," she said. The value of the U.S. dollar
closely affects the country's many exporters. "Already a strengthening
dollar has eroded exports and manufacturing, sending business and
revenues overseas-- a trend that will likely be exacerbated, " she said. There's
also concern about not only the U.S. equities but also the bond market .
Piegza adds that a "flight to quality" trade is already underway with yields on German and U.S. bonds falling and
peripheral yields on the rise. Europe is more exposed to Greek's financial problems. The euro slid to a one-week low
against the dollar recently before bouncing back today to more than $1.10.
Open military conflict between China and the U.S. could also
have "historically unparalleled" economic consequences even if neither
country actively engages in economic warfare, Rand analysts say. The U.S.
could both boost direct defense in the unlikely case of war and reduce the
risk of escalation by strengthening China's neighbors. Such neighbors,
including India, South Korea, Japan and Taiwan, also represent possible
flashpoints for China-U.S. conflict in the scenarios laid out by the Rand
report. Other possible danger zones include the South China Sea, where
China and many neighboring countries have disputes over territorial
claims, as well as in the murkier realm of cyberspace. Understandably, China has shown
would be no 'winner.'"
fears of being encircled by semi-hostile U.S. allies. That's why Rand analysts urged the U.S. to make China a partner rather than rival
for maintaining international security. They also pointed out, encouragingly, that China has mostly taken "cautious and pragmatic"
policies as an emerging world power. "As
(Chalmers, President of Japan Policy Research Institute, The Nation, 5/14, l/n)
China is another matter. No sane figure in the Pentagon wants a war with China, and all serious US
militarists know that China's minuscule nuclear capacity is not
offensive but a deterrent against the overwhelming US power arrayed
against it (twenty archaic Chinese warheads versus more than 7,000 US warheads). Taiwan, whose status
constitutes the still incomplete last act of the Chinese civil war, remains the most dangerous place on earth.
a
misstep in Taiwan by any side could bring the United States and China into a
conflict that neither wants. Such a war would bankrupt the United States,
deeply divide Japan and probably end in a Chinese victory, given that
China is the world's most populous country and would be defending
itself against a foreign aggressor. More seriously, it could easily escalate
into a nuclear holocaust. However, given the nationalistic challenge to China's sovereignty of any
Taiwanese attempt to declare its independence formally, forward-deployed US forces on
China's borders have virtually no deterrent effect.
Much as the 1914 assassination of the Austrian crown prince in Sarajevo led to a war that no one wanted,
! LL
Growth key to solve a laundry list of problems war,
proliferation, environment, disease and drug trafficking
Silk 93 (Leonard. Dangers of Slow Growth. Foreign Affairs. Vol 72 Issue 1.
1993/1994. )
Fiscal,
monetary, and trade policy blunders helped to turn that earlier asset
deflation into the Great Depression of the 1930s, which lasted a full
decade--until the outbreak of World War II. I shall always remember the phrase of my old boss, Elliott V. Bell:
"Out of the wreckage of depression slithered the serpents of Nazism and
war." Nowadays, reversing the celebrated maxim of George Santayana, we believe or hope that those who
The last such asset deflation, credit crunch and wave of bankruptcies followed the Great Crash of 1929.
remember the past are not condemned to repeat it. Yet it is already evident that the long period of slow growth,
which some have called a "controlled depression," has produced revolutionary consequences of its own. It helped to
shatter the Soviet empire. As the British editor William Rees-Mogg has written: "A world economic crisis is a type of
world revolution. It destroys old structures, economic and political. The Soviet Union, with its rigid inability to adapt,
was the first to fall before the full force of the storm. Such a crisis destroys well-meaning politicians and promotes
men of power . . . . It destroys respect for government, as people discover that their leaders cannot control
events."[8] The burst of optimism that greeted the downfall of Soviet communism has given way to anxiety that
years will pass before the new states in the East can become effective market economies and democracies--and
that some may not make it at all before dictatorship returns. The end of the Cold War was expected to bring great
benefits to people in many countries as resources were shifted from military to social programs. Thus far, however,
the peace dividend only shows up in lost jobs and falling incomes. Theoretically there is no reason why this must be
so; in a rational world, the improved prospects for peace should have led to greater spending on consumer goods
and productivity-raising investment. But that can happen only if workers can be shifted to new jobs--and financial
resources reallocated to create those jobs. In the absence of such shifts of human and capital resources to
expanding civilian industries, there are strong economic pressures on arms-producing nations to maintain high
levels of military production and to sell weapons, both conventional and dual-use nuclear technology, wherever
more Iraqs, Yugoslavias, Somalias and Cambodias--or worse. Like the Great Depression, the current economic slump
has fanned the fires of nationalist, ethnic and religious hatred around the world. Economic hardship is not the only
cause of these social and political pathologies, but it aggravates all of them, and in turn they feed back on
healthier environment, and more liberal and open economies and societies.
! Space Colonization
Growth gets us off the rock solves inevitable extinction and
sustainability
Ashworth, 10 (Stephen Ashworth is a long-standing Fellow of the British
If growth is not maintained, then, unless they can reignite that growth phase, our
descendants are forever restricted to planet Earth. But must they necessarily fall back to a
unparalleled significance.
medieval or even more primitive level? Could industrial civilisation survive for a while in a zero-growth phase at around its presentday level of development, and if so, for how long? In any discussion of mankind and space, this is a key question which must be
addressed. Certainly, pre-industrial civilisations have survived with little change over millennial timespans, but to what extent does
Capitalist societies would seem to be expansionary in their very nature: they are defined by the self-multiplying power of capital. But
could a socialist society, one with a suitable ideology which was sufficiently severely imposed, preserve
zero growth indefinitely? I think not, because societies evolve in an unpredictable manner.
Governments which have tried to maintain control in, say, Tokugawa Japan (1603-1868) or Soviet Russia
(1917-1989) have failed in their goals of stability (Japan) or planned growth (Russia), and modern liberal
democracy works by limiting its ambitions and ceding much power to the economy at large. Even a global dictatorship, which unlike
those two historical examples would by definition not face competition from abroad, would, I think, be unable to control all the
The
result would then be either the breakout of a new phase of growth, or
decline and collapse. In view of the likelihood of long-term adverse climate change
(whether triggered by industrial pollution, or asteroid impact, or an outbreak of super-vulcanism, or the return of iceage conditions, or solar variations), and in addition the persistent threat of global high-tech conflict
(whether spreading destruction by nuclear weapons, or computer viruses, or genetically
engineered organisms, or microscopic or macroscopic robots), decline would be the more
plausible outcome. Nevertheless, the question as to how long a global zero-growth industrial civilisation could
disruptive political, technological and economic forces emerging unpredictably worldwide over centuries and millennia.
survive in a stable state on one planet is an interesting one, though not one that is likely to attract unbiased analysis by modern
What, however, if growth is maintained? Surely Earth will become overburdened and that
while the resources of Earth
are limited, those of the Solar System are very much greater . Growth in population
sociology.
growth will lead to environmental and social collapse? The point here is that,
sizes and in the usage of energy and raw materials may therefore continue for a number of centuries into the future, provided that
two conditions are met:
* Material growth on Earth levels off;
* Material growth in space and on other planets takes over the
Is this not equivalent to saying that Earth must settle down with a
zero-growth society before space development begins? No, so long as the
terrestrial and extraterrestrial economies are linked. While this remains true, it will be
upward trend.
possible for investors on Earth to invest capital in extraterrestrial development, and receive dividends back from that development.
While most Earth-dwelling people will remain on the mother planet, there will also be flows of people, goods and ideas between
Earth and her colonies, which must also have a profound economic effect. A net inflow of value to Earth is in any case necessary in
order that terrestrial investment in outer space does not merely produce inflation in the home economy. But that inflow need not be
of material goods, and is more likely to consist of energy (solar power delivered on microwaves or lasers) and information (software
and product development). But surely ultimately the limits of the Solar System will be reached, and the interplanetary civilisation
have to settle down as a zero-growth society? Yes, granted. But this differs from a zero-growth planet Earth due to the immense size
of the Solar System, which is larger than Earth by between four and six orders of magnitude, depending how far out one wants to go
An interplanetary industrial
civilisation is secure for the long term in a way that a monoplanetary one
is not, because it is too large to form a unity, either politically or environmentally, and because it is forced to adapt to a wide
range of hostile environmental conditions. It will therefore be secure against any conceivable
environmental or military disaster, because such a disaster can only affect a single planet, or at most a
to the distance of Mars, say, or to the Oort comet cloud far beyond Pluto.
limited region of the system. Climate change or world war on Earth has no effect on Mars, and vice versa. And with the majority of
the population in orbiting artificial space colonies, even a major change in solar luminosity could be tolerated (though such a change
is not expected to have a noticeable effect for hundreds of millions of years yet). With interplanetary civilisation, the social system
as a whole can tolerate decline and collapse in particular locations, because they can then be recolonised from outside. Once
appropriate as an economic system for a society colonising its local planetary system.
Hegemony
Heg Sustainable
Despite alt causes, US hegemony is resilient
Babones 15
Salvatore Babones, professor of sociology and social policy at the University of
Sydney, American Hegemony Is Here to Stay, 6/11/15,
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/american-hegemony-here-stay-13089
IS RETREAT from global hegemony in Americas national interest? No idea has percolated more widely over the past
stock or its demographic profile, the United States ended the war with the greatest naval order of battle ever seen
in the history of the world. It became the postwar home of the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund and
in the twentieth century was the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union never produced more than about half of Americas
total national output. Its nominal allies in Eastern Europe were in fact restive occupied countries, as were many of
its constituent republics. Its client states overseas were at best partners of convenience, and at worst expensive
drains on its limited resources. The Soviet Union had the power to resist American hegemony, but not to displace it.
exaggerated. Americas costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were relatively minor affairs considered in long-term
perspective. The strategic challenge posed by China has also been exaggerated. Together with its inner circle of
unshakable English-speaking allies, the United States possesses near-total control of the worlds seas, skies,
airwaves and cyberspace, while American universities, think tanks and journals dominate the world of ideas. Put
aside all the alarmist punditry.
On top of all this, strategic exhaustion after two costly wars in Afghanistan and Iraq has substantially degraded U.S.
military capabilities. Then, at the very moment the military needed to regroup, rebuild and rearm, its budget was hit
https://www.academia.edu/4576375/Global_Goliath_vs._Global_Leader_Americas_Di
fficult_Choice, 7/6/14 //mm
This article starts off by asking what makes this particular period in American
history so different from the previous four declinist waves of American
foreign policy. And the answer it comes up with after taking a closer look at the
pinnacle of systemic power military power is that the U.S. is poised to
remain the systemic Goliath for the foreseeable future. In particular, I argue
the empirical evidence offered by the declinist school of American foreign
policy is circumstantial and barely quantifiable. In other words, the global
Goliath is still undefeated in the military field where no signs of decline
are pertinently visible at this point.
the causes for alliance formation. Alliances form not to balance the biggest power but to balance against the
biggest threat. Threat, in turn, is determined by (1) aggregate power, (2) geographic proximity, (3) offensive power,
Niall Ferguson, July/August 2004 A World Without Power, FOREIGN POLICY Issue
143
So what is left? Waning empires. Religious revivals. Incipient anarchy. A
coming retreat into fortified cities. These are the Dark Age experiences that a
world without a hyperpower might quickly find itself reliving. The trouble is,
of course, that this Dark Age would be an altogether more dangerous one than the
Dark Age of the ninth century. For the world is much more populous-roughly 20
dominated world affairs for the last two centuries. Nor will it yield to another
dominant hegemon that would displace the United States by assuming a
similar political, military, economic, technological, and sociocultural worldwide
preeminence. The familiar powers of the last century are too fatigued or too
weak to assume the role the United States now plays. It is noteworthy that
since 1880, in a comparative ranking of world powers (cumulatively based on their
economic strength, military budgets and assets, populations, etc.), the top five slots
at sequential twenty-year intervals have been shared by just seven states: the
United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Russia, Japan, and Chula. Only
the United States, however, unambiguously earned inclusion among the top five in
everyone of the twenty-year intervals, and the gap in the year 2000 between the
top-ranked United States and the rest was vastly wider than ever before.' The
former major European powersGreat Britain, Germany, and Franceare
too weak to step into the breach. In the next two decades, it is quite unlikely
that the European Union will become sufficiently united politically to
muster the popular will to compete with the United States in the politicomilitary arena. Russia is no longer an imperial power, and its central
challenge is to recover socioeconomically lest it lose its far eastern
territories to China. Japan's population is aging and its economy has
slowed; the conventional wisdom of the 1980s that Japan is destined to be the next
"superstate" now has the ring of historical irony. China, even if it succeeds in
maintaining high rates of economic growth and retains its internal
political stability (both are far from certain), will at best be a regional
power still constrained by an impoverished population, antiquated
infrastructure, and limited appeal worldwide. The same is true of India, which
additionally faces uncertainties regarding its long-term national unity.
Even a coalition among the abovea most unlikely prospect, given their
historical conflicts and clashing territorial claimswould lack the
cohesion, muscle, and energy needed to both push America off its
pedestal and sustain global stability. Some leading states, in any case, would
side with America if push came to shove. Indeed, any evident American
decline might precipitate efforts to reinforce America's leadership. Most
important, the shared resentment of American hegemony would not dampen the
dashes of interest among states. The more intense collisionsin the event of
America's declinecould spark a wildfire of regional violence, rendered all the more
dangerously the dissemination of weapons of mass destruction.
Disease
Disease Extensions
The bubonic plague is already infecting hundreds
Dana Dovey @Danadovey 15, 1-28-2015, "What You Need To Know About
Madagascar's Bubonic Plague Outbreak," Medical Daily,
http://www.medicaldaily.com/bubonic-plague-2015-madagascars-current-plaguemore-virulent-strain-dark-ages-319794
No, you did not misread the headline to this story. Not only does the bubonic plague still
exist, but its infected hundreds of individuals on the island of
Madagascar, off the coast of Africa. In fact, this is nearly an annual
occurrence for the island nation. Unlike the plague of the past, however,
this form is not only harder to contain but can kill nearly 24 hours after
initial exposure. The Black Death At one point in time the bubonic plague was the single most terrifying
disease on the planet. Also known as the Black Death, this bacterial infection literally shaped Europe into the
continent we recognize today after killing off an unbelievable 60 percent of its population in the 14th century. Like
all things in life, however, the reign of the Black Death could not last forever, and today, thanks to recent medicine,
it is barely a shadow of its former self. Modern medicine has made it so that the plague that once killed six in 10
people now has an 85 percent survival rate. The plague is caused by a bacterium found mainly in rodents, and
because its impossible (and not advisable) to kill every rat on the planet, its likely that remnants of the plague will
persist forever. While the random occurrence of the plague is expected, outbreaks are completely unnecessary,
Concerned Unfortunately, it seems that the preservation of human life is not enough for an event to gain
at Columbia University, told Vice, adding that it it's a "much more efficient transmission method than being bitten
by fleas." Early intervention is the best bet in both treating and preventing the spread of the plague. Its been
reported that together, the WHO and the local partner it supports, Institut Pasteur, have created an inexpensive test
that brings back a plague diagnosis in 15 minutes. Hopefully, this will help to reduce the death toll and control the
spread of the condition
Bear14, 1-31-2014, "Could the Plague Return to Kill us All?," Mysterious Universe,
http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2014/01/could-the-plague-return-to-kill-us-all/
Its easy to revel in the knowledge that such a scenario is fiction however a new report published in the January
2014 edition of the journal Lancet Infectious Disease speculates that the devastating Bubonic Plagues of the past
could return with devastating force. Why bring this up now? Cant we treat the bacteria that causes Plague with
new strains of
plague bacteria, Yersinia pestis, could spontaneously rise again and we
may have limited ability to fight it. Combine that with our modern
transport infrastructure and its the perfect storm for a pandemic of
global proportions. As part of the study, researchers analysed the remains of two people who died from
modern antibiotics? Yes, we can but an international team of researchers suggest that
the Plague of Justinian which occurred between 541 and 543 A.D. Like the Black Death of the 14th century its
impact upon society was overwhelming. Disturbingly, it was found that two different strains of Yersinin pestis were
responsible for each plague. This means that thes e
Matt Mccarthy 15, 1-9-2015, "These Viruses Could Cause the Next Ebola-Like
Pandemics," Slate Magazine,
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2015/01/prepar
ing_for_pandemics_what_diseases_will_be_the_next_ebolas.html
The Ebola epidemic in West Africa isnt over, but as it recedes from the headlines,
its time to consider whats coming for us next. Pandemic prediction isnt
cheap, but waiting for an outbreak to happen can be even more costly.
Economic losses due to SARS were estimated to be anywhere from $15
billion to more than $50 billion; the cost of the Ebola outbreak will almost
certainly exceed that figure. By contrast, Daszak estimates that it would
cost a total of $6.3 billion to discover all of the viruses that infect
mammalsa fraction of the cost required to respond to a global pandemic
like Ebola or SARSand that information will ultimately lead to better
disease monitoring, treatment, and preventative measures at the cusp of
the next outbreak. Its a massive endeavor, but a necessary one. Once we
know whats out there, well be able to figure out whats coming for us.
placebo pills, dress a cot with sheets, and set up an IV all while donning big rubber boots, a plastic suit, mask,
hood, and second set of gloves and other protective equipment. Nina Gregory, of NPR, was at the TED Talk and
shared her experience: When I caught sight of my own reflection and saw those lumbering around in the mock
ETU suited up like this along with me it was unnerving, Gregory wrote. Imagine being on the other side: sick,
dying of Ebola, and this giant, anonymous figure with not one fragment of skin or hair showing, is there to treat you,
to try to save your life. "We wanted to give people the sensory and visual limitations we had in working in West
Africa, Luanne Freer, an emergency medicine doctor from Montana told NPR. Once
sufficient and sustained investments, our defenses and capabilities falter, and our
complacency becomes our biggest threat.
Patriot Act, it has been brought to the edge of extinction by a couple of simple but inaccurate phrases, including
listening to your phone calls and domestic spying. You can listen to orations on the NSA program for hours and
be outraged by its violation of our liberties, inspired by the glories of the Fourth Amendment and prepared to mount
the barricades to stop the NSA in its tracks and still have no idea what the program actually does. Thats what
called, the time of the call, the duration of the call. The phone companies have all this information, which the NSA
acquires from them. What happens next probably wont shock you, and it shouldnt. As Rachel Brand of the Privacy
According to The New York Times, it collects your demographic information like your age, whether you are married
and have kids, which part of town you live in, how long it takes you to drive to the store, your estimated salary,
whether youve moved recently, what credit cards you carry in your wallet and what Web sites you visit. Of course,
the Fourth Amendment applies to the government, not private entities like Target. The amendment protects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of our persons, houses, papers, and effects. If the NSA were breaking into
homes and seizing metadata that people had carefully hidden away from prying eyes, it would be in flagrant
violation of the Fourth Amendment. But no one is in possession of his or her own metadata. Even if the NSA didnt
of their envelopes to be private. There are legitimate criticisms of the NSA program. It currently hangs on vague
phrasing in the Patriot Act. Congress should make it unmistakable that it is authorizing exactly what the NSA is
bumper sticker.
on the one hand, and interests or balancing or policy on the other. Courts, including the FISA Court, sit on the
law side of that divide. The dynamics of judicial law - pronouncement are, however, very different than for executive
compliance work. Executive branch lawyers role commits them to the search for yes when it can be, even if
they are simultaneously capable of delivering no when it must be. And executive lawyers tend to consider their
way, prior to the Snowden disclosures, may be in part due to the absence of adversarial briefing , as elaborated
upon in Part IV . 229 But my sense is that one - sided briefing is only part of the explanation. The FISA Courts one party procedures have a deeper impact, as well. The ex parte modality alters not just who communicates with the
court but how the government and court communicate with each other. Sometimes FISA judges make their
influence felt by the traditional judicial process of issuing a decision: the 2009 order suspending the NSAs access to
internet metadata 230 is one example. But much more often, facilitated by the ex parte nature of the proceedings,
ODNI
General Counsel Robert Litt explained in congressional testimony in 2013:
When we prepare an application for a FISA [order], whether its under [Section 702 ] or
it seems that the courts views are delivered in the form of less formal advice to the government.
a traditional FISA [warrant], we first submit to the court whats called a read copy, which the court staff will review
Solvency Deficits
The Bilateral Trade Investment would not solve. China would
take advantage of US companies.
Scissors 14
Derek, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), where he
studies Asian economic issues and trends. In particular, he focuses on the Chinese
and Indian economies and US economic relations with China and India. He is author
of the China Global Investment Tracker, an adjunct professor at George Washington
University, where he teaches a course on the Chinese economy. Before joining AEI,
Scissors was a senior research fellow in the Asian Studies Center at the Heritage
Foundation. He has also worked in London for Intelligence Research Ltd., taught
economics at Lingnan University in Hong Kong, and served as an action officer in
international economics and energy for the US Department of Defense. Stop the USChina Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) Talks, American Enterprise Institute,
https://www.aei.org/publication/stop-the-us-china-bilateral-investment-treaty-bittalks/ //NA
Washington and Beijing are ostensibly having serious discussions of a
bilateral investment treaty to improve transparency and other aspects of
the trans-Pacific investment environment. One hopes its not really true,
that the American side is just humoring the Chinese, because its
impossible at present to see such an agreement benefiting the US.
Excluding bonds, Chinese investment in the US set a record last year. Its on pace to
set another record this year. Just last week, Chinese technology giant Lenovo was
approved by the US to buy IBMs low-end server unit. A Chinese group that includes
state-owned enterprises bid for American chip-maker Omnivision. Theres also
Chinese investment in property, energy, and finance. The main complaint Beijing
can offer in this context is that a court decision in favor of a Chinese enterprise over
the US government took too long. In stark contrast, American acquisitions in the
PRC are on course for their worst performance in over a decade, even while there is
strong American spending elsewhere in the world. There is good reason for the
China-specific aversion: the Communist Party is harassing foreign companies,
with American technology firms near the top of the list. Qualcomm has been
found guilty of violating Chinas anti-monopoly law, punishment yet to be
announced. Microsoft is next in line. At best, the law is bizarrely and harmfully
applied, witness tiny InterDigital accused of bullying giant Huawei. At worst, it is
Beijing coercing lower prices and technology transfer. The PRC did not treat
multinationals well prior to General Secretary Xi Jinpings government taking office
and has treated them considerably worse since. American business can be shortsighted in its approach to China (though others can apparently be worse).
Believing a bilateral investment treaty (BIT) is a solution to the current
bout of mercantilism would be exceptionally short-sighted. Looking
backward, the lesson from Chinas WTO accession is clear: do not sign an
agreement hoping to bind the PRC when the Party has another
development path in mind. Looking forward, the recent policy shift what China
wants indicates that any BIT concessions what the US wants would be
imaginary. They would shortly be finessed, sidestepped, or simply ignored. A BIT
signed in 2015, for example, would see American business in 2018 complaining that
the Chinese are cheating and calling for a free trade agreement to create a truly
open market. Again. For Beijing to merely return to the pre-Xi government days
would be an improvement. But the new governments hypocrisy in its words
versus its actions robs it of the credibility needed for a proper BIT
negotiation. For that, there must also be clear and sustained progress in showing
that market competition is welcome from all comers, including multinationals. On
this side of the Pacific, the US should treat Chinese investment on the basis of how
it affects our economy. That the PRC is a poor partner is not a good reason to shoot
ourselves in the foot by blocking beneficial transactions. It is, however, a good
reason to put a BIT on hold for a good while.
Sluzas, 6/19
Robin, Assistant to Exec. Dir., Triton College Foundation, Can the US trust China in
trade deals?, Chicago Tribune,
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/letters/ct-can-the-us-trust-china-intrade-deals-20150619-story.html //NA
While I recognize that the Trans-Pacific Partnership is a logical step to
promote future business growth for the U.S., I still have reservations.
Specifically, there should be concern about Chinas penchant for flagrant
disregard of U.S. trade regulations and cybersecurity protections. Most
recently, it is thought (but not yet proved) that China hacked into the U.S. Office of
Personnel Management computers, compromising millions of Americans personal
information. It occurs to me that Chinese values regarding business are
vastly different from our own. I have no reason to believe that built-in
environmental, labor and intellectual property protections would be
honored. It just doesnt seem to be the Chinese way of doing business.
Further, it is assumed that U.S. company imports would be well-received
by the Chinese populace at large, giving the U.S. access to an evergrowing Chinese middle class. My question is, why would the Chinese
government want to buy our imports when they may have the ability to
steal our production and cybersecrets and then use them to put a billion
Chinese nationals to work? If I were Chinese, Id be thinking, Why pay
import tariffs and shipping costs when I can make everything in-house?
And how do we stop them from committing cyber- and industrial
espionage? How do we stop them from bullying smaller Asian/Pan-Pacific
countries into doing things their way? How do we make sure China stays
true to the built-in protections of the agreement? Simply put, theyre
bigger than us with a lot more people. Theoretically I think the Trans-Pacific
Partnership should happen. But I worry that China is not a trustworthy business
partner, and the U.S. has no way of ensuring it will be.
Segal said the U.S.-Sino talks may well produce some kind of
upbeat announcement, perhaps on a bilateral investment treaty. But the
two sides dont appear ready to seriously engage on cyber concerns, he
said. He also expressed doubts the administration is taking steps to prevent further breaches of government
espionage.
computers. Last week, the White House announced a 30-day cyber security sprint to shore up federal networks
and prevent successful hacking. The
Advantage CP Answers
Solvency Deficits
Doesnt solve foreign trust thats the most important internal
link
Washington Blog 15
Washington Blog, 5 Ways Mass Surveillance Is Destroying Our Economy, 2/17/15,
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/02/nsa-destroying-american-economy.html SJE
Privacy is a prerequisite for a prosperous economy . Even the White House admits:
People must have confidence that data will travel to its destination
without disruption. Assuring the free flow of information, the security and privacy of data,
and the integrity of the interconnected networks themselves are all essential to American and
global economic prosperity, security, and the promotion of universal rights. Below, we discuss five
ways that mass surveillance hurts our economy. 1. Foreigners Stop Buying American Foreigners are
starting to shy away from U.S. Internet companies, due to the risk that
American spooks will spy on them. American tech companies including Verizon,
Cisco, IBM and others are getting hammered for cooperating with the NSA and failing
to protect privacy. The costs to the U.S. economy have been estimated to be in
the hundreds of billions of dollars . And see this and this. That doesnt even take into account
the just-revealed NSA program of infecting virtually all popular Western hard drives with spyware. This will cause
huge markets like China to insist that locally-produced hard drives be used, to make it harder for the NSA to hack
the NSAs shenanigans are hurting dual pillars of the U.S. tech
sector: computers and Internet. (The sale of mobile devices might not be far behind.) 2. Trust and
the Rule of Law Two Main determinants of Prosperity Are Undermined By Surveillance Trust is KEY for a
prosperous economy. Its hard to trust when your government, your internet service provider and your
favorite websites are all spying on you. The destruction of privacy by the NSA directly
harms internet companies, Silicon Valley, California and the entire U.S.
economy (Facebook lost 11 millions users as of April mainly due to privacy concerns and that was before the
into them. So
Snowden revelations). If people dont trust the companies to keep their data private, theyll use foreign companies.
And
our economy.
And while the US is often more well known for its solar industry, wind power has proven itself in the past. According
to another report published earlier this year by AWEA, the US wind industry delivered 30% of all new generating
capacity over the previous five years.
benefit , creating with it heightened expectations for the year. With the tax credit threshold
clarified, developers and projects will move ahead freeing up almost 3 GW of projects that
were in the pipeline and creating a larger-still pipeline as developers aim to initiate their projects before the
possible end of the PTC. Stably-priced wind energy also protects consumers from price spikes for fuel, but that is
not accounted for in the highly regulated electricity market because other energy sources get to pass their fuel
The American Wind Energy Association has made extending the Production Tax Credit ('PTC') its
primary focus this year. Documents available on the trade group's website show that about $4 million of its 2012 budget ($30
million) was directed toward securing extension of the PTC. With job growth the number one political issue in the United States,
creation were no substitute for actual data and added: "The Section 1603 grant program was sold to the American people as a
consider how building a renewable energy facility might displace energy or associated jobs, earnings, and output related to other
existing or planned energy generation resources (e.g., jobs lost or gained related to changes in electric utility revenues and
increased consumer energy bills, among other impacts). In other words, the model is one-sided, only considering the benefit side of
indirect jobs, the majority (around 60%) work in finance and consulting services, contracting and engineering services, and
transportation and logistics. Twenty thousand are employed in wind-related manufacturing with the remaining jobs tied to
construction and O&M. But validating this information is not possible since no industry codes exist that isolate wind power
establishments or wind turbine and wind components establishments. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)
bundles wind-related manufacturers under the same code as the "Turbine and Turbine Generator Set Units" manufacturing industry
(NAICS 333611), which includes "establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing turbines (except aircraft) and complete turbine
generator set units, such as steam, hydraulic, gas, and wind." At the end of 2010, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported 26,218
total jobs in this industry. It's not credible that AWEA's estimated manufacturing jobs could represent the vast majority of
employment under the NAICS 333611 classification.[2] Navigant's Magic In December, AWEA commissioned Navigant Consulting,
Inc. to study the impact of the PTC on job growth in the wind industry. The study, also based on the JEDI model, considered two
scenarios, one where the PTC is extended for 4 years (2013-2016); the other where the PTC expires at the end of this year.
Navigant's model showed that extension of the PTC would provide a stable economic environment and allow the wind industry to
grow to nearly 100,000 American jobs over four years, including a jump to 46,000 manufacturing positions. Expiration of the PTC
showed a loss of 37,000 jobs. The message to Congress was clear: extend the PTC or you will be blamed for American jobs being
lost. Even Interior Secretary Salazarpeddled AWEA's numbers despite the Congressional report that raised doubts about the model.
Recent statements by AWEA prompted us to look at the numbers even further. In May, AWEA's Denise Bode told Windpower Monthly
that of the estimated 75,000 wind jobs, at least 30,000 were manufacturing jobs -- a jump of 10,000 jobs! Where did the additional
manufacturing jobs come from? As it turns out, Navigant tabulated direct and indirect jobs but also quietly added INDUCED jobs -those jobs created when the overall level of spending in an economy rises due to workers newly receiving incomes. Factoring in
'induced employment' was a radical departure from job figures previously provided by AWEA. Induced job figures are more abstract
and inherently unreliable but a convenient way to inflate job numbers. We could find no documentation that explained this change in
job reporting nor was the change footnoted in the Navigant study. We spoke with a Navigant represent who suggested AWEA might
have been incorrectly treating 'induced jobs' as 'indirect jobs' in its prior reports but that would not explain the inflation in
manufacturing jobs. Total job counts would have stayed about the same. In looking at the Navigant modeled numbers, it appears
the wind industry currently only provides 58,000 direct and indirect jobs, not 75,000. A four-year extension of the PTC could result in
a possible 70,000 direct and indirect jobs by 2016 (scenario 2) -- 5,000 less than the number AWEA touts today! Conclusion
The change in job counts raises serious credibility issues about the
industry's employment strength. But the absolute numbers tell only a piece of the story. Since Navigant's
study is based on JEDI, the job figures represent gross numbers and do not consider them in the context of the larger economy. In
that sense, Navigant's findings, like NREL's study, tell us nothing about the true impact of the PTC. But one thing does appear to be
true: AWEA's job figures, dating back to least 2009, may be nothing more than figures pulled from thin air. [1] Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory
reports (p. 7): "The American Wind Energy Association, meanwhile, estimates that the entire
Comments, http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2011/11/14/rebutting-bodes20-percent-by-2030/)
Current Wind Industry Jobs According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS),
the number of wind manufacturing jobs has remained relatively flat over
the past 3 years at an estimated 20,000 jobs. (See chart below.) The majority of the 75,000
jobs (60 percent) that Ms. Bode quotes are in finance and consulting services, contracting and engineering services,
and transportation and logistics. Only 3,500 jobs were in construction and 4,000 in operations and maintenance in
to $2.5 billion in 2008, held at $2.3 billion in 2009 and decreased to $1.2 billion in 2010 due to lower relative
While
European suppliers were the leaders in wind equipment imports to the
United States, South Korea and China are now becoming players in the
U.S. market.
demand for new wind energy, declining prices, and new manufacturing plants in the United States.
Further employment
growth in the sector is likely to depend not only upon future demand for
wind energy, but also on corporate decisions about where to produce
towers, blades, nacelles, and their most sophisticated components, such
as gearboxes, bearings, and generators.
policy environment were in place, which implies a total of 80,000 jobs.83
never had a presidential orator brilliant enough to urge everyone to get together and craft a plan to save
manufacturing. Truth is, we already know Obamas plan: to tax you to keep the rustladen, unionheavy industrial
sector afloat. Sadly, similar thinking seems to be catching like a plague. Two days before the presidents speech, the
House voted 379 to 38 to pass H.R. 4692, which recommends establishing a presidential task force to create a
National Manufacturing Strategy to revive U.S. industries. Special Treatment You might ask, whats the harm in yet
another government study? Heres what. One provision in the bill would require the president to include, in each
years federal budget, information on how the spending plan advances the manufacturing strategy. That would give
Let's review the reasons why governments cannot create jobs, and why labelling them "green" doesn't change the
basic dynamics. Let's start with the fallacy that governments can create jobs. This fallacy was exploded all the way
the
only way governments can create jobs is by first obliterating other jobs.
Sometimes, they obliterate other jobs by diverting taxpayer money away
from the economic uses the taxpayer would have pursued if they had kept
their taxes. Other times, they obliterate jobs by imposing regulations that
kill off one industry in favour of another. In still other situations, they
impose mandates, such as using recycled paper to create an artificial
market for recycled paper which reduce jobs in fresh-paper production. In
the green energy case, they are doing all of the above: Taxpayer dollars are being used to subsidize the
back in 1845 by a French politician and political economist named Frdric Bastiat. Bastiat pointed out that
renewable energy sector; damaging regulations are being implemented on the traditional fossil fuel sector, and
mandates for the use of renewable energy are being issued, creating a false market in wind power at the expense
of fossil fuel and nuclear power. Governments also invariably siphon off a good part of the money for
"administration," creating civil service jobs that pay comparatively higher wages than the private sector for similar
spent on renewable energy systems and higher prices for consumers, not a single coal or gas-fired power plant has
been taken offline. To the contrary, old inefficient German plants have been brought back into service in an effort to
stabilize the grid. With an economy that increasingly is reliant on electric power generation, we need to focus on
abundant, reliable, and affordable sources of electric power generation. For the foreseeable future, that source is
offshore wind farm planned for Cape Cod that has generated fierce political and
legal controversy
has cleared all federal and state regulatory hurdles. The Federal Aviation Administration said Wednesday the Cape Wind project, the first of
its kind in the United States, would not interfere with air traffic navigation and could proceed with certain conditions. Previous agency approvals were challenged in court, including a
Opponents over the years have included the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, a Democrat of Massachusetts whose family compound is in Hyannis Port. 125 years of wind power
Critics claim the wind farm with its 130 turbines would threaten wildlife and aesthetics of Nantucket Sound. Some
local residents also fear it will drive down property values. The administration
has pushed
nationally
has been sharply criticized by congressional Republicans who have said certain
high-profile projects are politically driven. They also have skewered certain Energy
Department programs that extended millions in taxpayer loans and other aid to
alternative energy companies or projects that faltered or did not meet expectations. The Republican-led House
Oversight and Government Reform Committee is investigating the political assertions around Cape Wind as part of
a broader review of "green energy" projects supported by the administration. The panel's chairman, California's Darrell Issa, wrote President Barack Obama last week saying that
White House interest in the Massachusetts project is "well known" and that the FAA had been under political
pressure to approve it.
in response to the 2010 spill. They say Interior acted too quickly by imposing a drilling freeze in the Gulf of Mexico, and complain
The
Cape Wind project, which calls for a wind farm of 130 turbines
more
nearly 10 years.
There are about a dozen other offshore projects being contemplated, most of them off the Eastern seaboard north of
Chesapeake Bay. A number of northern European countries are already operating offshore wind farms in the north Atlantic. The Cape Wind farm is
expected to begin generating electricity by the end of 2012, pending the outcome of the legal challenges. It will provide sufficient electricity for threequarters of the 225,000 residents of Cape Cod. An attempt to block the project by the American Council on Historical Preservation, which cited the
Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reductionthe super committeewas unable to come to an agreement on how to address the deficit, massive, automatic cuts to federal programs
will take place unless Congress agrees by years end on an alternative set of budgetary measures to replace sequestration. If they fail to do so, federal spending will be automatically
slashed by $1.2 trillion from 2013 through 2021, with approximately $109 billion in cuts coming in fiscal year 2013. Despite the fact that Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH)
offered a plan with $800 billion in new revenue, he has not outlined any specific or realistic path to get there and wants to lower tax ratesa plan that heads in the wrong direction. As a
result, the country is now in a precarious situation. Only an eleventh-hour deal will prevent cuts that former Secretary of Defense Robert Gateswho served under both President George
W. Bush and President Barack Obamahas said would have a catastrophic effect on national security. Sequestrations impacts could be equally calamitous for the management of
federal programs that safeguard American lives, fuel our economy, and provide treasured sites for rest and recreation. Sequestration will have a bigand negativeimpact on land and
ocean management agencies. Heres how itll affect all Americans: Less accurate weather forecasts Slower energy development Fewer wildland firefighters Closures of national parks
Fewer places to hunt Less fish on your table Diminished maritime safety and security Congressional Republicans are beginning to wake up to the reality that our financial woes cannot be
solved simply by slashing spendingadditional sources of revenue must be part of the equation. Several conservatives have recently broken ranks from GOP taxation task-master,
lobbyist Grover Norquist, who is most known for the pledge he convinced many in Congress to sign promising to reject any tax increases. Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) recently suggested that
he is not obligated to honor the pledge he made with Norquist to oppose tax increases. This is good news for the American people who enjoy government serviceseverything from a
strong military to the interstate highway system to public educationbecause it means that an honest conversation about addressing the deficit that includes both new revenues and
unless more conservatives join this trend, sequestration will be inevitable, in which case we are
going to have to start making do without some of these vital services we now consider fundamental to
cuts can move forward. But
our daily lives. In this issue brief, we examine seven key areas where federal land and ocean management agencies, such as the Department of the Interior and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, make critical investments on which Americans have come to depend and what cutting these agencies might mean, including: Less accurate weather
forecasts Slower energy development Fewer wildland firefighters Closures of national parks Fewer places to hunt Less fish on our tables Diminished maritime safety and security Overall,
the Office of Management and Budget predicted in a recent report that sequestration will cut $2.603 billion in fiscal year 2013 alone from the agencies that manage the hundreds of
millions of acres of lands and oceans that belong to U.S. taxpayers. There is no doubt Americans will feel the impacts of such massive cuts. In particular, we will see reductions in many
services provided by land and ocean management agencies such as weather satellites, firefighters, American-made energy, and hunting and fishing opportunities. Additionallyand
perhaps most obviouslythe cuts will likely cause some level of closure, if not complete closure, at many of our parks, seashores, and other cherished places. Losing funding for these
critical services and infrastructure also reduces their tremendous value as job creators and economic drivers. Americans depend on our public lands and ocean management agencies in
three crucial areas: Providing safety and security (weather forecasting, park rangers, firefighters, the Coast Guard, etc.) Enhancing economic contributions (the Department of the
Interior leveraged $385 billion in economic activity such as oil and gas, mining, timber, grazing, and recreation in 2011) Preserving Americas shared history, heritage, and recreation
opportunities (national parks, forests, seashores, and historic landmarks) Voters recognize the value of these services and by nearly a 3-to-1 margin oppose reducing conservation funds
to balance the budget. A poll conducted by the Nature Conservancy determined that 74 percent of voters say that, even with federal budget problems, funding for conservation should
not be cut. And in the 2012 election, voters across 21 states approved ballot measures raising $767 million for new parks and conservation initiatives. As these statistics clearly show,
many citizens are willing to pay a little more in order to fund conservation and related programs. In order to continue providing these necessary services to the American people,
Republicans
congressional
must put forward a realistic plan that embraces both revenue increases and spending cuts. Such an approach would maintain as much
funding as possible for these critical and valued government programs. The cost to administer our lands and ocean agencies is a sound investment for Americans due to the economic
Attempting to balance the budget and avoid the fiscal showdown simply by cutting
spending without a plan to increase revenue means we will be less prepared for the next Hurricane Sandy. It means we will be unable to control massive wildfires
and societal benefits they provide.
Impact on
oceans
as quickly as we can today. And it means we will have fewer places to hunt, fish, and relax.
public lands and
The White House Office of
Management and Budget released a report in September determining that the sequestration percentages for the non-defense function would be a reduction of 8.2 percent for
discretionary appropriations and 7.6 percent for direct spending. All of the cuts described in this issue brief are nondefense discretionary, except for one account in the Coast Guard that
has a defense function and would receive a 9.4 percent cut totaling $50 million in fiscal year 2013. It is important to note that the Office of Management and Budget does not provide
much specificity about how these cuts would be administered to individual programs within agencies. It lists them only in terms of high-level budget line items where appropriations are
tracked. For example, the analysis shows that the National Park Service operations budget will lose $183 million, but it does not specify which services or which parks will bear the brunt
of this reductionthose decisions are left to the agencies and departments themselves. It is therefore difficult to guess what sort of cuts the agencies might makefor example, which
areas might close, which programs might end, how many jobs will be lost, and other details. Nevertheless, we can easily assume that cuts on such a massive scale will have a major
impact on a number of fronts, and that Americans will feel them with regard to the services and values that the agencies provide. Less accurate weather forecasts One of the most
important and evident investments that the federal government makes is in weather prediction. But sequestration could threaten the governments ability to provide accurate weather
forecasting by cutting the budget for the agency where weather prediction is housed. If this happens, Americans will get less precise daily weather reports and will suffer through less
accurate natural disaster predictions for hurricanes, blizzards, droughts, tornadoes, and other weather events from the mundane to the catastrophic. The National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Agency is the central agency for critical weather prediction resources. Its National Weather Service is the nations primary source of the data and analysis, forming the basis
of everything from the forecasts you receive from meteorologists on the morning news to the National Hurricane Centers storm-tracking capabilities to the long-term projections of
global climate change. Even the Weather Channels forecasts come from this agencys data. The United States is already falling behind other nations when it comes to forecasting
capabilities. As accurate as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agencys predictions of the track of Hurricane Sandy proved to be, European models predicted its landfall days before
U.S. models did. As a result, when meteorologists sought to predict the arrival and intensity of the large storm that slammed into the New York/New Jersey area less than a week after
Sandy, they frequently referenced the European models predictions to lend more credibility to their reports. Even though our domestic weather prediction capabilities trail the Europeans
in many capacities, sequestrations 8.2 percent cut would make them even worse. One specific example involves the ongoing effort to replace our nations aging weather monitoring
satellites. The Government Accountability Office predicted that even at current spending levels, to buy replacement satellites, there will likely be a gap in satellite data lasting 17 to 53
monthsthe time it takes the old satellite to shut down and when its replacement can come online. During this time, the accuracy of advance warnings of impending weather disasters
such as hurricanes and blizzards could decline by as much as 50 percent. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agencys Procurement, Acquisition, and Construction account would
face a $149 million reduction, according to the Office of Management and Budgets projections. This would almost certainly extend the amount of time the country will have to get by
with lower-quality storm predictions and warnings, potentially causing more damage and fatalities due to inaccurate weather prediction. Slower energy development
Energy
development is an important and legitimate use of our lands and oceans. Both onshore lands and the Outer Continental Shelf (lands owned by the
U.S. that are underwater offshore) provide substantial natural resources used for energy. In fact, 32 percent of the oil, 21 percent of the natural gas, and 43 percent of the coal produced
also offer significant opportunities for renewable energy development. Recently, the Department of the Interior announced that it had approved 10,000 megawatts of solar, wind, and
geothermal energy on public lands, more than all previous administrations combined. The agency is also making progress when it comes to offshore wind development. The Cape Wind
project has received all its permits and is preparing to begin construction on the countrys first offshore wind farm, in Massachusetts Nantucket Sound. And after completing the first
phase of its Smart from the Start initiative, which identifies areas off the Atlantic coast that will be offered to developers, the agency issued its first lease under the program in October.
But all of this progress could be drastically slowed under sequestration. Land and
the programs
that allow them to plan for, study, permit, and help build fossil fuel and renewable energy projects on an efficient timeline. This means projects will
take longer to get approved and set up, delaying the process of energy development and in some cases potentially stopping it completely. The stalling of energy development from our
own public lands and oceans will also mean a greater reliance on foreign energy sourcesan outcome weve been trying to get away from for years. Specifically, the Department of the
Interiors Bureau of Land Management faces an $85 million cut to its Management of Lands and Resources account in fiscal year 2013 alone. Part of this account is devoted to energy
and minerals management, including permit processing and environmental analyses of energy projects. The Departments Fish and Wildlife Service also has funds that allow it to study
the impacts of energy development on species and habitats, but the account that is in part devoted to this purposeResource Managementwill be slashed by $105 million in 2013
under sequestration. These types of cuts could delay the environmental review process, making it more difficult for renewable energy projects on public lands to actually get off the
renewable. Such a large cut to this agencys budget could slow down the recent progress made on offshore wind energy development on the Outer Continental Shelf.
Solvency Deficit
Countries refuse to sign the treaty
CNN 12 CNN Alex Fitzpatrick, Fri December 14, 2012, CNN, U.S. refuses to sign UN
Internet treaty, http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/tech/web/un-internet-treaty/
The United States, along with the United Kingdom and Canada, is refusing to sign a
United Nations treaty on telecommunications and the Interne t that has been
under negotiation for the past two weeks. Terry Kramer , the U.S. Ambassador to the World
Conference on International Telecommunications, said Thursday that "the
U.S. cannot sign the [treaty] in [its] current form." "We candidly cannot
support an ITU treaty that is inconsistent with a multi-stakeholder model
of Internet governance," said Kramer during a conference session. "As the ITU has stated, this
conference was never meant to focus on Internet issues. However, today we are in a situation where we still have
"Internet
policy should not be determined by member states but by citizens,
communities, and broader society, and such consultation from the private
sector and civil society is paramount," he continued. "This has not happened here." The U.S.
decision to withdraw comes following a surprise move late Wednesday in which the chair
of the conference called a voice vote on controversial proposal that
encourages governments to help expand global Internet access. It was approved in a
controversial manner that left some participants confused and upset. Additionally, many countries -- the
U.S. included -- are opposed to including in the treaty any language about the Internet at all. Dr.
text and resolutions that cover issues on spam and also provisions on Internet governance."
Hamadoun I. Tour, chair of the conference, released a statement arguing the agreed-upon treaty does not include
Internet provisions. Instead, he said the controversial proposal voted upon Wednesday is found in a non-binding
annexed resolution to the treaty. "The conference did NOT [sic] include provisions on the Internet in the treaty text,"
said Tour. "Annexed to the treaty is a non-binding Resolution which aims at fostering the development and growth
of the Internet." Kramer had initially indicated the U.S. would remain engaged in negotiations after Wednesday's
diplomatic ruckus. He also denied rumors the U.S. would be leaving the conference earlier this week. Later on
Thursday, several other countries indicated they agreed the conference is the wrong forum to discuss Internet
The U.S. also argued in favor of governments taking a hands-off approach to the Internet. "The Internet has given
the world unimaginable economic and social benefit during these past 24 years," said Kramer. "All without U.N.
regulation."
developing a common language with which to describe the issues, such as understanding what activities constitute
a significant cyberattack; how might damage or harm from a cyberattack be assessed; what
activities might constitute evidence of hostile intent; how should cyber exploitation and intelligence-gathering be
differentiated from cyberattacks; how, if at all, should exploitations for economic purposes be differentiated from
exploitations for national security purposes; how, if at all, should military computer systems and networks be
pornography as significant problems in cyberspace and have to some extent agreed on measures to deal with
foundation for a more far-reaching treaty regarding cyberwarfare should that be deemed desirable
the
apocalyptic rhetoric of catastrophic cyberwar used to justify consideration
of a cyberarms control treaty is overblown and misrepresents the actual
threat. An international treaty is the wrong sort of solution to this problem and might even
encourage the very activity it seeks to constrain. A cyberweapon (like Stuxnet, which
transportation, and military command and control systems is something we would all like to avoid. However,
damaged Iranian uranium enrichment) is not like a nuclear bomb or a gun that can be used to damage many
different types of targets all around the world. Traditional weapons can be tested on a range, stockpiled in an
airplanes and missiles and more like a special operation staged by a daring band of commandos far behind enemy
A cyberweapon for espionage (like the spyware Duqu and Flame) likewise require lots of
planning and expertise to control. Covert operations are risky gambles (they might fail or be
compromised if mistakes in planning or execution are made), and the damage they cause is far
more unpredictable than that of traditional weapons . States resort to covert action
lines.
options only when they don't have the will or ability (for either material or political reasons) to use overt force.
When states act covertly, they break the domestic laws of other states (which is why spies can be caught and
tried). Usually states moderate their ambitions for covert action because they don't want to trigger escalatory
totally unenforceable, since such activity is designed to evade detection and attribution. There will be
no comprehensive cyberweapons treaty because it is, unfortunately, not in the interest of the (very few) states that
have the capabilities to create such weapons to come to shared definitions, agreed monitoring, and enforcement
obedience to the rules (in silicon or law) in order to evade defenses and make mischief. The Trojan Horse observed
similarly, malware
can only exploit vulnerabilities because code in the target system allows it to do so. Moreover, the
techniques for engineering complex cyberattack and exploitation will evolve far , far
faster than international agreements, and states would be foolish to put their faith in protection
of international law alone. The rhetoric of cyberwar is frightening, but the reality is more complicated.
A world without cyberweapons is probably more desirable, but an
international treaty is not the way to get there. I am not a lawyer (I write as an
the norms of gift-giving in ancient Greece, and this hastened the downfall of Troy;
international security scholar), but I suspect that existing international law of war and legal mechanisms for
managing covert operations in this country are probably sufficient, or at most need just marginal adjustments, in
policy. DHS has the responsibility to protect U.S. citizens within the borders, but the vast majority of cyber
resources reside at NSA and DoD. A 2009 National Research Council (NRC) report suggests that military
external cyber operations would have implications for other agencies
missions (including DoS and Treasury).59 A consideration for policy makers, therefore, will be the facility in
aligning these various interests.
Lastly, the authorization for the use of force constitutionally rests with Congress.
Should an agency decide to engage in external cyber operations that could
be considered a use of force, it may require Congressional approval.
Achieving this politically (and expeditiously) may prove problematic. This
suggests that the need exists for establishing pre-approved authority levels, and having a robust debate to
establish norms for acceptable cyber action.
Congress must work hand in hand with the Executive , however, to confront
these evolving threats. The importance of collaborative planning can be seen in a
recent exchange of correspondence in which leaders of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence wrote to the Director of
National Intelligence to ask about the adequacy of the Director of National Intelligence and Intelligence Community authorities
over cybersecurity.6 The Director answered: This is a very important issue . . . . A judgment regarding the
adequacy of DNI authorities and any changes, additions, or clarifications will necessarily depend on the Administrations
We have more
work to do in the Executive Branch before I can give you a good answer.7
The strategic, technological, and political problems described here
present challenges of unprecedented complexity. The risks of error both in
the formulation of a cyber warfare policy and in its execution are
substantial. And despite the importance of developing a coherent, coordinated response to this threat,
it seems unlikely that we will find a way to overcome entirely the
strategic plan on cyber, and where the center of gravity will be within the Executive branch. . . .
number of times,
initiative,
with each
momentum
behind the
available for projects to construct roads in Mexico, to facilitate trade, to develop and expand their education
programs, to build infrastructure for the deployment of communications services and to improve job training and
workforce development for high-growth industries. As WND reported recently,
opposition is
mounting to similar programs, including President Bushs North American Security and Prosperity
Partnership. Plans by government agencies and private foundations alike promoting deeper
cooperation between the three countries including even a plan for a common currency
called the amero are getting more scrutiny in the media, by activists and by public
officials.
Pastor is under no
illusions that such a fund will be created any time soon. Certainly the Bush
essential infrastructure and educational projects to reduce that 100 years to 10.
administration is not talking about any such ideas within the recently launched Security and Prosperity Partnership
of North America, the latest ambitiously named project that won't even touch on immigration, although immigration
and leaders alike into thinking that if you put up enough barriers, Mexicans will go away.
earlier Backgrounder,1 showing for instance that STEM foreign students at U.S. universities tend to be at the less-
various subgroups of interest. A summary of the results is: The median TM value over all foreign workers studied was just a hair over 1.0. The median
TM value was also essentially 1.0 in each of the tech professions studied. Median TM was near 1.0 for almost all prominent tech firms that were
analyzed. Contrary to the constant hyperbole in the press that American (and Western European) kids are weak at math in comparison with their
counterparts in Asia, TM values for guest workers from Western European countries tend to be higher than those of the Asians. Again noting that a TM
value of 1.0 means just average, the data show dramatically that most foreign workers, the vast majority of whom are from Asia, are in fact not the best
and the brightest. Note that the statutory definition of prevailing wage takes into account experience levels. In other words, the TM value for a worker
compares him to workers of the same level of experience, not to the workforce as a whole. Thus the modest TM values found here for the guest workers
cannot be dismissed by pointing to the fact that many of the guest workers are younger. This article also presents further data showing an equally
important point: Most foreign workers work at or near entry level, described by the Department of Labor in terms akin to apprenticeship. This counters
the industrys claim that they hire the workers as key innovators, and again we will see a stark difference between the Asians and Europeans. Methodology
green cards. There are advantages to using this database rather than its H-1B cousin. First, it addresses the concern expressed by some that H-1B Labor
Condition Applications (LCAs) are merely requests for permission to hire foreign workers, without specifying actual workers, who may be chosen later. By
contrast, each record in the PERM data is for an actual foreign worker, containing his actual salary and other information. (The PERM form allows an
employer to specify salary as a range rather than as a single value, but this is rarely used.) Second, the PERM data include information concerning the
nationality of the foreign worker, enabling the between-country comparisons in the analysis here. Finally, the PERM data show the current visa status of
the worker, which is typically H-1B but is sometimes O-1. The law defines the O-1 visa as applying to workers of extraordinary ability. Since these are the
workers, clear typographical errors, and so on. Talent Measure Analysis Again, I take as our Talent Measure (TM)
the ratio of a workers salary to the prevailing wage claimed by the employer. The employer is legally required to
pay at least the prevailing wage, and must state on the PERM application how that wage level was determined.3
Since the application will be rejected if the wage offered is below the prevailing wage, by definition all values of TM
will be at least 1.0. The latter value means the average worker, i.e. of average talent, so if most workers have TM
values close to 1.0, then most are probably not the best and the brightest. With that it mind, lets look at TM
workers are in this category, the TM value is worth some comment. The anomaly is likely due to the recent interest
in data mining, which has created a de facto two-tier wage structure among mathematicians, in which those who
specialize in data mining are paid much more. Since the prevailing wage figures do not distinguish between these
tiers, the official prevailing wage value set for mathematicians will be well below the market wage for data miners.
specifically for, in the phrasing of the statute, workers of extraordinary ability, this gives us a measure of the
salaries Microsoft pays to those foreign workers who in fact are the best and the brightest. The median TM for
Microsoft O-1 workers is 1.404. That represents a salary premium of more than double what the firm is giving its
foreign workers in general, so there does not appear to be much support for Microsofts claim that most of their H-
and a recent major study by the Urban Institute5 show clearly that mainstream American kids are doing fine in
STEM. Nevertheless, the Asian mystique persists. The image is that our tech industry owes its success to armies
of mathematical geniuses arriving to U.S. graduate schools from Asia. Once again, though, the data do not support
this perception. Here is a comparison of TM values for foreign workers from the major Asian countries and their
The differences here are not large, but nevertheless, all of the
Western nations have higher median TM values than all the Asian nations
quite the opposite of the portrayal by the industry lobbyists. Taking a
closer look, lets tabulate median TM for the major worker-sending nations
in both hemispheres, against the major occupations: While still mild, the
trend again indicates that the Western foreign workers are the more
talented ones. Finally, what about individual firms? Interestingly, the gap between East and West widens.
counterparts in Europe and Canada:
Lets check the firms with the largest numbers of foreign workers:
classification scheme:6
Level I is defined by the Department of Labor as for beginning level employees who have only a basic understanding of the
occupation [and who] perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment. Workers at Level II perform moderately complex tasks that
require limited judgment. Clearly, neither Level I nor II is for innovators. Level III implies more sophisticated responsibilities, but only Level IV suggests
that innovators are being hired, workers who plan and conduct work requiring judgment and the independent evaluation.... Previous work7 analyzed H1B data, finding that most H-1Bs are concentrated in Levels I and II. In the tables below we extend that work in the PERM data, adding analysis by
occupation, nationality and firm. The results first show, once again, that rather few of the foreign workers are at Level IV, the level of real expertise
whose description is associated with innovation. Most are in fact in Levels I and II, whose DOL definitions are for apprentice-like positions with only limited
exercise of judgment, clearly not jobs for innovators. Second, this pattern also holds individually for the most common job titles. Third, the East-vs.-West
pattern observed earlier for the TM data also holds for levels of expertise, with Asians typically being hired into non-innovative jobs while more Europeans
are in the types of positions that could involve innovation. The last table is striking. Most of the big firms hire almost no workers at all at Level IV.
Since it is these very firms that are arguing they need foreign workers in
order to innovate, there appears to be a striking disconnect between what
they say and do. Discussion and Conclusions The lobbyists for the tech industry and
the American Immigration Lawyers Association know that crying
educational doom-and-gloom sells. Even though it was people born and
educated in the United States who were primarily responsible for
developing the computer industry, and even though all major East Asian
governments have lamented their educational systems' stifling of
creativity, the lobbyists have convinced Congress that the industry needs
foreign workers from Asia in order to innovate. The data show otherwise.
Most foreign tech workers, particularly those from Asia, are in fact of only
average talent. Moreover, they are hired for low-level jobs of limited
responsibility, not positions that generate innovation. This is true both
overall and in the key tech occupations, and most importantly, in the firms most stridently
demanding that Congress admit more foreign workers. Note again that the analyses presented here
confirm and provide much sharper quantitative insight into previous work showing
that the H-1Bs are of just average talent. It has been shown for instance that foreign students in the
U.S. tend to be concentrated in the less-selective universities, and that they receive a lower percentage of research
awards relative to their numbers in the student population. In the workforce, the foreign nationals in the U.S.
To be
sure, the author is a strong supporter of facilitating the immigration of the
world's best and brightest. He has acted on that belief, by championing the hiring of extraordinarily
talented researchers, mostly from India and China, into his department faculty. But as seen here , very few of
the foreign workers are of that caliber. Expansion of the guest worker
programs - both H-1B visas and green cards - is unwarranted .
participate in teams applying for patents at the same percentage as do the U.S. citizens, and so on.
The American
Electronics Association argued that nearly half of all Ph.D.s graduating
from American universities in the technical fields of computer engineering
and electrical and electronic engineering are awarded to foreign nationals .
companies must apply for H-1B visas for their foreign professional workers.171
Given this heavy investment in education, supported by U.S. dollars, it is in the national interest to retain this talent
[using the H-1B program]. 172 Jenny Verderi, Intels Manager of Education and Workforce Policy, said,173 We are
not able to find enough qualified U.S. workers in certain disciplines year after year, particularly in the science and
engineering areas . . . there has been a shortage in the areas that we hire at for quite some timeand thats
number of yearly H-1B visas granted around that time was 115,000,179 and 7.6 percent of this is 8,740. Even
often hears lobbyists arguing that the world's best and brightest are
being shut out.
But for the most part the people who seek H-1B visas -- and may be barred by
the quotas -- are not extremely highly skilled workers. A college degree from
a correspondence school can qualify someone for an H-1B visa.
Employers making skill-based prevailing wage claims for H-1B
computer workers classify most as being at the lowest skill level. The
reported wages for the majority of H-1B computer workers is in the
bottom 25th percentile of U.S. wages. In short, H-1B is a cheap labor
program being marketed as a program for the highly-skilled.
Obama referred to was in 2007, when Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts and Republican Sen. John
McCain of Arizona proposed a sweeping immigration reform bill. President George W. Bush was on board. But
situation is, if anything, worse. And frustrations have led to measures like the Arizona law, set to take effect later
this month, which calls on law enforcement to check the immigration status of residents if they have a reasonable
suspicion they might be illegal. Critics call it a recipe for racial profiling, and Sacramento and other California cities
have announced boycotts in response. Obama supports a plan similar to the : Further secure the borders, penalize
businesses that hire illegal immigrants and offer a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants already living here -- if
administration made the political calculation that it wanted to first pass an economic stimulus, health care reform
and a financial regulatory overhaul. The first two are law, and the third will almost certainly win final passage when
[Marc, Immigration: The New Third Rail of American Politics HUMAN EVENTS Posted
12/13/2007 http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23939]
Immigration is the new third rail of American politics. I know, because I remember
the old third rail. The old third rail, of course, was Social Security. Touch it, and die
politically. Back in the eighties the Republican Party would routinely come up with plans in Congress to
reform Social Security. Like clockwork -- when the next Congressional election came around -- the Democratic
Party led by then Speaker Thomas Tip O' Neil would demagogue the issue; and pronounce with TV ads that
Republicans wanted to privatize Social Security and, by the way, cut or eliminate grandmas benefit check.
Now,
its the Democrats turn to touch the new third rail, immigration.
to the Democrats nationally, and its happening to them here in North Carolina
incumbents were forced to play defense; as the late Lee Atwater used to say,
Its happening
Congressional republican
If you're defending in
the new emotional and substantive issue that the elite politicians did not
grasp (John McCains amnesty bill) but now is squarely in their face -- is illegal immigration with all its
ramifications. Securing the borders and national sovereignty are issues that neither party can ignore. One only
look at how Hillary Clinton flubbed the question in a recent Democratic debate regarding New York Governor
Spitzers decision to issue drivers licenses to illegal aliens to see the impact this issue can have on ones national
standing and poll numbers. (And by the way -- the a directive was recently rescinded under intense public pressure
by Governor Spitzer.) In the Republican presidential primary both Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney have tried to out
do each other on the issue but both have little credibility with the voters based on past performances while in
office. Sanctuary cities have been the main topic of discussion between the two campaigns. In the last
Republican debate both Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Romney chose to attack each either rather than to offer substantive
solutions. On the campaign trail both have been supportive of a physical fence and or virtual fence but with no
date certain for completion. Now leading the polls in Iowa and South Carolina is former Governor Mike Huckabee
who has laid out a detailed plan for border security and enforcement. His plan also includes a date certain for
completion of a physical fence. Here in North Carolina, many Republican legislators in the General Assembly are
trying to hold the Easley Administrations feet to the fire with respect to the rule of law and Easleys constant
attempts to circumvent the process when it comes to issuing drives licenses to illegal aliens. And recently -- the
community college system's lawyer issued a directive violating the law and admitting illegals aliens to community
colleges if they pay out of state tuition. Debate is ensuing within the UNC system along the same lines. What is
For most of this year, immigration reform looked like an issue whose time had finally come, with the unusual
the
spectacular collapse of the Senate's bipartisan immigration legislation last week
demonstrated that the seemingly auspicious political environment was no
match for an issue that was just too hot to handle. The bill's demise relegates illegal
confluence of a Republican president, a Democratic Congress and the public all demanding a solution. But
immigration to a backlog of national problems -- such as Social Security's impending insolvency and the federal
budget deficit -- that the president and Congress have not been able to solve. "It smells an awful lot like Social
Security," said former Rep. Leon E. Panetta, a California Democrat who had a big hand in the last overhaul of
immigration law, in 1986. "People
not an easy one to overlook: Illegal immigration is woven tightly into the fabric of day-to-day lives across the country. Failure to decide how to handle
the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. is tantamount to establishing a permanent underclass larger than the population of Ohio.
Absent of federal action, a major shift could occur in the national balance of power on illegal immigration: More state and local governments are likely
to act on their own in response to clamor for a crackdown. The result would be to the detriment of those who seek a solution more accepting of illegal
Key
players in the debate -- especially those who took the lead in seeking a
comprehensive solution -- are unlikely to risk another dramatic failure .
immigrants and could create a patchwork of conflicting laws. Nevertheless, it is hard to see Bush and Congress revisiting the issue soon.
For
Bush, the immigration initiative was the domestic policy capstone of his second-term agenda -- and the cornerstone of his plan to expand the GOP by
making his party more welcoming to Latinos. Now, his domestic policy cupboard is bare, and his hopes of building a lasting GOP majority are in
tatters. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a leading Bush ally on the issue, has seen his presidential prospects dim in no small measure because of his
support for the immigration bill. His rivals for the presidency delight in pointing out that he cosponsored the bill with liberal icon Sen. Edward M.
Kennedy (D-Mass.). For Democrats, who control the House and Senate, another failed attempt at immigration overhaul could be exploited by
Republicans who criticize their stewardship of Congress as unproductive. And incumbents of both parties risk the wrath of a public that is increasingly
jaundiced about Washington's ability to address major problems. "Americans don't believe the government is representing them, acting on their
behalf," said Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.). "We will not restore their confidence if we fail to act." The immigration bill, the product of a "grand bargain" by a
bipartisan coalition including Kyl and Kennedy, died in part because its backers' enthusiasm wasn't strong enough against the intensity of its
opponents. Its authors
in 1986.
Back then, there were far fewer illegal immigrants, concentrated in a handful of states. Crafting an
immigration compromise required lawmakers only to balance the competing concerns of special interests
lawmakers largely
didn't have to worry about managing powerful national political forces.
Few politicians thought of it as a life-or-death political issue. "It was much more an
directly affected by the policy -- employers, immigrant groups, agribusiness;
insiders' debate," said Doris Meissner, who served as immigration commissioner during the Clinton
administration. "It did not engage the country in the way this debate is engaging the country. It was not a
presidential candidate's stand on immigration would be very important in their decision on how to vote; 34%
said Roberto Suro, director of the nonpartisan Pew Hispanic Center. "One element of the anxiety is a sense the
federal government has failed in one of its basic responsibilities." Grover Norquist, a conservative activist who
supported the Bush immigration initiative, contends that politicians and analysts have exaggerated the potential
political fallout from supporting liberalization of immigration law. "You cannot show me an election where
immigration was the deciding issue," Norquist said. "If this was a silver-bullet issue, where is President
Tancredo?" he said, referring to the longshot presidential campaign of Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), a leading
lawmakers -- especially in conservative states -fear political fallout because the bill provoked opposition that was
striking in its intensity and viciousness. Critics threatened to seek
primary opponents for Republican backers of the bill. Proponents were
booed and heckled at party conventions and town-hall meetings. Some lawmakers
received threats and reported them to the Capitol Police. "You should go into the witness protection
critic of illegal immigration. But it is not surprising that
program because of your work on this issue," said one letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). The
crucial Senate roll call last week reflected a bipartisan consensus that the bill was fraught with risk for anyone
Congress' dramatic failure this week to reach consensus on immigration reform is almost certainly a harbinger
of what's not to come: major legislative accomplishments through the end of President Bush's term. The House
and Senate are sharply divided, and Bush, his popularity low, is mired in lame-duck status. Congress typically
becomes dormant during a presidential election year, and bipartisan cooperation will likely slide further out of
reach in 2008 on everything from energy to education to retirement to health-care legislation. Few issues
immigration seems to be
moving to center stage to fill that role of flash point for the nation's
emotional debates over its identity. Ironically, both sides agree that the nation's
because Democratic leaders have softened their more purist stands,
immigration system is broken, with porous borders posing a national security threat and an estimated 12 million
public divisions are strong and there isn't any sign of a public consensus on any particular solution." The issue
divided both parties, with Republican opponents the most adamantly against the immigration compromise as
they labeled it an "amnesty" bill that undermined the rule of law. Business-oriented Republicans have been
much more in favor of accommodating immigrants than cultural conservatives, straining the GOP coalition. On
the Democratic side, many objected to the bill's provision that would have given preference to skilled workers
Disads
Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) announced that the purpose of the Secure Data Act of 2015 is not to restrict the
ability of intelligence agencies to collect data in general. However, they do intend to re-assert the role of Congress
in regulating these activities: Congress has allowed the Administrations surveillance authorities to go unchecked
by failing to enact adequate reform. . . . With threats to our homeland ever prevalent, we should not tie the hands
of the intelligence community. But unwarranted, backdoor surveillance is indefensible .
The Secure Data Act is an important step in rebuilding public trust in our intelligence agencies and striking the
appropriate balance between national security and civil liberty. The bill is an attempt to specifically guard against
backdoor searches, including those where identifiers such as phone numbers and e-mail addresses known to
belong to Americans are employed to conduct the searches. For years, privacy advocates have denounced these
types of searches as a way to skirt the law. According to the Register, a UK-based tech site, Under the proposed
Secure Data Act, developers cannot be forced to insert security holes into devices and code. An ACLU lawyer
quoted in the story said that the previous bills success might indicate that at least in the House they know how
Data Act was introduced by Oregon U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden (D) in January. His bill is still waiting to move through the
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. Regaining the peoples trust may be one of the
293-123 vote. This amendment was not included in the CRomnibus. U.S. Reps. Jim Sensenbrenner (R- Wis.),
Thomas Massie (R- Ky.), and Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), sponsors of the Secure Data Act of 2015, issued the following
statement: Congress has allowed the Administrations surveillance authorities to go unchecked by failing to enact
threats to our homeland ever prevalent, we should not tie the hands of the intelligence community. But
unwarranted, backdoor surveillance is indefensible. The Secure Data Act is an important step in rebuilding public
trust in our intelligence agencies and striking the appropriate balance between national security and civil liberty.
Trafficking
Lifting the Embargo will increase sex trafficking the
government is empirically willing to hide it.
CIA 5/15/13 Central Intelligence Agency. (Do they need qualifications? Jk they are an
independent US government agency responsible for providing national security intelligence).
May 15, 2013. The World Factbook. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-worldfactbook/geos/cu.html Accessed 7/5/13 //SH
Cuba is a source country for adults and some children subjected to forced
labor and sex trafficking; prostitution of children reportedly occurs in Cuba as
prostitution is not criminalized for anyone above 16 years old; the scope of
trafficking within Cuba is particularly difficult to gauge due to the closed nature of
the government and sparse non-governmental or independent reporting tier rating:
Tier 3 - Cuba does not fully comply with the minimum standards for the
elimination of trafficking and is not making significant efforts to do so; the
government did not publicize information about government measures to
address human trafficking through prosecution, protection, or prevention
efforts during the reporting period (2010) Illicit drugs: Territorial waters and air
space serve as transshipment zone for US- and European-bound drugs; established
the death penalty for certain drug-related crimes in 1999 (2008)
Biodiversity
Maintaining the embargo is vital to sustaining Cuban
biodiversity
Canney 12
Only a few years after Columbus discovery, Spanish settlers arrived and began to clear the land to establish
plantations. This deforestation only worsened through the following centuries. Cubas original forest cover had been
90%. In 1959, it stood at a meager 14%. However, one of Fidel Castros priorities since 1959 has been to conserve
Cubas natural resources. Since then, reforestation has slowly taken place, and today over 26% of the country is
forested. Although Castro, and Cuba as a whole, should be recognized for its dedication to conservation, in truth, a
lot of the preservation of Cubas land has been due to Cubas inability to develop it as most first world countries
would have done. With the withdrawal of support from the Soviet Union in 1991, Cubas economy collapsed.
Without
capitalism driving its development, Cuba has avoided much of the
environmental destruction seen in other first world countries. Due to
these political and economic factors, and also to the fact that Cuba is an island, Cuba has
developed in a unique way. Cuba boasts incredible biodiversity and is home to more than 7,000
Without access to modern technologies, Cuban turned to sustainable organic farming practices.
endemic species of plants and animals. One of these includes the bee hummingbird, the smallest bird in existence.
Cubas coral reefs are of particular excitement for marine scientists. As coral reefs worldwide have been suffering
the effects of global warming, pollution, boats, and fishing, Cubas reefs have been the least affected.
Unfortunately, this paradise is threatened by many problems, despite efforts, including pollution, biodiversity loss,
US dollars, possibly pulling Cuba out of its economic downturn, will Cuba continue to refuse the tempting
technologies which have devastated richer countries environments? With US companies eager to drill for oil off
Cubas shores, putting pressure on the government to lift the embargo, this question becomes especially urgent.
Critiques
Neolib Good
Free Markets are key to preventing war, and tech innovation
Bandow 05
(Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, specializing in foreign policy and civil
liberties. He worked as special assistant to President Reagan and editor of the political
magazine Inquiry.) November 2005[
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/spreading-capitalism-isgood-peace]
a world that seems constantly aflame, one naturally asks :
peace theory isnt new: Montesquieu and Adam Smith believed in it. Many of Britains classical liberals, such as
Richard Cobden, pushed free markets while opposing imperialism. But World War I demonstrated that increased
trade was not enough. The prospect of economic ruin did not prevent rampant nationalism, ethnic hatred, and
security fears from trumping the power of markets. An even greater conflict followed a generation later. Thankfully,
World War II left war essentially unthinkable among leading industrialized - and democratic - states. Support grew
Todays
corollary is that creating democracies out of dictatorships will reduce
conflict. This contention animated some support outside as well as inside
the United States for the invasion of Iraq. But Gartzke argues that the
democratic peace is a mirage created by the overlap between economic
and political freedom. That is, democracies typically have freer
economies than do authoritarian states. Thus, while democracy is
desirable for many reasons, he notes in a chapter in the latest volume of
Economic Freedom in the World, created by the Fraser Institute,
representative governments are unlikely to contribute directly to
international peace. Capitalism is by far the more important factor. The
shift from statist mercantilism to high-tech capitalism has transformed the economics behind war. Markets
generate economic opportunities that make war less desirable. Territorial
aggrandizement no longer provides the best path to riches. Free-flowing capital
markets and other aspects of globalization simultaneously draw nations together
and raise the economic price of military conflict. Moreover, sanctions,
which interfere with economic prosperity, provides a coercive step short of
war to achieve foreign policy ends. Positive economic trends are not enough to prevent war, but
for the argument, going back to Immanual Kant, that republics are less warlike than other systems.
then, neither is democracy. It long has been obvious that democracies are willing to fight, just usually not each
other. Contends Gartzke, liberal political systems, in and of themselves, have no impact on whether states fight.
In particular ,
Free
political systems naturally entail free elections and are more likely to
protect other forms of liberty - civil and economic, for instance. However,
democracy alone doesnt yield peace. To believe is does is dangerous:
Theres no panacea for creating a conflict-free world. That doesnt mean
that nothing can be done. But promoting open international markets - that
is, spreading capitalism - is the best means to encourage peace as well as
prosperity. Notes Gartzke: Warfare among developing nations will remain unaffected by the capitalist peace
as long as the economies of many developing countries remain fettered by governmental control. Freeing those
turns out that peace is good business. And capitalism is good for peace.
destabilize this hegemony, which was dramatically consolidated by the victorious participation of the country in
World War II. The United States never accepted the new rules of the Bretton Woods agreements limiting
international trade and the international movements of capital, and the dollar was confirmed as a substitute for a
truly international currency. After World War II,
1970s, many analysts of global trends pointed, however, to a decline of U.S. hegemony and the formation of a
the Soviet model left the United States as the only major power whose
national identity is defined by a set of universal political and economic
values. Because these values were not central to the national identity of other
powers they did not have the same drive as the United States to promote
them in international affairs. This willingness to provide certain global
public goods that increased the chances of international cooperation was
also acknowledged by Robert Jervis, who was otherwise skeptical about the effort to
maintain US primacy. It also facilitated acceptance of US primacy and the
unipolar system by other countries. Those observations remain valid today.24
Although the point remains controversial it seems apparent that America, while
clearly creating some resentments with its policies, continues to be seen
(particularly by governments) as relatively benign in its interactions with
other powers. America shares a fundamental view of the world rooted in the
neoliberal orthodoxy of free markets, open societies, and democratic
institutions that emerged as a consensus prescription for peace and prosperity
after the collapse of communism. This transnational liberalism inclines
national elites to see a broad confluence of interest with the United States and
reduces their tendency to try and counterbalance American power. As the
guarantor of the international world economy and a provider of security and
stability because of its alliance system, the United States provides global public
goods which others cannot provide. In that sense the question that Stanley
Hoffman posed some years ago of whether the United States should pursue primacy
or world order seems to be a false dichotomy. As Michael Mandelbaum has
persuasively argued, to the degree that there is world order, it exists
because American primacy, combined with the triumph of neoliberal ideas,
has allowed the United States to provide governmental functions to the rest
of the world, chief among them being the maintenance of the global commons
air, sea, and space.
foreign aid transfers, past colonial status none of these correlate with economic
wealth. Only economic openness does.The latest volume of the Economic Freedom
in the World Report, published by the Cato Institute and think tanks in 50 other
countries, finds that economic liberty strongly correlates with economic
achievement.Policies that open economies strongly correlate with economic growth.
By pulling countries into the international marketplace, globalization
encourages market reforms. With them comes increased wealth.
Security
Threats Real
Our identification of threats are accurate -- recognition of
enmity is a pre-requisite to accurate foreign policy planning.
Doran 11 Professor at NYU
Michael Scott Doran, a Visiting Professor at the Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of
Public Service at New York University. He is a former Senior Director for the Middle
East at the National Security Council and a former U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary
of Defense. Response: Arab Spring, Persian Winter: Will Iran Emerge the Winner
From the Arab Revolt?. Foreign Affairs. New York: Jul/Aug 2011. Vol. 90, Iss. 4; pg.
183
The authors are arguing against a straw man. No one, myself included,
believes that the resistance bloc led by Iran is "omnipotent," and no
one argues that the best way to counter it is by "relying solely on security
relationships with the region's elites." The danger from Iran is asymmetric:
Tehran has developed a set of tools that, time and again, have proved
their effectiveness against Washington by denying it local allies,
increasing the economic cost of its operations, and killing its soldiers. It is
precisely this sly, semicovert nature that permits Kaye and Wehrey to
plausibly claim that the resistance bloc is "more fractured than is
commonly understood." They provide no evidence for this assessment. If
significant fissures do truly exist, then the United States should hammer at
them hard, cracking apart the bloc once and for all. Yet ultimately, the belief in
the weakness of these bonds is just that-an article of faith, not a reasoned
analysis. The Iranian- Syrian axis took shape in the early 1980s as an
outgrowth of the Iran-Iraq War. Tehran and Damascus had a shared
hostility toward Baghdad and toward the U.S.-led regional order more
broadly. This enmity toward U.S. interests, especially, still holds true
today: Iran and Syria have maintained the longest continuous regional alliance
since the states of the Middle East gained their independence in the years
after World War II. Hezbollah, for its part, is organically connected to Iran's
Revolutionary Guards. Are there tensions among these actors? Undoubtedly,
as there are in any relationship. But is there any serious reason to believe that
the bloc can be split apart without regime change in either Iran or Syria? No.
Kaye and Wehrey exhibit what might be called the academic fallacy, in
which the necessary simplicity of strategic concepts is mistaken for
simple-mindedness (hence the diagnosis of "a two-dimensional
reading of the strategic map"). The Middle East is inherently complex
and presents policymakers in Washington with a multiplicity of actors
that operate from a large variety of motives. It is important, however,
not to let a fascination with complexity make one blind to enduring
and consequential concentrations of power. The United States must train
itself to see a large dune as something more formidable than just endless
grains of sand. By dismissing the cohesion of the resistance bloc, and
by denying the severity of the threat that bloc poses, the hands-off
! Defense
No impact threat construction isnt sufficient to cause wars
Kaufman 9
Stuart J Kaufman, professor of Political Science and International Relations at the
University of Delaware. Narratives and Symbols in Violent Mobilization: The
Palestinian-Israeli Case. Security Studies 18:3, 400 434
Even when hostile narratives, group fears, and opportunity are strongly
present, war occurs only if these factors are harnessed. Ethnic
narratives and fears must combine to create significant ethnic hostility
among mass publics. Politicians must also seize the opportunity to
manipulate that hostility, evoking hostile narratives and symbols to gain or
hold power by riding a wave of chauvinist mobilization. Such mobilization
is often spurred by prominent events (for example, episodes of violence) that
increase feelings of hostility and make chauvinist appeals seem timely. If the
other group also mobilizes and if each side's felt security needs threaten the
security of the other side, the result is a security dilemma spiral of rising
fear, hostility, and mutual threat that results in violence. A virtue of this
symbolist theory is that symbolist logic explains why ethnic peace is
more common than ethnonationalist war. Even if hostile narratives,
fears, and opportunity exist, severe violence usually can still be avoided if
ethnic elites skillfully define group needs in moderate ways and
collaborate across group lines to prevent violence: this is
consociationalism.17 War is likely only if hostile narratives, fears, and
opportunity spur hostile attitudes, chauvinist mobilization, and a security
dilemma
This process, in its extreme form, leads to the formation of a persecutory bond, where a link is established
between, on the one hand, the paranoid individual and, on the other, his persecutors and the terrifying
forces that threaten to engulf him. This can become a rigid construction that reinforces the spiral of
paranoia-persecutionparanoia. Meissner understands this mechanism as offering a sense of cohesion and
durability to a fragile self, though it often involves a high degree of pathology and victimization. Instances of
this process abound in individuals, institutions, and groups (including whole nations) where views of internal
and external situations are (ab)used to service a brittle sense of identity. Fully recognizing this predicament,
and the dangers involved, requires thinking about and tolerating our own conflictual parts.
Scenario generation has its origins in the Cold War when strategic analysts developed the method for
helping to think futuristically about driving forces, chains of events, or possible trigger points that might lead
to conflict between the Warsaw Pact and NATO, and how, if this occurred, the conflict might proceed. In
mitigation planning and risk avoidance. It thus helps various commercial, state and non-commercial actors
to navigate uncertainty and risk environments rather than stumble upon them without due thought to
management and response. The normal caveats about such approaches apply, however: the quality of the
analysis is directly proportionate to the quality of the analysts; interpretative discretion if not managed and
appropriately tested and checked, can derail the construction of quality scenarios and their utility
be spread through relatively casual contact. If lots of sick people were taking long plane flights or wandering
around on the streets for days, the risk of catching it from them might not be negligible. We know that a handful
of individuals can spread the disease from one country to 26 others in a matter of weeks (SARS was introduced to
Hong Kong, which now has the highest rate of infection, by a single person arriving from mainland China). How
much worse would the epidemic be if travelers had not avoided certain cities; if airports had not quarantined
individuals soars past the 30 million mark in Africa, health clinics continue to reuse needlesa practice that has
our real
concern ought not to be that we are too easily scared, but that we are
been recognized for over a decade as the single most effective way to spread the virus.) So,
too easily reassured . China, for example, might have prevented the epidemic from spreading outside
the rural area in which it first broke out if its public health authorities had instilled a little more preventive fear in
the population. Articles suggesting that fear of the disease and not the disease itself is the real problem may
with a myriad of imaginable threats, which ones should we be most scared of? As terrifying as a 90 percent
mortality rate is, there are good reasons that the WHO did not consider the African Ebola outbreak to be of the
same magnitude as SARS in China. By nature, Ebola is much harder to transmit than SARS; it also debilitates its
victims relatively quickly. As long as local response is swift, the potential for Ebola to spread globally is limited, no
matter how devastating an outbreak is. Ebola is literally too deadly for its own good. SARS, by contrast, had
"global" written all over it from the very first; it was the WHO's recognition of this that prompted such an early
and aggressive awareness campaign. In 1918, the Spanish flu caused more than 20 million deaths worldwide
and was the most deadly epidemic of all time. In the United States, the disease's spread was drastically
accelerated by large public gatherings celebrating Armistice Daywhich were held well after the epidemic was in
An
early wave of fear about this deadly disease might have averted much of
the catastrophe. This historical lesson has not been lost on the WHO, and the rest of us would do well to
full swing. Many more Americanssome 675,000were killed by influenza than by the Great War itself.
pay attention, too. In a world that is growing ever more connected, at an ever faster pace, the distant has become
near, and the burdens of others have become our burdens. Under those circumstances, it's OK to be a little afraid
in fact, our
Alt Fails
The alt fails material habits influence state action more than
discourse they cant change top-level state behavior because
theres a massive psychological bias towards maintaining
existing practices only working within existing institutional
logics solves violence
Hopf 10
(Ted, Associate Professor of Political Science at The Ohio State University, The logic
of habit in International Relations, European Journal of International Relations
published online 16 June 2010,
http://ejt.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/06/08/1354066110363502)
The logics of habit and practice differ fundamentally from the logics of
consequences and appropriateness by stressing that the actions of actors
in the world are often not the product of deliberate calculation of any
sort, instrumental or normative. The practice turn also has reminded
constructivist IR scholars that intersubjective reality is not just spoken
into existence, but is acted into existence, too (Neumann, 2002).
Constructivism has long ignored what states and their agents do,
while concentrating on what they say . Discourse has been reduced to
texts, ignoring practices. If interaction creates intersubjective reality,
theorists of practice pointed out, then we should be paying attention to
these actions, not just exchanges of words. If practice theory moves the
level of sociological attention down from conscious ideas and values to the
physical and the habitual, then the practice turn has yet to fully appreciate
what it means to be habitual (Swidler, 2001: 75). The logic of practice is more
reflective and agential than the logic of habit and, consequently, expects far
more change in the world. The logic of practice is dedicated to removing the
human mind from the theorization of practice, while the logic of habit
makes the automatic system in the brain a critical factor in explaining
unreflective perceptions, attitudes, and practices. While the logic of
practice treats unreflective practices as the taproot for all other logics of
action, the logic of habit assumes, at least at this early stage of
theorization, that all logics have their place in everyday life. The
practice turn is still too agential, expecting agents to be able to effect
change in prevailing social structures with far greater frequency than
habit would permit. The practice turn underestimates the social,
cognitive, even phsyiological, power of habit to prevent change . It
ignores the psychological advantage of the status quo that the logic
of habit foregrounds (Eidelman and Crandall, 2009: 85106).