POLITICS DA -- MICHIGAN CAMP PACKET

Politics DA -- Michigan Camp Packet.......................................................................................1 ***NEG***................................................................................................................................2 1NC ........................................................................................................................................4 2NC UQ Exts ...........................................................................................................................8 2NC AT UQ O/W Link...........................................................................................................11 2NC Link Exts .......................................................................................................................12 2NC AT Link Turns...............................................................................................................16 Political Capital Links ............................................................................................................17 2NC AT We Trade Off/Not New Appropriation ....................................................................18 2NC Exts Kills Econ ............................................................................................................19 2NC AT Default Doesnt Last...............................................................................................22 2NC AT Raising Ceiling Bad.................................................................................................23 1NC/2NC Food Prices Impact..............................................................................................24 1NC/2NC Heg Impact..........................................................................................................26 1NC/2NC Shutdown Impact (Cyberwar) .............................................................................27 ***AFF***...............................................................................................................................31 2AC/1AR UQ .......................................................................................................................33 2AC/1AR AT Pol Cap ...........................................................................................................35 2AC/1AR UQ O/W Link ........................................................................................................36 2AC/1AR Impact D..............................................................................................................38

***NEG***

1NC
Debt ceiling deal building momentum, but its contingent on spending cuts. Mascaro, 6-14-2011 [Lisa, LA Times, With clock ticking, debt talks resume on Capitol Hill, http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/14/news/la-pn-congress-debt-20110614] Vice President Joe Biden will convene congressional negotiators Tuesday for a stepped-up round of debt reduction talks as the impasse over raising the nations $14.3 trillion debt limit enters a crucial period and both sides seek to avoid an unprecedented federal default. With the House and Senate calendars aligned, the next two weeks could offer a productive moment to move closer toward a deal. Democrats and Republicans have indicated an interest in resolving the issue before Aug. 2, when the Treasury Department has said it can no longer pay its obligations. But finding more than $2 trillion in spending cuts to appease the GOP has become a difficult task. Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), the majority leader, reiterated that Republicans want the amount of the cuts to be greater than the amount of new borrowing, estimated at $2.5 trillion, to continue paying the governments bills through next year. "I think we can accomplish that if parties are willing to make the tough decisions," Cantor said Monday.
Republicans oppose new tax revenue. Cantor also all but ruled out an intermediary vote on a short-term increase in the debt ceiling to avert the default while negotiations continue, as some conservative groups have suggested. Debt-ceiling votes can be politically perilous, and leaders want to limit the exercise. "It's my desire to have one debt-ceiling vote," Cantor said. President Obama, who will be traveling to Puerto Rico on Tuesday, told NBC that the sides are making progress. "There is a way of solving this problem that doesn't require any big, radical changes. What it does require is everybody makes some sacrifices," he said. "And we make these changes in a balanced way." House Speaker John A. Boehner said Monday that Republicans

wanted trillions in budget cuts in exchange for their vote to increase the nation's borrowing limit and avoid default, adopting a hard line on the party's position in a speech before major
players on Wall Street.

Expanding space exploration is perceived as controversial new spending -guarantees backlash. Handberg, 11 - Professor and Chair of the Department of Political Science at the University of Central Florida (Rodger, Small ball or home runs: the changing ethos of US human spaceflight policy, The Space Review, 1/17, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1759/1)
The US space program remained focused, not on duplicating Apollo, but on achieving another difficult goal such as going to Mars, a logical extension truly of the Apollo effort. Twice, the presidents Bush provided the presidential rationale, if not support, for achieving great things. The Space Exploration Initiative (SEI) in 1989 and the Vision for Space Exploration (VSE) in 2004 were announced with great fanfare but neither survived the realities of congressional and presidential budgeting. The VSE appeared on paper more realistic about funding, but its choices were draconian: the ISS and space shuttle were both to be sacrificed on the altar of the new program. The earlier SEI died quickly, so hard choices were not required, while the VSE in

the form of the Constellation Program lingers on although its effective demise appears certain. The Obama Administration prefers another approach while the new Congress is likely more hostile to big ticket discretionary spending. If the Tea Party faction in the Republican House caucus means what it says, the future for Constellation or any other similar program is a dim one. The reality is that the Apollo program, the SEI, and the VSE are examples in space terms of the home run approach. Such efforts confront the cruel but obvious reality that the human spaceflight program is considered by the public and most of Congress to be a nice to have, but not a necessity when compared to other programs or national priorities. Congressional support is narrow and constituency-driven (i.e. protect local jobs), which means most in Congress only support the space program in the abstract. Big ticket items or programs are not a priority for most, given other priorities. What happens is what can be loosely termed normal politics: a situation where human spaceflight remains a low priority on the national agenda. Funding for bold new initiatives is going to be hard to come by even when the economy recovers and deficits are under control. The
home run approach has run its course at least for a time; now the small ball approach becomes your mantra.

Debt ceiling freeze wrecks the global economy. Min, 2010 [David, Associate Director for Financial Markets Policy -- Center for American Progress, The Big Freeze, 10-28, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/10/big_freeze.html] In short, the economic consequences of such a large and precipitous drop in spending would be crushing, and almost certainly result in a severe drop in economic growth and employment at a time when we can least afford it. Moreover, such a move could lead to a panic in the international financial markets. Following the 2008 financial crisis, we have seen debt crises hit Ireland, Greece, and Italy, with fears that this could spread further and cause a global economic downturn. The financial markets are on edge today, with U.S. Treasury bonds being the safe haven for most investment capital. Refusing to raise the debt ceiling would recklessly disrupt the sale and purchase of new Treasury bonds, and could potentially cause a run on outstanding Treasurys as well, as investors sought other investments. This could have catastrophic consequences for our economy as well as the economic stability of the rest of the world. Refusing to raise the
debt ceiling would also exacerbate the problems with our long-term budget outlook. The budget deficit right now is the result of two distinct sets of changes since 2001, when we last had a budget surplus. First, a series of long-term policies enacted by the Bush administrationmost notably the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, the decision to fight two major wars without raising taxes, and the passage of an unfunded Medicare Part D prescription drug programcreated permanent structural budget deficits that will remain with us over the long term unless they are addressed. Second, the poor economy caused a drop in tax receipts alongside higher countercyclical spending, such as for unemployment insurance and food stamps. Implementing a debt ceiling freeze ignores the

first set of issues and makes the second set of issues worse by forcing a massive multitrillion dollar hit to an already struggling economy and threatening to take us into a second Great Depression. This is hardly responsible policymaking. So lets delve a little deeper into the consequences of such conservative folly. As we will demonstrate, the results of a replay of 1995 in 2011 would be the height of recklessness for our economy and global financial markets. A replay of 1995 The most
recent pledge to freeze the federal debt ceiling is notable because congressional Republicans tried the same thing following their takeover of Congress in 1995. That fall, Republicans refused to raise the debt ceiling unless thenPresident Bill Clinton agreed to enact major planks of the radical Contract with America proposed by the Republican Party, such as a $270 billion cut to Medicare, steep cuts to education funding, and massive deregulation measures. Indeed, then-Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich at one point threatened to force a default on the national debt if Republicans did not get their way. This standoff, which lasted until March 1996, ended with the Republicans backing down as the public increasingly became turned off by the government shutdowns that resulted. The 1995-96 debt ceiling crisis, as it is known, caused significant turmoil for our economy, forcing the Department of Treasury to suspend all new debt issuances and causing two temporary shutdowns of all nonessential federal government activities, including a cessation of toxic waste cleanups, disease control activities, and a suspension of many law enforcement and drug control operations, among many others. Ultimately, this episode cost the American taxpayer over $800 million, and rattled the confidence of international investors in U.S. government bonds. Indeed, it was only through the use of some fairly extraordinary measures by President Clintons Treasury Department, including a temporary use of retirement funds for former government employees, that the United States managed to avoid defaulting on its national debt during this period. Unfortunately, such measures would not be as effective today, as analysts at Deutsche Bank found. They worry that if it happened today the federal government would not be able to stave off a government shutdown (or possible suspension of bond payments) for long. The precarious budget situation Conservatives call for a debt ceiling freeze looks even more senseless when one considers that our economy is struggling to recover from a severe recession. Because economic growth remains anemic, tax receipts are flat after falling sharply, which makes it particularly difficult to balance the budget. Refusing to raise the debt ceiling would essentially force the federal government to balance the budget immediately, at a time of cyclically low revenues. While this may sound appealing to deficit hawks and deficit peacocks alike, it would actually have catastrophic consequences, both in the short term and the long term. A $1.3 trillion deficit is projected for FY 2011, on a total budget of $3.8 trillion. If we assume that the Obama administration did not want to default on the national debt, and thus continued to make interest payments on outstanding U.S. Treasury obligations ($244 billion), then being forced to balance the budget next year would mean cutting over 40 percent of all other expenditures. But some federal spending is more important than others, right? Lets assume that we keep certain sacrosanct programs whole, not cutting Social Security ($728 billion), defense spending during a time of war ($701 billion), Medicare ($507 billion), Medicaid ($262 billion), and benefits for military veterans ($126.5 billion). If we did that and then eliminated spending on all other government programs, we would still be looking at a small deficit. Yet such a move would mean no FBI, no Department of Justice, no Homeland Security, no border security, no education funding, no unemployment insurance, no school lunches, no national parks, no food stamps, no student loan funding, no air transportation safety, no drug enforcement, no food and drug safety, etc. etc. etc., ad nauseum. Such severe expenditure cuts would be devastating in two ways. First, they would eviscerate the basic services and protections offered by our federal government, leaving our country in perilous danger from a myriad of threats and many of its most vulnerable citizens without a safety net. Americans would be vulnerable to increased crime, drugs, terrorism, food safety, and air traffic safety, to name just a few. And these spending cuts would slash the social obligations we have promised to military veterans, the elderly, and

students, among others. Such large spending cuts couldnt simply be confined to nonessential services. They would cut to the very core of the protections and core benefits provided by the federal government. Second, these large spending cuts would increase unemployment and severely dampen economic growth, destroying any prospects of a sustained economic recovery. The resulting job loses and the steep cuts to unemployment insurance, food stamps, and other federal safety net expenditures would create a reverse multiplier effect that would cause a large dip in economic growth. The precarious state of the global financial markets The conservative pledge to freeze

the debt ceiling would also lead to some fairly momentous problems in the worlds financial markets. Following the financial crisis of 2008-2009, which exposed problems with many private
financial instruments that were previously thought to be safe, such as money market funds and AAA-rated assetbacked securities, investors sought safe haven by investing in sovereign debt. Unfortunately, sovereign debt crises in Greece and Ireland have caused significant uncertainty in European financial markets, and as a result,

investors have flocked to the perceived safety of sovereign debt issued by the United States, which has never defaulted in its history. A freeze on the debt ceiling could erode confidence in U.S. Treasury bonds in a number of ways, creating further and wider panic in financial markets. First, by causing a disruption in the issuance of Treasury debt, as happened in 1995-96, a freeze would cause investors to seek alternative financial investments, even perhaps causing a run on Treasurys. Such a run would cause the cost of U.S. debt to soar, putting even more stress on our budget, and the resulting enormous capital flows would likely be highly destabilizing to global financial markets, potentially creating more asset bubbles and busts throughout the world. Second, the massive withdrawal of public spending that would occur would cause significant concern among institutional investors worldwide that the U.S. would swiftly enter a second, very deep, recession, raising concerns about the ability of the United States to repay its debt. Finally, the sheer recklessness of a debt freeze during these tenuous times would signal to already nervous investors that there was a significant amount of political risk, which could cause them to shy away from investing in the United States generally. Taken together, these factors would almost certainly result in a significant increase in the interest rates we currently pay on our national debt, currently just above 2.5 percent for a 10-year

Treasury note. If in the near term these rates moved even to 5.9 percent, the long-term rate predicted by the Congressional Budget Office, then our interest payments would increase by more than double, to nearly $600 billion a year. These rates could climb even higher, if investors began to price in a default risk into Treasuryssomething that reckless actions by Congress could potentially sparkthus greatly exacerbating our budget problems. The U.S. dollar, of course, is the worlds reserve currency in large part because of the depth and liquidity of the U.S. Treasury bond market. If this market is

severely disrupted, and investors lost confidence in U.S. Treasurys, then it is unclear where nervous investors might go next. A sharp and swift move by investors out of U.S. Treasury bonds could be highly destabilizing, straining the already delicate global economy. Imagine, for
example, if investors moved from sovereign debt into commodities, most of which are priced and traded in dollars. This could have the catastrophic impact of weakening the worlds largest economies while also raising the prices of the basic inputs (such as metals or food) that are necessary for economic growth. In short, a freeze on the debt ceiling would cause our interest payments to spike, making our budget situation even more problematic, while potentially triggering greater global instabilityperhaps even a global economic depression. The very idea of a federal debt freeze among the radical right in our country, while they continue to ignore responsible deficit reduction measures and continue to focus on the wrong policy solutions, exemplifies their obstinacy as much as their short-sightedness. A freeze on the debt ceiling, or shutting down the federal government will not

reduce the federal budget deficit and will in fact increase it over the long run by tipping the global economy into depression. Voters may assume that conservative candidates will not live up to their pledge of recklessness once they understand the consequences. This is a risky gamble, particularly given the precedent already set by conservatives in 1995.

Nuclear war. Friedberg and Schoenfeld, 2008 [Aaron, Prof. Politics. And IR @ Princetons Woodrow Wilson School and Visiting Scholar @ Witherspoon Institute, and Gabriel, Senior Editor of Commentary and Wall Street Journal, The Dangers of a Diminished America, 10-28, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122455074012352571.html] Then there are the dolorous consequences of a potential collapse of the world's financial architecture. For decades now, Americans have enjoyed the advantages of being at the center of that system. The worldwide use of the dollar, and the stability of our economy, among other

made it easier for us to run huge budget deficits, as we counted on foreigners to pick up the tab by buying dollar-denominated assets as a safe haven. Will this be possible in the future? Meanwhile, traditional foreign-policy challenges are multiplying. The threat from al Qaeda and Islamic terrorist affiliates has not been extinguished. Iran and North Korea are continuing on their bellicose paths, while Pakistan and Afghanistan are progressing smartly down the road to chaos. Russia's new militancy and China's seemingly relentless rise also give cause for concern. If America now tries to pull back from the world stage, it will leave a dangerous power vacuum. The
things, stabilizing effects of our presence in Asia, our continuing commitment to Europe, and our position as defender of last resort for Middle East energy sources and supply lines could all be placed at risk. In such a scenario there are shades of the 1930s, when global trade and finance ground nearly to a halt, the peaceful

democracies failed to cooperate, and aggressive powers led by the remorseless fanatics who rose up on the crest of economic disaster exploited their divisions. Today we run the risk that rogue states may choose to become ever more reckless with their nuclear toys, just at our moment of maximum vulnerability. The aftershocks of the financial crisis will almost certainly rock our principal strategic competitors even harder than they will rock us. The dramatic free fall of the Russian stock market has demonstrated the fragility of a state whose economic performance hinges on high oil prices, now driven down by the global slowdown. China is perhaps even more fragile, its economic growth depending heavily on foreign investment and access to foreign markets. Both will now be constricted, inflicting economic pain and perhaps even sparking unrest in a country where political legitimacy rests on progress in the long march to prosperity. None of this is good news if the authoritarian leaders of these countries seek to divert attention from internal travails with external adventures.

2NC UQ EXTS
Debt ceiling compromise coming -- meetings providing momentum. Chaddock, 6-13-2011 [Gail Russell, CSM, A glint of compromise in Congress's debt limit stalemate? http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0613/A-glint-of-compromise-in-Congress-sdebt-limit-stalemate] Two bipartisan groups of lawmakers are stepping up efforts this week to reach a deal on raising the nations $14.3 trillion debt limit, now set to expire on Aug. 2. So far, neither has been able
to make any significant headway on the fundamental ideological difference that divides them whether to raise taxes or cut spending but a vote scheduled for Tuesday could offer at least a glimpse of compromise. Vice President Joe Biden and a half dozen negotiators tapped by House and Senate leaders from both parties will meet three times this week starting Tuesday an increase from biweekly meetings. The group says it will keep up the new pace until a deal is reached. On a parallel track, five members of the bipartisan Gang of Six, minus Sen. Tom Coburn (R) of Oklahoma, are pushing to complete their own plan, which aims to cut $4.7 trillion in deficits during the next 10 years. But if they dont come to terms soon, their efforts will be irrelevant, says Sen. Kent Conrad (D) of North Dakota, a member of the Gang of Six and chair of the Senate Budget Committee. Both teams are struggling because their Democratic and Republican negotiators disagree about how the economy works. The pressures of the coming presidential campaign season, which tend to impose a partisan template on all decisions, are only exacerbating the problem. The Republicans think that cutting taxes is the way to improve the economy and the Democrats believe that spending is the way to improve the economy, says Peter Wallison, a former White House counsel in the Reagan administration, now at the American Enterprise Institute. These are differences that need to be bridged, and they are black and white, he adds. Offsetting the debt-limit increase but how? The debate over the debt limit is framed by House Speaker John Boehner (R) of Ohio's insistence that any increase in the debt limit must be counterbalanced by by an equal amount of spending cuts. Estimates suggest adding $2.4 trillion to the debt ceiling would carry Congress to the end of 2012. Sen. Jon Kyl (R) of Arizona, a member of the Biden group, says his party will insist on $2.4 trillion in "real savings," but suggests

that he is open to some flexibility on the timing of those spending cuts. Spending reductions could play out over a decade or more, Senator Kyl told reporters on June 7. Another member of the Biden talks, House majority leader Eric Cantor (R) of Virginia, says that theres a chance this week to build momentum toward a deal. He credits Vice President Biden with a willingness to put all issues on the table. He is conducting these meetings in a way that has kept the ball rolling, he said, adding that the group is well in sight of over $1 trillion in spending cuts.

GOP getting on board -- Cantor pushing compromise, but controlling spendings key. Berman, 6-13-2011 [Russell, The Hill, House GOP leader warns economy will sink if debt-ceiling deal isn't reached, http://thehill.com/homenews/house/166099-gop-leader-economy-will-sink-if-debtdeal-isnt-reached-soon] House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) on Monday warned of an urgent need to strike a deal to raise the debt ceiling, telling reporters that we dont want the markets to make this decision for us. Cantor, who is representing House Republicans in talks led by Vice President Biden, acknowledged there is a growing concern that financial markets will rattle and interest rates will spike if congressional leaders cannot reach an agreement before Aug. 2, the deadline the
Treasury Department has set for lifting the nations $14.3 trillion debt limit. The majority leader reiterated, however, that spending cuts and reforms are an essential requirement to a deal that the markets, and the public, find credible. We dont want the markets to make this decision for us, because thats exactly what were trying to avoid in saying weve got to reduce spending," Cantor said. "Youve got to implement reform." He said the

urgency of the looming deadline is something everybody assumes. Cantor said if Congress simply raises the debt ceiling without spending cuts, which the House has already rejected, tax hikes would be on the horizon. If you dont, if you just check the box and raise the debt
ceiling, the markets take care of it for you. Interest rates will skyrocket, and there will be no way for us to see any return to growth anytime soon. Well have to raise taxes and the rest. Republicans have pointed to warnings from major credit rating agencies that U.S. debt will be downgraded if the debt ceiling isnt raised and if a long-term deficit reduction plan isnt put in place. The Biden group will meet three times this week as lawmakers try to arrive at a framework for an agreement for raising the debt limit before July 4. Cantor acknowledged the Aug. 2 deadline but refused to set a firm deadline for striking a deal within the Biden group. It is about getting right, he said. Its about making sure you get the necessary amount of spending cuts and reforms. In a rarity for a GOP leader,

Cantor praised Bidens leadership of his ad hoc committee. We have had some really significant and substantive discussions in these talks, and I think the success of these talks thus far is
due to the vice president and the way he has conducted these meetings, Cantor said. Im very impressed with the way hes conducted these meetings, he added. Biden, he said, does like to talk a lot. But I guess all of us do, or we wouldnt be here. He said the famously long-winded vice president has conducted these meetings in a way thats kept the ball rolling. Cantor also said he wants to hold just one vote to raise the debt limit, rather than hold multiple votes for short-term increases. Because Republicans are demanding spending cuts that exceed additional borrowing authority, a single vote extending the debt ceiling through the 2012 elections would mean spending cuts in excess of $2.4 trillion. Its my desire to have one debt ceiling vote, Cantor said, though he noted that decision would ultimately rest with Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio). I think we can

accomplish trillions of dollars in spending reductions and then put the necessary reforms in place where you actually are going to achieve a lot more than that. The majority leader said the Biden group is primarily focused on achieving cuts within the traditional 10-year window for federal budgeting, but he allowed that cuts could be pushed even further into the future with the inclusion of fiscal process reforms, such as a cap on spending.

Negotiations are picking up momentum -- reaching compromise. Bloomberg, 6-9-2011 [Biden, Geithner Said to Push Republicans on Higher-Revenue Issue, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-09/debt-ceiling-talks-pace-to-increase-incongress-as-august-deadline-looms.html] Vice President Joe Biden and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner pressed Republicans to accept higher revenue to help curb deficits in talks aimed at achieving a plan to raise the U.S. debt limit before Aug. 2, two congressional aides said. Republicans countered during the private meeting yesterday that
any tax increase would hurt the economy and couldnt pass the Republican-led House, said the aides, who spoke on condition of anonymity as lawmakers stepped up attempts to reach an agreement. The two aides werent authorized to discuss the talks publicly. We set up three meetings next week, so were making progress, Biden told reporters on his way out of the Capitol in Washington after he and Geithner met with six Senate and House members from both parties. Senator Kent Conrad, a North Dakota Democrat, said a separate effort by a bipartisan group of senators seeking a longer-term debt-reduction compromise was expanded from five to 18 members for a briefing. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, who took part in the Biden-led meeting, said a new

urgency is evident in the talks after signs that the U.S. job market is slowing. The group is prepared for a robust series of meetings to try to get results, he said. No Credible Plan The
news economically on the jobs front over the last couple of days, I think, underscored the importance of this meeting, Cantor, a Virginia Republican, told reporters. Much of the problem surrounding the lack of job creation and growth in this country has to do with the fact that there isnt a credible plan to manage down the debt and deficit. Payrolls grew at the slowest pace in eight months in May, Labor Department figures released June 3 showed. Moodys Investors Service last week said if theres no progress on increasing the debt limit in coming weeks, it expects to place the governments rating under review for a possible downgrade. Lawmakers are under pressure to find agreement on raising the $14.3 trillion debt limit before a Treasury Department deadline of Aug. 2. Republicans insist that a major deficit- cutting plan must be part of any legislation to raise the debt ceiling. Yesterdays meeting was the sixth of the Biden-led group. No Alternative White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said the president is quite confident Congress will vote to raise ceiling. There really is no alternative, Carney said. Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, one of the Democrats in the Biden group, said the discussions involved Democratic proposals to eliminate tax loopholes and other ways to raise revenue. He declined to give specifics about the proposals except to say they covered the whole range of things that you might expect. Asked about Republican reaction, Van Hollen said people wanted to get a good understanding of the proposals, the revenue impact, that sort of thing. The next meeting, tentatively scheduled for June 14, will address discretionary spending, budget caps to control spending and other mechanisms like enforceable spending targets to control deficits and the long-term debt, said one of the congressional aides who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Amid fresh signs of a faltering economic recovery, bipartisan negotiations to rein in the national debt shifted into high gear Thursday as lawmakers in both parties called for a quick resolution to the talks as the best medicine for the shaky economy. Vice President Biden met for the first time in two weeks with six congressional negotiators in a session focused largely on Democratic demands for more revenue as part of any debt-reduction deal. The group agreed to pick up the pace of the talks, with three sessions scheduled for next week, in hopes of presenting the framework of an agreement to President Obama and congressional leaders by the end of the month.

More ev -- debt agreement picking up momentum but could be derailed. Taylor, 6-7-2011 [Andrew, Staff Writer AP, GOP leader 'cautiously optimistic' on debt talks, http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i_F8LOxfw2EZMUds79G53Uwqxljw? docId=e786c97adacc4ded9885660fa4e30869] WASHINGTON (AP) A key GOP negotiator in talks on lifting the government's borrowing cap said Tuesday that it may take more than a decade to accumulate savings to pay off the approximately $2.4 trillion in new debt needed to keep the government afloat for about a year and a half. Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., also said that he believes any agreement to raise the socalled debt ceiling and avoid a market-rattling, first-ever default on U.S. obligations should be enacted sometime next month, before an Aug. 2 deadline. Kyl is a participant in top-level talks aimed at producing spending cuts to pass in concert with the debt limit increase. "A debt ceiling increase is only over roughly an 18-month period of time. The savings could play out (over) more than a decade," Kyl told reporters. The time frame is important because
spreading the cuts over a longer period means that they would be less severe than if they were imposed over a decade, as is typical for legislation considered by Congress. Kyl's comments came as House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., told his GOP colleagues that he's "cautiously optimistic" that ongoing budget talks led by Vice President Joe Biden will produce an agreement on budget cuts at least as large as the accompanying increase in the government's ability to borrow. Cantor, R-Va., representing the Republican-controlled House, told fellow lawmakers in an email Monday that the Biden-led

group is scrubbing all of the major spending programs of the federal budget for potential savings, including health care programs for the elderly and the poor. Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has put forth
a marker that any increase in the so-called debt limit should be matched by spending cuts at least equaling the new level of permitted borrowing. The national debt has reached the current $14.3 trillion cap, but the Treasury Department is juggling government accounts to free up enough money to prevent the government from defaulting on its obligations until Aug. 2. "I am cautiously optimistic we can find sufficient common ground

with the administration to enact spending cuts that meet the goal outlined by the speaker," Cantor wrote. He didn't say over what time period the cuts would be measured. Biden said last month that the group, which includes top lawmakers from both parties, is on pace to generate savings exceeding $1 trillion. At the White House last week, President Barack Obama predicted to House Democrats that the Biden group would come up with perhaps 60 to 70 percent of the requisite budget cuts and that he and Boehner would negotiate the remainder.

2NC AT UQ O/W LINK

Defaults possible -- GOP cares more about politics -- spending levels key to their calculus. Farry, 1-19-2011 [Yanira, Junior Editor Veterans Today, Military & Foreign Affairs Journal, GOP-Tea Party Play Chicken With U.S. Credit, Courting Catastrophe, http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/01/19/gop-tea-party-play-chicken-with-u-s-creditcourting-catastrophe/] Earlier this month, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner warned Congress that the U.S. will, in the coming months, reach its legal debt limit unless members vote to raise the debt ceiling. Never in our history has Congress failed to increase the debt limit when necessary, Geithner wrote. Failure to
increase the limit would be deeply irresponsible. For these reasons, I am requesting that Congress act to increase the limit early this year, well before the threat of default becomes imminent. Geithners predecessor, Henry Paulson, agreed with the necessity of raising the debt limit long before this political controversy, saying that it is vital to protect Americas creditworthiness, and therefore Im confident Congress will act to increase the debt limit well before it is reached. The U.S. Congress first imposed a debt ceiling in 1917, and has raised the debt limit 74 times since March 1962, according to the Congressional Research Service, with ten raises occurring after 2001. However, a growing number of Republicans have made it clear that they

intend to play chicken with the debt ceiling, risking the credit worthiness of the United States in order to score political points or extract demands from the Obama administration. The American people will not stand for such an increase unless it is accompanied by meaningful action by the president and Congress to cut spending, said House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH). But by playing games with the debt ceiling, the GOP is inviting a variety of harmful consequences that come with even hints that the U.S. might default on its debt.

1995 proves the GOP is willing to. Min, 2010 [David, Associate Director for Financial Markets Policy -- Center for American Progress, The Big Freeze, 10-28, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/10/big_freeze.html]
By law, a statutory limit restricts the total amount of debt the federal government can accumulate. Only Congress can raise this limit. On the heels of the worst recession since the Great Depression, this debt ceiling is projected to be reached sometime early next year. Increasingly, conservatives are

pledging to vote against any increases to the debt ceilingeven if this means shutting down the federal government. This reckless pledge would have disastrous consequences for the U.S. economy and the global financial markets, and would severely worsen the long-term budget situation to boot. This conservative pledge has historical antecedents. In the fall of 1995, congressional Republicans refused to raise the debt ceiling for a period of about six months,
until they reversed course in March 1996 in response to plummeting poll numbers. This original debt ceiling crisis, as its become known, was extraordinarily costly, roiling the financial markets and forcing two government shutdowns. The consequences of refusing to raise the debt ceiling would be even more costly today, given the precarious state of the U.S. economy and global financial markets, and potentially could be disastrous. Unlike in

1995, when our economic outlook was good, we are currently fighting our way out of the Great Recession and coming off of the worst financial crisis since the 1930s. Nonetheless, led
by the advice of Newt Gingrich, the former House Speaker who was the architect of the 1995-96 debt ceiling crisis,

many conservatives are clamoring for a repeat of this past episode in recklessness.

2NC LINK EXTS

Debt ceiling deal now but any related fight derails it. Marty, 6-11-2011 [Robin, Are We Anywhere Near A Compromise On Debt? http://www.care2.com/causes/politics/blog/are-we-anywhere-near-a-compromise-on-debt/] The White House is pushing to have a deal on the debt ceiling put in place by the fourth of July, but is anything really workable on the horizon? Based on the new timeline, the administration should have just enough time to push the deal through Congress and get it in place before the August 2nd default deadline, but all it would take is one component throwing up a roadblock to put the country back on route to disaster. One large holdup? Republicans really don't have any public interest
in making a deal. A potential new recession and continuing stagnation in the job market would benefit many in the party who want to run against Obama's economic record, so how do you negotiate with a party who actually benefits from a failure? The Gang of Six (minus one) is claiming to be close to an agreement and have begun bringing others in to go over their master plan. Meanwhile, the bipartisan group being lead by Vice President Biden is accelerating their meetings and dickering over how long the debt will be extended in exchange for how many cuts they will get in return.

New GOP Congress shifts the political wind against NASA. Logsdon, 11 - Space Policy Institute, Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University (John, A new US approach to human spaceight?, Space Policy, February, Science Direct) To complicate matters even further, the November elections resulted in a shift of party control to Republican leadership in the House of Representatives and a reduced Democrat majority in the Senate. Many Republicans are making reduction in government spending a top priority issue. If the NASA appropriation is not approved until the new Congress convenes in January 2011, NASA could face budget reductions below what the Congress has authorized, making it even more difcult to move forward with what remains of the new human spaceight strategy. The plan guarantees backlash against raising the ceiling -- funding controversy. Rufer, 6-12-2011 [Amelia, US Election News, Independence Day: The New Debt Deal Deadline, http://uselectionnews.org/independence-day-the-new-debt-deal-deadline/853982/] The White House has asked Congress to meet three times a week for the rest of June in an effort to reach an agreement on the U.S. deficit by recess on July 4th. The new date would give lawmakers enough time to pass bills concerning federal program changes and a debt ceiling raise by August 2nd, the deadline given by the Treasury Department. According to House Majority
Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), The news economically on the jobs front in the last several days underscored the importance of this meeting that we just came out of. Theres a commitment for next week that we will be engaging, once again, in a robust series of meetings to see if we can achieve a result. We believe that many of the problems surrounding the lack of job creation and growth in this country have to do with the fact that there isnt a credible plan to manage down the debt and deficit in this country. Thats what were trying to produce here and we had much substantive discussion today and look forward to more next week. Cantor saw the increased pressure behind the prospective deficit bill as a positive reinforcement that he hoped would serve to relieve some of the stress in the market, something he believes to be responsible for the downward job slope. Aside from the nations revenue, discretionary/appropriations spending, changes to the budgeting process, and mandatory spending are all topics that need to be covered in the upcoming meetings. 2012 fiscal spending bills have already started their rounds in the House under the Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) while a much-talked-about 2-year budget plan will be pushed by Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) Democrat representatives

have attributed the prolonged process to a Republican refusal to negotiate, an accusation that the GOP gladly welcomes as it reminds Congress that the Party votes for raising the debt ceiling will be given in exchange for a comparable value in spending cuts, estimated to approximate $2 trillion. A bipartisan Senate group is meeting to design its own deficit reduction plan as a lastditch effort should Congress fail to come to any agreement.

Plan sparks huge NASA budget fights. Powell, 2009 [Stewart M., Washington Bureau Houston Chronicle, Potential Uphill Battle for NASA, 913, http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/6615751.html] NASA supporters are bracing for an uphill battle to get the extra funding needed to take on missions more ambitious than visits to the international space station. A high-level panel told President Barack Obama last week that the space program needs an infusion of about $3 billion more a year by 2014. That may be a tough sell, even though the amount could be considered spare change in
a fast-spending capital where the White House and Congress are on track to dole out nearly $4 trillion this year to finance federal operations, including bailouts for Wall Street firms, banks and automakers. The congressional agenda over the next year is going to be focused on cutting programs, not adding to them, said Scott Lilly, a scholar at the Center for American Progress. Adding resources to the nation's $18.7 billion-a-year

space program would require cuts in other areas, said Lilly, who doesn't think lawmakers are willing to make those trades. Rep. Pete Olson, R-Sugar Land, the ranking Republican on the House subcommittee that has jurisdiction over NASA, said wrangling the additional $3 billion a year would be an enormous challenge but one I am prepared to win. Added Olson, whose district includes Johnson
Space Center: NASA doesn't require bailout funds it needs the promised level of investment that previous Congresses have endorsed. The 10-member panel of space experts led by retired aerospace executive Norman Augustine suggested extending U.S. participation in the $100 billion space station for five years, extending budgeting for the retiring shuttle fleet by six months, delaying plans for a 2020 return to the moon and extending the timeline for the next generation of manned spacecraft by two years at least until 2017. But the experts warned in their 12-page preliminary report to Obama on Tuesday that meaningful human exploration would be possible only under a less constrained budget ramping (up) to approximately $3 billion per year in additional spending by 2014. Former astronaut Sally Ride, a member of the committee, forecast $27.1 billion in additional funds would be needed over the next decade a 27 percent increase over the $99.1 billion currently planned. Even before Obama publicly reacts to Augustine's report to map the next steps in the nation's manned space exploration, members of Congress are scrambling. The immediate challenge goes beyond money to just getting NASA on the radar screen when everyone is focused on health care reform, said a key congressional staffer involved in NASA issues. Finding support NASA supporters initially are targeting the Democratic leadership of appropriations subcommittees in the House and Senate with jurisdiction over NASA. Space advocates have an ally in Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations Committee panel that handles space agency spending. But in the House, pro-NASA lawmakers expect a fight with Rep. Alan Mollohan, D-W.Va., chairman of the House Appropriations Committee panel that cut next year's NASA spending nearly $500 million below what Obama requested. Lawmakers are looking for a House-Senate conference committee to restore the funds that Mollohan cut before the Augustine panel completed its work. Aides to Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., chairman of a Senate subcommittee that oversees NASA, said they have already identified six potential sources of additional NASA funding within the federal budget, including some of the $8 billion promised over the next decade to private energy firms to research fossil fuels and deep drilling for oil and gas. Lawmakers also are exploring the possibility of redirecting some of the two-year, $787 billion economic stimulus package from shovel-ready transportation construction projects and other federally subsidized programs into the NASA budget. The administration so far has only paid out $160 billion of the total, according to Vice President Joe Biden. A lot of stimulus money has not been spent, said Sen. John Cornyn, R-San Antonio. We should redirect some of those stimulus funds to pay for enhancements to the NASA budget because I believe human space flight is so important. Aerospace executives and veteran space experts are hoping for reliable year-to-year funding. These are challenging economic times, but this is not the moment to turn away from leading a global space exploration effort, said Dean Acosta, head of the Houston-based Coalition for Space Exploration. President's influence Presidential leadership will be essential to gaining an increase, emphasized John Logsdon, a space policy expert who served on the Shuttle Columbia Accident Investigation Board. The president has to use some portion of his political

capital to put forward an Obama space program.

Debt ceiling is a key bargaining chip for the GOP. Dayen, 2010 [David, Could a Debt Limit Increase Get Held Hostage By Republicans? 11-1, http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/11/01/could-a-debt-limit-increase-get-held-hostage-byrepublicans/]
David Waldman considers that Democrats might move this one up to the lame duck, to clear it out before more Republicans come to Washington. But surely they wouldnt have the political chops to extend it to the level wed need for the next two years. At some point, the next Congress will have to vote on this. And theres a

non-trivial segment of the Republican caucus who will want to trigger a catastrophic event, as if they can bathe the nation in the fire and come out of it with some kind of 18th-century

American ideal. Maybe cooler heads will prevail, but that debt limit bill is a giant bargaining chip, and you can bet that Republicans will try to cash it, at least by forcing some
unpalatable option on the Democrats as a condition for their vote.

The plan destroys the debt deal GOP will backlash against spending. Gibson, 5-9-2011 [Kate, Staff Writer, Boehner: Cuts must outweigh debt-ceiling increase, http://www.marketwatch.com/story/boehner-cuts-must-outweigh-debt-ceiling-increase-201105-09]
In his speech, Boehner reiterated his opposition to any tax increases while calling the current debt-limit debate an opportunity to take a different approach to spending and borrowing habits that have driven up the countrys red ink. With the GOP threatening to block hiking the federal debt ceiling this summer without major new spending cuts and other budget restrictions, the speaker was asked if he would consider temporarily raising the ceiling should negotiations stall into a scenario like the budget standoff that nearly shut the government down in April. Not increasing the debt ceiling would be irresponsible, said Boehner, who then added that unlike the prior budget impasse, there is no hard date on the debt ceiling. The Obama administration has set an August deadline to raise the $14.3 trillion ceiling on U.S. borrowing, which will hit its legal limit in the next two weeks. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has said he can pay the

governments bills through Aug. 2, at which point the U.S. would risk defaulting on its obligations. In is speech, Boehner declared that without significant spending cuts and reforms to reduce our debt, there will be no debt-limit increase. And the cuts should be greater than the accompanying increase in debt authority the president is given. Given that the U.S. borrows
roughly $125 billion each month, a deal to have the debt ceiling lifted to a level where another increase isnt needed before the next presidential election would imply spending cuts on the order of $2 trillion.

More ev. Mascaro & Hennessey, 5-9-2011 [Lisa, Kathleen, Washington Bureau, Boehner demands trillions in cuts in exchange for debt vote, http://articles.latimes.com/print/2011/may/09/nation/la-na-budget-20110510] House Speaker John A. Boehner said Monday that Republicans wanted trillions in budget cuts in exchange for their vote to increase the nation's borrowing limit and avoid default, adopting a
hard line on the party's position in a speech before major players on Wall Street. Boehner told the Economic Club of New York that his party wanted specific spending cuts not future targets that would trigger spending reductions or revenue increases, as President Obama has proposed. Laying down a marker on the eve of new budget negotiations, the Ohio Republican also said he wanted the amount of the cuts to exceed any increase in the nation's borrowing limit, a demand that probably would mean new spending reductions of $2 trillion or more many times higher than the $38 billion in cuts approved last month in the 2011 budget. "It's true that allowing

America to default would be irresponsible. But it would be more irresponsible to raise the debt ceiling without simultaneously taking dramatic steps to reduce spending and reform the budget process," Boehner said. His address before the New York audience came as Obama called

lawmakers to the White House for several days of talks this week over raising the nation's $14.3-trillion debt limit. Boehner has been increasingly caught in a political squeeze. On one side, the Obama administration and its allies have demanded that GOP officials reassure markets that they won't gamble with U.S. debt obligations. On the other, "tea party" activists charged Monday that GOP leaders were selling out the nation's conservatives. Last week, GOP leaders backed away from the party's controversial proposal to overhaul and eventually privatize Medicare. "I wish our tearful House speaker would just show some compassion for American taxpayers and our children," said the Rev. William Temple, a tea party activist from Georgia, speaking at the National Press Club. "It's a cowardly act of treason against coming generations, and we may be able to give Mr. Boehner something to really cry about in 2012." Boehner notably did not fully embrace the party's Medicare plan, beyond saying there must be "honest conversations" about the program. The Treasury Department has estimated that without raising the debt ceiling, the country would default on its obligations by Aug. 2. Top Democrats warn against prolonging the debate past mid-July for fear of roiling jittery financial markets and risking the nation's economic recovery. Many Republicans won their seats in Congress after campaigning against the debt limit increase, and Temple said the tea party groups would be grading lawmakers on the debt ceiling vote alone. "If you vote to raise the debt ceiling, you get a '0' for the year from the tea party," he said. "If you don't vote to raise the debt ceiling, you get a '100' and you're a hero." Bob Vander Plaats, an influential Christian leader in Iowa, called default concerns "a myth," and said the debt limit vote provided "the perfect opportunity to substantially reduce the size and scope of government." At the same time, rank-and-file lawmakers are pushing Republican leaders to use the debt ceiling vote as leverage. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) said Monday that any debt ceiling vote "must include a vote to fully defund" Obama's healthcare law. In the Senate, Sen. Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.) chastised Democrats for raising what he called the "false specter of default." The debate offers a measure of the difficulty of deficit politics as the nation borrows at a rate of $125 billion a month. At that rate, it would take a $2-trillion increase in the debt limit to get

beyond the 2012 election. Democrats warned Boehner not to prolong the debate. "This is playing with fire," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.). "Speaker Boehner needs to have that adult moment right now." As investors worldwide keenly watch the unfolding debate, GOP leaders are conducting outreach to financial leaders. Another key Republican, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia, planned to visit Wall Street on Tuesday. Boehner reiterated his position that no new tax increases be on the table, a stance that will be difficult to maintain as Democrats press to close tax loopholes. Officials from both parties have floated a two-track strategy

that would provide immediate spending cuts while setting triggers that would require further budget reforms in future years if deficit reduction goals are not met. But Boehner appeared to dismiss the
trigger approach Monday.

2NC AT LINK TURNS

No political support for the plan. Thompson, 2011 [Loren, Chief Financial Officer Lexington Institute, Human Spaceflight, April, http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/library/resources/documents/Defense/HumanSpaceflightMars.pdf] This all makes sense from a budgetary and scientific perspective. Whats missing is a grasp of the rationale required to sustain political support across multiple administrations. While exploration of the Moons far side or nearby asteroids may have major scientific benefits, those benefits are unlikely to be appreciated by politicians struggling to reconcile record deficits. NASAs current research plans do not connect well with the policy agendas of either major political party, and
the flexible path will not change that. To justify investments of hundreds of billions of dollars in human spaceflight over the next 20 years while entitlements are being pared and taxes are increasing, NASA must offer a justification for its efforts commensurate with the sacrifices required. Mars is the only objective of sufficient interest or importance that can fill that role. Thus, the framework of missions undertaken pursuant to the flexible-path approach must always be linked to the ultimate goal of putting human beings on the Martian surface, and the investments made must be justified mainly on that basis. The American public can be convinced to support a costly series of steps leading to a worthwhile objective, but trips to the Moon and near-Earth objects arent likely to generate sustained political support during a period of severe fiscal stress.

POLITICAL CAPITAL LINKS

The plan costs capital. Whittington, 5-4-2011 [Mark, Staff Writer, Harrison Schmitt's Plan to Solve the Energy Problem by Mining the Moon, http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110504/us_ac/8419965_harrison_schmitts_plan_to_solve_the_ energy_problem_by_mining_the_moon] Harrison Schmitt, Apollo moonwalker, geologist, and former U.S. Senator, spoke at the Williston Basin Petroleum Conference recently and presented his plan to solve the long-term energy needs of the world by mining the moon. The idea is to mine a substance that is almost nonexistent on the Earth, but extant on the moon called helium 3 (3HE), an isotope of the well known substance usually put in party balloons. Helium 3
has been deposited in lunar soil over billions of years by solar wind and exists in trace amounts waiting to be extracted. 100 kilograms of helium 3 could be obtained from processing a 2 kilometer square area of lunar soil down to the depth of three meters. That amount would run a 1,000 megawatt fusion reactor for a year. Schmitt says helium 3 is an ideal fuel for future fusion reactors because it leaves little or no radioactive residue, which obviates the need to decontaminate the reactor periodically. The downside is that a helium 3 fusion reaction has to take place at hotter temperatures than other fusion reactions using, for example, deuterium. Schmitt proposes that $5 billion be spent to build a test reactor that would burn helium 3 to create power. In the meantime a return to the moon would have as its main focus the extraction and shipping back to Earth helium 3 to fuel the reactor. A return to the moon was ruled out over a year ago by President Barack Obama when he canceled

the Constellation space exploration program. However, there has recently been a resurgence in interest in sending astronauts back to the moon, especially in the Congress. Schmitt's
scheme has the virtue of connecting the desire to go back to the Moon with solving the long term energy needs of planet Earth. While there are abundant fossil fuels, the supply is finite and in any case using oil and coal causes various forms of pollution. Solar and wind have thus far proven inadequate as a means of replacing fossil fuels. Helium 3 fueled hydrogen provides a potential of providing clean, virtually limitless energy for the foreseeable future. Of course, there are obstacles in the path of a helium 3 fusion future, both technical and political. Developing a reactor that will create more energy than it consumes to create a helium 3 fusion reaction will be daunting. Then there are the problems of developing of lunar mining techniques and a cost effective transportation infrastructure between Earth and the moon. The political problem is almost as

acute. The Fusion Technology Institute is funded with private money, as the Energy Department thinks that space based helium 3 is a NASA problem and NASA thinks fusion energy is an Energy Department problem. It will take a leader of vision to sort out the turf battles and get Schmitt's plan rolling.

2NC AT WE TRADE OFF/NOT NEW APPROPRIATION

Budget tradeoffs for space will be a huge political fight Handberg, 11 - Professor and Chair of the Department of Political Science at the University of Central Florida (Rodger, Small ball or home runs: the changing ethos of US human spaceflight policy, The Space Review, 1/17, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1759/1) NASA Administrator Charles Bolden alluded to that reality recently: Future NASA space programs must be affordable, sustainable and realistic to survive political and funding dangers that have killed previous initiatives. This is harsh talk but it reflects the reality confronting all US discretionary programs in the federal budget. The new Republican House majority is determined to cut federal expenditures and appear to have little concern for where the cuts occur. The budget struggles this year and next will find all discretionary programs mobilizing their supporters. Competing agencies like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Science Foundation (NSF) have constituencies who are savvy veterans of getting their way even when budgets are tight. The cure for some disease is always just another appropriation away from happening.

2NC EXTS KILLS ECON

Destroys the US economy. Hurst, 6-10-2011 [Nathan, Detroit News Washington Bureau, Raising nation's debt ceiling becomes highstakes debate, http://detnews.com/article/20110610/POLITICS03/106100383/Raisingnations-debt-ceiling-becomes-high-stakes-debate#ixzz1P8ahDm7P] Congress has less than two months to resolve the question of whether to raise the nation's debt ceiling, and those on both sides of the issue are digging in their heels. The White House and congressional
Democrats say not raising the ceiling could sink the world economy, while Republicans say the nation's ballooning deficit is more dangerous. The sparring has revealed wide differences. The White House warns failing to raise the debt ceiling threatens to sink the economy just as states such as Michigan start to regain their fiscal footing. Republicans say spending cuts and deficit control are key to economic growth and are demanding that any increase in the borrowing limit be matched with cuts of equal or greater size, though the cuts could be over the next decade or more. Currently at $14.3 trillion, the debt ceiling is the federal government's self-imposed credit limit, and includes the money it borrows from investor nations and its own trust funds (Social Security and Medicaid, for example). If it isn't raised before early August, the federal government essentially can't pay its bills, creditors start to worry and the economic effects grow

exponentially. Americans would feel the impact of not raising the debt ceiling through higher mortgage rates, lost jobs, lower business exports and a cutoff of money for federal programs. "The general consensus is that the debt ceiling topping out would be very, very bad in ways we've never imagined," said Van Conway, principal of Conway McKenzie, a business turnaround firm in Birmingham. "Once it's hit, the government starts to default on its obligations and when that happens, everything's pretty much downhill from there." Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner says the federal government's credit line will be fully tapped by Aug. 2 and there's increasing worry that for the first time, the U.S. government could default on its financial obligations. Talks between Democrats and the GOP toward a compromise on the debt ceiling continued Thursday in a private meeting. It was the sixth meeting between Vice President Joe Biden and top
lawmakers. Biden and Geithner made a pitch for more revenue. Republicans resolutely oppose anything that could be called a tax increase. Democrats insisted that new taxes must be part of any deficit-reduction deal, a position Republicans have rejected. The U.S. House took its first vote last week to raise the debt limit to $16.7 trillion. It failed, 318-97, as Michigan Democratic Reps. John Dingell, Dale Kildee and Hansen Clarke voted for it. Republicans vowed after a meeting with President Barack Obama to block an increase unless big cuts were made including to Medicare. Rep. Bill Huizenga, R-Zeeland, said that for him to vote for an increase, it would have to be tied to significant spending cuts. Huizenga said he doesn't have a specific target. "But the deal would have to be really, really good." If the dire predictions come true, here are some of the possible effects: The nascent national economic recovery, which is beginning to add jobs, would grind to a halt. That means more worker layoffs nationwide and in Michigan, which has seen more than 1 million jobs lost in the past decade. If the economy grinds to a halt, that will have implications worldwide, threatening to dry up export markets. Michigan sent $44.5 billion worth of products overseas last year, according to U.S. Commerce Department statistics, from autos to office furniture, and from corn to cherries. Mortgage and other loan markets would gyrate wildly, dragging down the real estate and stock markets. Home values in Metro Detroit have declined this spring to their lowest levels since 1993 after tens of thousands of homeowners defaulted on their mortgages, sending foreclosures skyrocketing. Interest rates on loans and

credit cards would likely rise since the federal government would be paying more on its own debt, throwing credit markets into turmoil. Creditors could demand higher interest rates from the federal government, if they decided to continue lending the United States money at all. Even if Congress were to later raise the limit after hitting the debt ceiling, creditors would likely demand higher interest rates since the guarantee of repayment would be shakier. Thousands of businesses struggling to get back on their feet from the economic downturn could get a second shock, too, since the market disruptions would interrupt lines of credit. The stock market would likely tumble,
severely affecting the value of businesses such as Boeing, ExxonMobil, Chase Bank, Ford Motor Co., Steelcase, Dow Chemical Co. and General Motors, which just re-entered the market in November after its government-led bankruptcy. Pension group fund investments would be hit hard. Take the General Retirement System for the city of Detroit, for example. Its $2.25 billion in assets includes $230 million invested in securities, mortgage-backed securities and mortgage and construction loans. If those investments lose value, the amount the pension fund can pay out to recipients could be in jeopardy. Nearly 2 million federal workers and more than 50,000 in Michigan would likely not be paid since Washington wouldn't have access to money. Pension funds and other retirement

accounts could see another deep dip in value, potentially one worse than the market's 2007 and 2008 lows. For workers nearing retirement age, that means even recent market gains could be wiped out, ruining nest eggs for soon-to-be retirees and for those already retired. Funding for federal programs could be in jeopardy. About 1.8 million Michiganians receive need-based health benefits through Medicaid; 1.8 million get Social Security; more than 1.3 million are on food stamps and temporary aid to needy families. The state gets billions in federal aid each year to administer the programs, payments that could be cut off if the government defaults and runs out of cash. White House officials, in briefing reporters, however, saved the scariest possibility for the end. "There is no

back-up plan," one senior administration official said. "None."

Spreads globally -- crashes global financial markets. Dayen, 2010 [David, Could a Debt Limit Increase Get Held Hostage By Republicans? 11-1, http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/11/01/could-a-debt-limit-increase-get-held-hostage-byrepublicans/]
Paul Krugman takes on the debt moralizers today, those who demand in the middle of a recession that everyone sacrifices and lives within their means, when that is in fact the wrong prescription for a government during this time to boost the economy. If everyone globally pays down debt at the same time, everyone loses, and the world gets mired in stagnation. But the moralizers will have none of it. They denounce deficit spending,

declaring that you cant solve debt problems with more debt. They denounce debt relief, calling it a reward for the undeserving. And if you point out that their arguments dont add up, they fly
into a rage. Try to explain that when debtors spend less, the economy will be depressed unless somebody else spends more, and they call you a socialist. Try to explain why mortgage relief is better for America than foreclosing on homes that must be sold at a huge loss, and they start ranting like Mr. Santelli. No question about it: the moralizers are filled with a passionate intensity. And those who should know better lack all conviction. Right now, the results of such debt-moralizing come in the form of prolonged suffering, higher unemployment, lower economic growth. But before long, the result of this moralizing could be really catastrophic. What if Republicans block an increase in the debt ceiling? The most powerful IED on the road ahead is timed to explode some time this spring. Last February, Congress raised the ceiling on the national debt from $12.4 trillion to $14.2 trillion. Since then, the debt has risen to $13.7 trillion which means Congress will have to raise it yet again within a few months. A failure to approve one would, technically, bar the government from borrowing more money. In other words, we would not have the cash to pay our bills. And yet Tea Party candidates and

their fellow travelers in the GOP have vowed to oppose further increases in the legal debt ceiling. This formally looks about the same as a government shutdown, only on a global scale. As international investors and banks dont get repaid, the result could trigger a global financial crisis. Just the loss of confidence in the US temporarily defaulting could set off the animal spirits and lead to a crash. The tea partiers would cast around for somebody to blame, but wed have
far more pressing concerns.

Perception quickly spreads globally. McCarter, 1-5-2011 [Joan, Daily Kos, New GOP member doesn't "know" what will happen if debt ceiling isn't raised, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/01/05/933597/-New-GOP-member-doesntknow-what-will-happen-if-debt-ceiling-isnt-raised] Although not all the possible consequences of a government default are known, it would mean that the government could no longer meet all of its legal obligations. Not only the default, but the efforts to resolve it would arguably have negative repercussions on both domestic and international financial markets and economies. Not having a crystal ball, CRS can't detail every disaster that could occur with default. But here are a few clues: "the immediate cessation of more than 40 percent of all federal government activities (excluding only interest payments on the national debt), including Social Security, military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, homeland security, Medicare, and unemployment insurance. This would not only threaten the safety and economic security of all Americans, but also have dire impacts for the economy and job growth." That's here at home--and in Iraq and Afghanistan (are they really forgetting about the wars?). Internationally, American default would very likely lead to panic in financial markets, because U.S. Treasury bonds hold so much investment capital, investment that would be disrupted with a default and that could potentially cause a run on outstanding Treasury bonds. (Picture the run on the Bailey Savings and Loan in It's a Wonderful Life times billions? Trillions?) In other words, catastrophe.

Economists are conclusive. News Sentinel, 6-12-2011 [NEWS SENTINEL EDITORIAL BOARD, Knox News, Editorial: Compromise needed before default, http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2011/jun/12/compromise-needed-before-default/] Economists of all persuasions say that would mean interest rates would skyrocket, the dollar would collapse and the economy would plunge back into a recession. Credit agencies warn that America's stellar credit rating would take a hit - Fitch Ratings said last week that American securities would be downgraded to junk bond status if the country doesn't meet scheduled debt payments.

2NC AT DEFAULT DOESNT LAST

Even short-term default screws the economy. Reuters, 1-6-2011 [Republicans acknowledge debt limit should rise, http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/07/us-usa-debt-idUSTRE70606E20110107] Geithner said the federal government may hit the ceiling by March 31 on the amount of debt it is legally allowed to issue, and urged Congress to raise it before then to avoid pushing the United States into default. "Even a short-term or limited default would have catastrophic economic consequences that would last for decades," Geithner said in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry
Reid, a Democrat. Republicans won control of the House of Representatives in November elections on a promise to cut government spending and reduce debt but are faced with having to compromise on the debt limit. They say any vote to increase the ceiling must be paired with a commitment to lower federal costs over the long term. "The American people will not stand for such an increase unless it is accompanied by meaningful action by the president and Congress to cut spending," House Speaker John Boehner said. DEFAULT DANGERS A debt default would

throw markets into turmoil and dramatically increase government borrowing costs for years to come, further increasing the U.S. debt burden and sapping resources from the economy. Bond investors remain wary of the safety and soundness of sovereign debt after the bailouts of Greece and Ireland last year, but Treasury officials said they did not see any evidence of such concerns
pushing up U.S. debt yields at this time.

2NC AT RAISING CEILING BAD

Deficit reduction not key to the economy. Kuttner, 6-12-2011 [Robert, Co-founder and co-editor -- The American Prospect, The Gang of Six and Other Rogues, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-kuttner/gang-of-six_b_875654.html]
Even with the withdrawal of Senator Tom Coburn, leaving just five bipartisan stalwarts, the Gang of Six (minus one) claims it is on the verge of agreeing to a deficit reduction plan that proposes $4.7 trillion in spending cuts over a decade. If the test is how much to cut, this plan goes both Obama and Ryan one better. But is that really the right test? For most Americans, the federal deficit is an abstraction. The problem is too few jobs, flat wages,

declining home equity, unaffordable health care, rising college costs, diminished opportunity for the young. The entire political class has convinced itself that the way to economic recovery is via deficit reduction. The only problem with that is that no known theory of economics can plausibly demonstrate the connection. Debt financing is not crowding out private investment -- interest costs are at record lows. The problem is that business doesn't see enough customers to increase investment, because of the recession itself. No amount of deficit reduction between now and November 2012 will improve the jobs picture. On the contrary, by denying
the government money to invest in projects that could create jobs, the deficit obsession will worsen the economic picture -- and the Obama Administration's re-election prospects.

1NC/2NC FOOD PRICES IMPACT

Debt ceiling freeze causes global food spikes. Min, 2010 [David, Associate Director for Financial Markets Policy -- Center for American Progress, The Big Freeze, 10-28, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/10/big_freeze.html] The conservative pledge to freeze the debt ceiling would also lead to some fairly momentous problems in the worlds financial markets. Following the financial crisis of 2008-2009,
which exposed problems with many private financial instruments that were previously thought to be safe, such as money market funds and AAA-rated asset-backed securities, investors sought safe haven by investing in sovereign debt. Unfortunately, sovereign debt crises in Greece and Ireland have caused significant uncertainty in European financial markets, and as a result, investors have flocked to the perceived safety of

sovereign debt issued by the United States, which has never defaulted in its history. A freeze on the debt ceiling could erode confidence in U.S. Treasury bonds in a number of ways, creating further and wider panic in financial markets. First, by causing a disruption in the issuance of Treasury debt, as happened in 1995-96, a freeze would cause investors to seek alternative financial investments, even perhaps causing a run on Treasurys. Such a run would cause the cost of U.S. debt to soar, putting even more stress on our budget, and the resulting enormous capital flows would likely be highly destabilizing to global financial markets, potentially creating more asset bubbles and busts throughout the world. Second, the massive withdrawal of public spending that would occur would cause significant concern among institutional investors worldwide that the U.S. would swiftly enter a second, very deep, recession, raising concerns about the ability of the United States to repay its debt. Finally, the sheer recklessness of a debt freeze during these tenuous times would signal to already nervous investors that there was a significant amount of political risk, which could cause them to shy away from investing in the United States generally. Taken together, these factors would almost certainly result in a significant increase in the interest rates we currently pay on our national debt, currently just above 2.5 percent for a 10-year Treasury note. If in the near term these rates moved
even to 5.9 percent, the long-term rate predicted by the Congressional Budget Office, then our interest payments would increase by more than double, to nearly $600 billion a year. These rates could climb even higher, if investors began to price in a default risk into Treasuryssomething that reckless actions by Congress could potentially sparkthus greatly exacerbating our budget problems. The U.S. dollar, of course, is the worlds reserve currency in large part because of the depth and liquidity of the U.S.

Treasury bond market. If this market is severely disrupted, and investors lost confidence in U.S. Treasurys, then it is unclear where nervous investors might go next. A sharp and swift move by investors out of U.S. Treasury bonds could be highly destabilizing, straining the already delicate global economy. Imagine, for example, if investors moved from sovereign debt into commodities, most of which are priced and traded in dollars. This could have the catastrophic impact of weakening the worlds largest economies while also raising the prices of the basic inputs (such as metals or food) that are necessary for economic growth. In short, a
freeze on the debt ceiling would cause our interest payments to spike, making our budget situation even more problematic, while potentially triggering greater global instabilityperhaps even a global economic depression. The very idea of a federal debt freeze among the radical right in our country, while they continue to ignore responsible deficit reduction measures and continue to focus on the wrong policy solutions, exemplifies their obstinacy as much as their short-sightedness. A freeze on the debt ceiling, or shutting down the federal government will not

reduce the federal budget deficit and will in fact increase it over the long run by tipping the global economy into depression. Voters may assume that conservative candidates will not live up to their pledge of recklessness once they understand the consequences. This is a risky gamble, particularly given the precedent already set by conservatives in 1995.

Kills 3 billion. Brown, 2005 [Lester, President of Earth Policy Institute, MPA at Harvard, Former Advisor to the Secretary of Agriculture, 2005, Outgrowing The Earth, http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/Out/]
Many Americans see terrorism as the principal threat to security, said Brown, but for much of humanity, the effect of water shortages and rising temperatures on food security are far more important issues. For the 3

billion people who live on 2 dollars a day or less and who spend up to 70 percent of their income on food, even a modest rise in food prices can quickly become life-threatening. For
them, it is the next meal that is the overriding concern.

1NC/2NC HEG IMPACT

Debt crisis collapses heg and guarantees global wars. Khalilzad, 2-8-2011 [Zalmay, was the United States ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq, and the United Nations during the presidency of George W. Bush and the director of policy planning at the Defense Department from 1990 to 1992, The Economy and National Security, 2-8, http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/259024/economy-and-national-security-zalmaykhalilzad]
Without faster economic growth and actions to reduce deficits, publicly held national debt is projected to reach dangerous proportions. If interest rates were to rise significantly, annual interest payments which already are larger than the defense budget would crowd out other spending or require substantial tax increases that would undercut economic growth. Even worse, if unanticipated events trigger what economists call a sudden

stop in credit markets for U.S. debt, the United States would be unable to roll over its outstanding obligations, precipitating a sovereign-debt crisis that would almost certainly compel a radical retrenchment of the United States internationally. Such scenarios would reshape the international order. It was the economic devastation of Britain and France during World War II, as well as the rise of other powers, that led both countries to relinquish their empires. In the late 1960s, British leaders concluded that they lacked the economic capacity to maintain a presence east of Suez. Soviet economic weakness, which crystallized under Gorbachev, contributed to their decisions to withdraw from Afghanistan, abandon Communist regimes in Eastern Europe, and allow the Soviet Union to fragment. If the U.S. debt problem goes critical, the United States would be compelled to retrench, reducing its military spending and shedding international commitments. We face this domestic challenge while other major powers are experiencing rapid economic growth. Even though countries such as China, India, and Brazil have profound political, social, demographic, and economic problems, their economies are growing faster than ours, and this could alter the global distribution of power. These trends could in the long term produce a multi-polar world. If U.S. policymakers fail to act and other powers continue to grow, it is not a question of whether but when a new international order will emerge. The closing of the gap between the United States and its rivals could intensify geopolitical competition among major powers, increase incentives for local powers to play major powers against one another, and undercut our will to preclude or respond to international crises because of the higher risk of escalation. The stakes are high. In modern history, the longest period of peace among the great powers has been the era of U.S. leadership. By contrast, multi-polar systems have been unstable, with their competitive dynamics resulting in frequent crises and major wars among the great powers. Failures of multipolar international systems produced both world wars. American retrenchment could have devastating consequences. Without an American security blanket, regional powers could rearm in an attempt to balance against emerging threats. Under this scenario, there would be a heightened possibility of arms races, miscalculation, or other crises spiraling into all-out conflict. Alternatively, in
seeking to accommodate the stronger powers, weaker powers may shift their geopolitical posture away from the United States. Either way, hostile states would be emboldened to make aggressive moves in their

regions.

1NC/2NC SHUTDOWN IMPACT (CYBERWAR)

Failure to reach a deal guarantees government shutdown. Farry, 1-19-2011 [Yanira, Junior Editor Veterans Today, Military & Foreign Affairs Journal, GOP-Tea Party Play Chicken With U.S. Credit, Courting Catastrophe, http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/01/19/gop-tea-party-play-chicken-with-u-s-creditcourting-catastrophe/] SHUTTING DOWN GOVERNMENT: If the debt limit is reached, the government is forced to move to a purely cash-flow budget, paying bills with only the tax revenue that comes in. Interest payments on the debt would get paid first, but what is the order of payment after that? Government activities that could fail to be funded range from Social Security and Medicare to military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. In 1995-96, when House Republicans, led by then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich, refused to raise the debt ceiling for a short time, it caused two temporary shutdowns of all nonessential federal government activities, including a cessation of toxic waste cleanups, disease control activities, and a suspension of many law enforcement and drug control operations, ultimately costing the U.S. taxpayer more than $800 million. The Clinton Treasury Department was required to employ some creative accounting including a temporary use of retirement funds for former government employees to stave off even worse outcomes. Analysts at Deutsche Bank have found that such efforts would not work as well today, and the government would not be able to stave off a government shutdown (or possible suspension of bond payments) for long if the debt ceiling isnt raised. But still, some Republicans, such as former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty (R), have said this is the route Congress should choose. As Austan Goolsbee, chairman of the Council of
Economic Advisers put it, If we get to the point where we damage the full faith and credit of the United States,

that would be the first default in history caused purely by insanity.

That causes cyberattacks. Sideman, 2-23-2011 [Alysha, Federal Computer Week Contributor, Agencies must determine computer security teams in face of potential federal shutdown http://fcw.com/Articles/2011/02/23/Agenciesmust-determine-computer-security-teams-in-face-of-shutdown.aspx?Page=1] With the WikiLeaks hacks and other threats to cybersecurity present, guarding against cyberattacks has become a significant part of governing -- especially because most government agencies have moved to online systems. As a potential government shutdown comes closer, agencies must face new questions about defining essential computer personnel. Cyber threats werent as significant during the 1995 furlough as they are today, reports
NextGov. The publication adds that agencies need to buck up and be organized. In late January, government officials, NATO and the European Union banded together in Brussels to formulate a plan to battle cyber bandits, according to Defense Systems. Leaders there agreed that existing cybersecurity measures were incomplete and decided to fast-track a new plan for cyber incident response. Meanwhile, observers are

wondering whether the U.S. government has a plan to deal with cyberattacks in the case of a shutdown. The lists of essential computer security personnel drawn up 15 years ago are irrelevant today, computer specialists told NextGov. In 1995, the only agencies concerned about cybersecurity
were entities such as the FBI and CIA. Today, before any potential government shutdown happens, a plan of essential IT personnel should be determined, the specialists add. Agencies should be figuring out which

systems will need daily surveillance and strategic defense, as well as evaluating the job descriptions of the people operating in those systems, former federal executives told NextGov. Hord Tipton, a former Interior Department CIO, agrees. If they havent done it, theres going to be a mad scramble, and theres going to be a hole in the system, he told the site. All government
departments are supposed to have contingency plans on deck that spell out essential systems and the employees associated with them, according to federal rules. Meanwhile, some experts say determining which IT workers are essential depends more on the length of the shutdown. Jeffrey Wheatman, a security and privacy analyst with the Gartner research group, tells NextGov that a shutdown lasting

a couple of weeks would require incident response personnel, network administrators and staff who monitor firewall logs for potential intrusions. If a shutdown lasted a month or longer, more employees would need to report, he said, adding: New threats could emerge

during that time frame, which demands people with strategy-oriented job functions to devise new lines of defense. Employees who are deemed essential are critical to national security. Cyber warfare or holes in cybersecurity can threaten a nations infrastructure. In particular, the electric grid, the nations military assets, financial sector and telecommunications networks can be vulnerable in the face of an attack, reports Federal Computer Week.

Great power escalation. Fritz, 2009 [Jason, researcher for International Commission on Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament, former Army officer and consultant, and has a master of international relations at Bond University, Hacking Nuclear Command and Control, July, http://www.icnnd.org/latest/research/Jason_Fritz_Hacking_NC2.pdf]
This paper will analyse the threat of cyber terrorism in regard to nuclear weapons. Specifically, this research will use open source knowledge to identify the structure of nuclear command and control centres, how those structures might be compromised through computer network operations, and how doing so would fit within established cyber terrorists capabilities, strategies, and tactics. If access to command and control centres is obtained,

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

Alternatively, amidst the confusion of a traditional large-scale terrorist attack, claims of responsibility and declarations of war could be falsified in an attempt to instigate a hasty military response. These false claims could be posted directly on Presidential, military,
discuss the situation. and government websites. E-mails could also be sent to the media and foreign governments using the IP addresses and e-mail accounts of government officials. A sophisticated and all encompassing combination of

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

***AFF***

2AC/1AR UQ
No debt agreement. Ferrechio, 6-13-2011 [Susan, Washington Examiner, White House, GOP intensify talks over debt, spending, http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/06/white-house-gop-intensify-talks-over-debtspending#ixzz1PF5Hu0PZ] The White House and Congress this week will step up efforts to reach a deal on raising the government's borrowing limit before an Aug. 2 deadline, with a flurry of meetings scheduled to
hammer out a bipartisan consensus on ways to significantly reduce the nation's $1.3 trillion deficit and $14.3 trillion debt. The intensified negotiations come as Republicans pursue a summer agenda they say is aimed at job creation and economic growth, though the debt ceiling debate will likely overshadow all of their planned legislative action. A group of Republican and Democratic lawmakers will huddle three times this week with Vice President Biden to negotiate an agreement that has eluded them in six previous meetings. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner requested a $2 trillion increase in the nation's borrowing limit and predicted dire economic consequences if Congress fails to act by the August deadline, when the government would effectively default on its loans. The two parties, however, are nowhere near agreement. Republicans are

insisting on deep budget cuts to at least match Geithner's $2 trillion borrowing request. But Democrats want smaller cuts coupled with tax increases that the GOP is refusing to even consider. Republicans have also proposed a Medicare reform plan that would reduce some benefits
and ultimately replace the current system with a voucherlike program that would help seniors buy private health insurance. Democrats say they will not approve any plan that cuts Medicare benefits. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., said negotiators want to avoid waiting until the last minute to strike an agreement on the debt ceiling because of the potential negative effects on financial markets. But he warned Monday that if the deal did not yield significant cuts, a vote to raise the debt ceiling could also

have dire economic consequences.

No compromise coming. Madison, 6-15-2011 [Lucy, Biden optimistic about debt limit deal by end of June, http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20071261-503544.html#ixzz1PQmiZpqv Biden said he thought the group could feasibly "get well beyond" $1 trillion in cuts. Still, there appears to remain a significant divide between how much each side is willing to compromise in the talks. Republicans have demanded that any raise to the debt limit be matched in equal amount by spending cuts - and according to the Associated Press, "they also want the
legislation to provide enough borrowing room so that there would only need to be one vote on the politically toxic topic before next year's elections." And GOP leaders remain steadfast in their opposition to including any tax hikes in the deal. In a Tuesday op-ed for the Baltimore Sun, Senate Minority Leader Mitch

McConnell wrote that "over the next several weeks, Republicans in Washington will be engaged in a critical mission: to persuade Democrats of the need to develop a plan that reins in our debt without raising taxes, which we know would kill jobs." "This effort is taking place

in the context of President Barack Obama's request to raise the nation's debt limit, and early indications suggest that many Democrats still need some convincing," McConnell wrote. Meanwhile, top Democrats say they will not allow the reductions to include Medicare cuts for the elderly. "We will not allow cuts to seniors' benefits," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., according to the Associated Press.

More ev. Mascaro, 6-10-2011 [Lisa, Washington Bureau, LA Times, Concern over unemployment affects talks on federal debt, http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/10/nation/la-na-debt-ceiling-20110610] Vice President Joe Biden met Thursday with congressional negotiators as an impasse over federal debt and spending draws growing unease from U.S. financial markets and a deteriorating economic outlook shifts the debate. Both Democrats and Republicans argued that the outcome
would have a major effect on job growth, a key issue following last week's increase in unemployment, to 9.1%. Yet both sides are dug in over their views about the best course of action. Democrats believe

cutting jobs in a weak economy may be unwise; Republicans argue spending cuts and deficit control are the key to economic growth. The government hit its $14.3-trillion debt limit last month and
risks an unprecedented default if an agreement is not reached to permit new borrowing by Aug. 2, when the Treasury Department says it will have exhausted its payment options. Fitch Ratings this week became the third major Wall Street financial rating agency to warn that U.S. bonds could be downgraded if the stalemate is not resolved this summer. Republicans want steep spending reductions in exchange for their votes

to raise the debt limit, though their spending plan would also require raising that ceiling. But Democrats insisted during Thursday's closed-door meeting in the Capitol that new taxes must be part of any deficit-reduction deal, a position Republicans have rejected.

2AC/1AR AT POL CAP

No Obama has no capital for the debt deal. Hudson, 6-10-2011 [Jerome, Staff Writer, Forget the debt ceiling; raise our moral ceiling http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/local/burlington_county_times_news/opinion/guest/forgetthe-debt-ceiling-raise-our-moral-ceiling/article_54d7f8cc-52e0-5d05-85f1526c46f7f2d4.html] At present, the Obama administration wants Congress to raise the debt ceiling so our government
can borrow more than the almost $14.3 trillion currently allowed by law. Conservatives want any debt increase tied to spending cuts, and a recent vote shows President Barack Obama lacks the political capital to ram

through an increase as he might have in the past.

2AC/1AR UQ O/W LINK

GOP will chill out and raise the debt ceiling. Frum, 1-2-2011 [David, Editor -- FrumForum, prominent journalist, author of 6 books, former advisor to President George W. Bush, Goolsbee: Playing Politics with the National Debt, http://www.frumforum.com/goolsbee-playing-politics-with-the-national-debt] Yes its true that you can find individual Republican members of the House who have said hot-headed things about the debt ceiling. Its equally true that Speaker John Boehner has clearly broadcast that the House will not do anything irresponsible. Goolsbee is debating with phantoms. Heres Boehner on Nov. 18: Whether we like it or not, the federal government has obligations and we have obligations on our part. Again you can repeat ad infinitum. If Goolsbees
words were scripted and he did reiterate the point in a way that does not typically happen with impromptu mistakes you can imagine the strategy behind them: depict Republicans as reckless fiscal madmen. But in order to score a cheap and inaccurate political point, it was Goolsbee who was enflaming the very market fears you might imagine he wanted to allay. The debt will be honored. Nobody needs to worry. And if the Obama administration has any political plans that would profit from causing people to worry that would be truly shameful.

Empirically proven. Reuters, 1-6-2011 [Republicans acknowledge debt limit should rise, http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/07/us-usa-debt-idUSTRE70606E20110107] (Reuters) - Republicans acknowledged on Thursday they will have to sign off on more deficit spending to avoid a debt default that would roil financial markets and bring the government to a grinding halt. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner pressed lawmakers to raise the nation's $14.3 trillion
debt limit to allow the United States to borrow more and avert a crisis in the coming months. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, a Republican, said he recognized the need to allow the government to go deeper in debt. "Will the debt ceiling ... have to be raised? Yes," said Ryan, who leads Republican efforts to slash deficit spending. But he called for deep spending cuts in 2012 and the Pentagon announced it would trim its budget by $78 billion as both government and opposition in Washington vied to outdo each other in promises of tighter spending. Geithner said the federal government may hit the ceiling by March 31 on the amount of debt it is legally allowed to issue, and urged Congress to raise it before then to avoid pushing the United States into default. "Even a short-term or limited default would have catastrophic economic consequences that would last for decades," Geithner said in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat. Republicans won control of the House of Representatives in November elections on a promise to cut government spending and reduce debt but are faced with having to compromise on the debt limit. They say any vote to increase the ceiling must be paired with a commitment to lower federal costs over the long term. "The American people will not stand for such an increase unless it is accompanied by meaningful action by the president and Congress to cut spending," House Speaker John Boehner said. DEFAULT DANGERS A debt default would throw markets into turmoil and dramatically increase government borrowing costs for years to come, further increasing the U.S. debt burden and sapping resources from the economy. Bond investors remain wary of the safety and soundness of sovereign debt after the bailouts of Greece and Ireland last year, but Treasury officials said they did not see any evidence of such concerns pushing up U.S. debt yields at this time. A Treasury official urged lawmakers preparing for a new budget not to mix up the debt limit issue with calls for greater restraint in government spending. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, expressed confidence that Congress will raise the debt limit if only because not doing so would be so damaging. "If you look over the long history of these things, they kick up a fair amount of dust

and noise but in the end cooler heads prevail and responsibility wins out and the debt limit is always increased," the official said. The closest the United States has come a debt limit default was in 1995, when Republicans led by then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich forced a partial government shut down over the issue. Congress has routinely voted to raise the debt limit every year since 2002.

Statements prove leaders know theyll have to get on board. Farry, 1-19-2011 [Yanira, Junior Editor Veterans Today, Military & Foreign Affairs Journal, GOP-Tea Party Play Chicken With U.S. Credit, Courting Catastrophe, http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/01/19/gop-tea-party-play-chicken-with-u-s-creditcourting-catastrophe/] SHAKING FINANCIAL MARKETS: However, the same Republicans who are making demands in return for raising the debt ceiling freely admit that failure to raise it is simply not an option. Does

it have to be raised? Yes, you cant not raise the debt ceiling, Ryan said. Graham added, Default is the unworkable solution, or the alternative, I guess Id say the unworkable alternative. Let me tell you whats involved if we dont lift the debt ceiling: financial collapse and calamity throughout the world. Thats not lost upon me,. As David Min, Center for American Progress Associate
Director for Financial Markets Policy, wrote, The financial markets are on edge today, with U.S. Treasury bonds being the safe haven for most investment capital. Refusing to raise the debt ceiling would recklessly disrupt the sale and purchase of new Treasury bonds, and could potentially cause a run on outstanding Treasurys as well, as investors sought other investments. This could have catastrophic consequences for our economy as well as the economic stability of the rest of the world. As Bruce Bartlett, former economic adviser for both President Reagan and President George H.W. Bush, explained, U.S. bonds have been the gold standard, with zero risk of default. You introduce even the tiniest little bit of doubt into the minds of ultraconservative investors, and thats potentially disastrous. Analysts at Morgan Stanley noted that a default threat in the mid-90s led to a significant move in the dollar and a rise in Treasury bond yields.

2AC/1AR IMPACT D
No risk of a default. Maloy, 6-11-2011 [Tom, retired businessman, Maloy: Let the Debt Ceiling Climb No Higher, http://powdersprings.patch.com/articles/maloy-let-the-debt-ceiling-climb-no-higher]
Now the president is recycling the same lie. Congress would be fools to believe that, if for no other reason than the administration (Tim Geithner) has already lied about the debt ceiling. Geithner said that we would be in

default in March, then in May. When that didnt happen he moved the default date to August. Seems he found some lose change in the couch cushions. The bottom line is, this country isnt going to default on its credit obligations. This administration just wants the debt ceiling raised so it can spend more money to pander to its base, bail out more of its buddies and try to hold power after 2012. Whatever course Congress chooses, its deliberations should

not be tainted with misplaced concerns over whether the United States government might default on its debt. Contrary to the clear implications of a letter from Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to Congress dated January 6, 2011, refusing to raise the debt limit would not, in and of itself, cause the United States to default on its public debt.[3] Both immediately and long after it reaches the debt limit, the

government would have far more than enough revenue coming in that the Secretary of the Treasury could use to pay interest on the debt. Nor would preserving the current debt limit put at risk the full faith and credit of the United States government, as the President's chief economic adviser has claimed.[4] The government would continue to pay net interest as it comes due. The amount of debt the federal government is allowed to issue is set by statute. Federal spending is similarly
established by law.[14] Treasury is at once prohibited by law from issuing additional debt above the limit and obligated by law to spend certain amounts for designated purposes. If the federal government were to

reach the debt limit and Treasury's financial management tools were exhausted, then government spending would be limited to incoming receipts beginning in late spring or early summer. At that point, the law setting a debt limit and the laws in place directing government spending would conflict: Something would have to give. The legal prohibition on
government's selling additional debt because government borrowing has reached the statutory limit does not translate into an inability to spend (because tax money is still coming in). Thus, the consequences of

reaching the debt limit are quite different from the consequences of a "government shutdown" as a result of the inability of Congress and the President to agree on spending levels for government
agencies. Very simply, reaching the debt limit means that spending is limited by revenue arriving at the Treasury and is guided by prioritization among the government's obligations. How the government would decide to meet these obligations under the circumstances is a matter of some conjecture. Certainly, vast inflows of federal

tax receiptsinflows that are far more than needed to pay monthly interest costs on debt would continue.[15] Thus, the government has never defaulted on its debt. Whether Treasury is
required as a matter of law to prioritize incoming receipts to pay interest costs first is an open question, but there appears to be little doubt Treasury would do so.[16] There is, therefore, no real question that Treasury would take the actions necessary to preserve the full faith and credit of the U.S. government and avoid defaulting on debts due.

No escalation or market panic. Foster, 2-2-2011 [JD, Norman B. Ture Senior Fellow in the Economics of Fiscal Policy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, Congress Has Time and Options on Debt Limit, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703445904576118533071051152.html]
A key consideration for any course of action is how markets would react. For this it is important to recognize which measures of debt are relevant. As noted earlier, two measures of government debt are common to the debt limit discussion: debt that is sold in the credit markets (typically called "publicly held debt") and "gross debt" (also called the "public debt"), which includes publicly held debt plus debt the federal government has issued internally to record certain intergovernmental transfers such as transfers from the general fund to the Social Security trust fund. Credit markets are concerned with the publicly held debt, its growth over time, and that net interest payments are made on time.[17] Publicly held debt stood at $9.018 trillion at the end of 2010.[18] While publicly held debt is the relevant measure of the debt for credit markets, the debt limit applies to the gross debt. If the federal

government were forced to operate indefinitely at the current debt limit, the early reaction in credit markets could be unfavorable. Credit markets value certainty and carefully evaluate and price

Despite the recent run-up in federal debt and the tremendous difficulties the federal government faces due to promises made in major entitlement programs, U.S. government debt is still the global benchmark for safety. The uncertainty surrounding how the federal government would operate if it were unable to issue debt would likely rattle markets initially, leading to adverse movements in interest rates and the dollar exchange rate. The news would not be all grim, however, as the passage of time probably would make clear. As noted, the Treasury Department would surely affirm that all interest payments on government debt would be made, thus reassuring bond holders. While spending cuts required to align total spending with
uncertainty. revenues would be deep, triggering a huge political brouhaha, from the credit markets' perspective the overarching consideration would be that a government previously bent on issuing destabilizing amounts of debt would be running an enforced balanced budget. Once the novelty wore offand how long this would take is uncertain markets ultimately might see the forced austerity as beneficial, especially if they

concluded that the result would be congressional action to put the government, after decades of endless spending and borrowing, on a sound financial footing.