Obama Good Disad

1NCObama wins now but models dictate a close raceBernstein, 8/03/12(Jonathan, Blogger, No, Obama doesn’t necessarily have to `defy history’ to win”, The Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/no-obama-doesnt-necessarily-have-to-defy-history-to-win/2012/08/03/212d2760-ddaf-11e1-8ad1-909913931f71_blog.html, BMW)

In particular, there’s a strain of punditry that theorizes that Obama will have to “defy history” to get reelected. This line holds that presidents don’t get re-elected when unemployment is over eight percent, or when “right track/wrong track” numbers are badly depressed, or when the president’s job approval on the economy is negative.

In fact, the election models political scientists and economists have developed suggest — when you plug in

the fundamentals of this election cycle — that this will be a close race, and not one that Obama will have to defy history to win. In particular, I’ve been looking at three models. The first one, the “bread and peace” model

from Douglas Hibbs, uses only two variables: one indicator of economic growth, and one more for war. Hibbs earlier this week published his prediction, with the slow economy in fact dooming Obama. The Hibbs model shows the president receiving only 47.5% of the two-party vote . However, the Hibbs’ model doesn’t take into account several factors that may make this election unique, and it’s not the only model with a good track record. Alan Abramowitz’s model combines economic growth with two other variables: presidential approval ratings, and a variable that accounts for whether the incumbent’s party has been in the White House for more than one term. Basically, if you believe (as the numbers show) that voters hesitate before throwing out a party that they just

voted in, then Abramowitz is catching something that Hibbs misses. His prediction? A very close contest, with a slight edge for Barack Obama. But that’s not all! Most research has found that the economy in the final year of the president’s term is what matters, and that what is most important is whether the economy is improving, not how strong it is overall. What’s more, Larry Bartels finds that the economy in a president’s first year in office also affects re-election — but with an inverse relationship, so that the worse the economy is at the beginning of the term, the better the re-election chances. Obviously, if that’s correct, it’s bad news for Mitt Romney. Bartels hasn’t published a final prediction as far as I’m aware, but his model almost certainly predicts an almost comfortable Obama victory . Which one is correct? I don’t know. But what I can say with confidence is that anyone talking about what “history” says needs to be aware of what these models say, and in particular anyone claiming that Obama would have to overcome history to win re-election is basically misunderstanding the full history of presidential elections. We don’t know for

sure that it’s going to be a close election. But so far, that appears to be what history — properly understood, as far as what the

specialists have found — is actually telling us.

More deficit spending would swing the election to RomneyKraushaar 2012 (Josh, National Journal writer, 5/14/12, http://decoded.nationaljournal.com/2012/05/romneys-targeted-deficit-messa.php) MattG

If unemployment was the only factor driving this presidential election, Mitt Romney would not be spending much time campaigning in Iowa, where the state's agricultural economy is relatively healthy, and the state boasts a 5.2 percent unemployment rate, the lowest for any battleground state. But spending and debt are big issues in the American heartland, too. And that's why Romney spent time on the trail in Des Moines Tuesday, with a speech decrying excessive government spending. Concern over federal spending is what drove the tea party movement into existence in 2009, and it's an issue that hasn't gone away in 2012. It's what's driving Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's momentum

in next month's gubernatorial recall, with a deficit-conscious GOP base showing high levels of enthusiasm. (It's also an effective message with independents: Check out this new ad from Republican New Mexico Senate candidate Heather Wilson that's focused squarely on the debt, deficit and spending -- in a Democratic-leaning state.) When pollsters ask voters what their most important issue is, the catch-all "jobs and the economy" comes first. But the number of voters naming the deficit rose in 2010 and has remained largely constant, and it's an issue that's driving conservatives to the polls. It's also a way for Romney to criticize the president on the economy in states that haven't suffered the brunt of the downturn. New Hampshire is another state with a solid economy, but one receptive to Romney's small-government messaging. Indeed, the RNC held a conference call today, featuring former New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu and former New Hampshire Rep. Jeb Bradley, decrying Obama's record on debt and deficits. Obama may be leading in early Granite State polls, but the Romney campaign is optimistic about their chances there, hoping to take advantage of the state's "live free or die" sentiment. If Obama needs high levels of youth and minority turnout to win a second term, Romney needs a restive base anxious about the fiscal future of the country to show up in big numbers. That's the ticket to a Romney victory in states like Iowa, New Hampshire, and Virginia -- where the economy is pretty good but voter dissatisfaction still runs high.

Romney election means first striking IranTraub, 12 (James, journalist specializing in foreign affairs, writes “Terms of Engagement,” a weekly column on ForeignPolicy.com, “Foreign Affairs: The “more enemies, fewer friends” doctrine, Washington Monthly, January/February, http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/january_february_2012/features/foreign_affairs034475.php?page=1) MattG

But elsewhere, a Republican president would turn up the dial of confrontation. Iran is a particularly stark example, since Obama’s rivals have described his engagement policy there as complicity with evil (Rick Santorum: “We sided with evil because our president believes our enemies are legitimately aggrieved”). As a candidate, Obama argued that the U.S. had sacrificed even the possibility of finding common ground with nations like Iran by refusing to talk to them. As president, he replaced the bellicose moralism of George Bush’s “axis of evil” with a more anodyne lexicon of “mutual respect” for “mutual interests.” He took pains to extend greetings to the Iranian people on the holiday of Nowruz and to refer to the country as the “Islamic Republic of Iran.” In his speech in Cairo in June 2009, Obama even acknowledged America’s role in the 1953 overthrow of a

democratically elected Iranian leader. There is more to this strategy than Republicans like to acknowledge.

Perhaps Obama did believe (naively) that this more beguiling language would make it easier for the Iranian leadership to come out of its shell and make concessions on its nuclear program. But officials around him said from the outset that his ulterior purpose was to help forge an international coalition around tough measures toward Iran by first showing that the Iranians would not respond to gentle ones. And in this he succeeded: in 2010, Obama persuaded Russia and China to accept tough sanctions on Iran adopted by the UN Security Council. Iran is much more isolated today than it was only a few years ago. The Obama administration has been using clandestine methods as well, and in all likelihood collaborated with Israel to develop the Stuxnet computer virus, which disrupted Iran’s nuclear centrifuges. Indeed, here, as elsewhere, Obama has proved to be less “liberal,” and more traditionally pragmatic, than many of his supporters hoped or his critics have charged. He has increased the use of Predator drones and continued the practice of extraordinary rendition of terror suspects to other countries, despite criticisms from human rights groups. Many of the old-line foreign policy professionals who served under the first President Bush, like Brent Scowcroft, the former national security advisor, feel more comfortable with Obama’s conduct of foreign policy than with the more confrontational one that Romney and others promise. (Only Jon Huntsman, of all the Republican candidates, has sought the advice of this group.) A Republican president would thus move American foreign policy not from the left to the right, but from the center to the right.For all Obama’s efforts, his Iran policy is at best a qualified success; the leadership there is still

enriching uranium, still apparently seeking to design a warhead, still posing a profound threat to Israel. The Republican candidates insist that Iran hasn’t capitulated because Obama has not applied enough pressure. They would, of course, cut out the deferential language and the holiday greetings. They would attempt regime change, if from a distance. But the real difference between a hypothetical Republican president and Obama—and it is a very important one—is that a Republican would be prepared to launch an attack on Iran designed to slow their development of nuclear technology, or would give Israel the go-ahead to do so. Yes, Obama has said that “all options are on the table,” but he might not be prepared to attack Iran. The Republicans say they would. “If we reelect Barack Obama,” Mitt Romney said in

Spartanburg, “Iran will have a nuclear weapon. And if you elect Mitt Romney, Iran will not have a nuclear weapon.” At bottom, Obama’s policy is designed to buy time in hopes that the collective bite of sanctions will change the Iranian calculus, or that some as yet unforeseeable change inside Iran will produce a new policy. He seeks, in Cold War language, to contain Iran. Romney and others argue that the U.S. doesn’t have the luxury of containment—that Iran represents an existential threat, which must be stopped now. But airstrikes, whether by the U.S. or Israel, would not wholly eliminate Iran’s nuclear program, and would provoke very serious blowback. Leon Panetta, Obama’s defense secretary, has warned the Israelis of possible “unintended consequences” of such a mission, including attacks on American soldiers, diplomats, and assets across the Middle East. And while some Arab elites might welcome an attack, ordinary citizens in the Middle East would be enraged. The U.S. could thus pay a very grave price for a relatively modest gain.

Iran strikes fail and trigger US-Iran warMelman, 11 (Yossi, Haaretz (Israeli newspaper, “Former Mossad Chief: Israel Air Strike on Iran ‘Stupidest Thing I Have Ever Heard,” http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/former-mossad-chief-israel-air-strike-on-iran-stupidest-thing-i-have-ever-heard-1.360367)

Dagan emphasized that attacking Iran would be different than Israel's successful air strike on Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981. Iran has scattered its nuclear facilities in different places around the country, he said,

which would make it difficult for Israel to launch an effective attack. According to Dagan, there is proof that Iran has the capability to divert its nuclear activities from place to place in order to take them out of the watchful eye of international supervision and intelligence agencies. No one in Iran would have any problems in building a centrifuge system in a school basement if they wished to, he said. The IAF's abilities are not in doubt, Dagan emphasized, but the doubts relate to the possibilities of completing the mission and reaching all targets. When asked about what would happen in the aftermath of an Israeli attack Dagan said that: "It will be followed by a war with Iran. It is the kind of thing where we know how it starts, but not how it

will end." The Iranians have the capability to fire rockets at Israel for a period of months, and Hizbollah could fire tens of thousands of grad rockets and hundreds of long-range missiles, he said. At the same time,

Tehran can activate Hamas, and there is also a danger that Syria will join the war, Dagan added.

That causes immediate retaliation and nuclear escalationHirsch 2006 [Jorge, Professor of Physics at the University of California-San Diego, “Nuking Iran,” Znet, 4/10, http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=10071]

Iran is likely to respond to any US attack using its considerable missile arsenal against US forces in Iraq and elsewhere in the Persian Gulf. Israel may attempt to stay out of the conflict, it is not clear whether Iran would target Israel in a retaliatory strike but it is certainly possible. If the US attack includes nuclear weapons use against Iranian facilities, as I believe is very likely, rather than deterring Iran it will cause a much more violent response. Iranian military forces and militias are likely to storm into southern Iraq and the US may be forced to use nuclear weapons against them, causing large scale casualties and inflaming the Muslim world. There could be popular uprisings in other countries in the region like Pakistan, and of course a Shiite uprising in Iraq against American occupiers. Finally I would like to discuss the grave consequences to America and the world if the US uses nuclear weapons against Iran. First, the likelihood of terrorist attacks against Americans both on American soil and abroad will be enormously enhanced after these events. And terrorist's attempts to get hold of "loose nukes" and use them against Americans will be enormously incentivized after the US used nuclear weapons against Iran. Second, it will destroy America's position as the leader of the free world. The rest of the world rightly recognizes that nuclear weapons are qualitatively different from all other weapons, and that there is no sharp distinction between small and large nuclear weapons, or between nuclear weapons targeting facilities versus those targeting armies or civilians. It will not condone the breaking of the nuclear taboo in an unprovoked war of aggression against a non-nuclear country, and the US will become a pariah state. Third, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty will cease to exist, and many of its 182 non-nuclear-weapon-country signatories will strive to acquire nuclear weapons as a deterrent to an attack by a nuclear nation. With no longer a taboo against the use of nuclear weapons, any regional conflict may go nuclear and expand into global nuclear war. Nuclear weapons are million-fold more powerful than any other weapon, and the existing nuclear arsenals can obliterate humanity many times over. In the past, global conflicts terminated when one side prevailed. In the next global conflict we will all be gone before anybody has prevailed.

Uniqueness

Win Now – Swing States

Obama win now – controlling swing states.Sobel, 8/7/12(Robert, Blogger and Reporter, “Rush Limbaugh: 'Foreign dictators' prefer Obama, could start war to re-elect him”, The Examiner, http://www.examiner.com/article/rush-limbaugh-foreign-dictators-prefer-obama-could-start-war-to-re-elect-him, BMW)

Recent polls have shown that President Obama is holding solid leads in key swing states and the conservative media are going into paranoia mode. According to a new CBS News/New York Times/Quinnipiac University

poll, President Obama is now leading Mitt Romney in three major swing states. President Obama has a 53% to

42% advantage in Pennsylvania, a 50% to 44% advantage in Ohio and holds a six point lead in Florida, leading Mitt Romney,

51% to 45%. These states are critical to Mitt Romney if he wants to win the election in November and with the results not going in his favor, Republicans and the conservative media are in a frenzy. One of the

loudest voices against President Obama is conservative radio show host, Rush Limbaugh. On his radio this week, Limbaugh said that certain foreign dictators favor the re-election of President Obama and that they could take drastic measures to make sure that it happens. "What happens if there is an Al-Qaeda terrorist attack? What happens if Iran is attacked

successfully by Israel? Does that help Obama or not? None of this is known. There are all kinds of things. There are foreign dictators who, without question, would much prefer Obama in office, they're saying so, and when they talk about this country, it doesn't differ much from the way Democrats talk. If some foreign head honcho decides he wants to try to do something to help Obama's election in September or October, who knows. Any number of things can happen out there. And Ahmadinejad, don't forget, that's the guy Obama said we needed to negotiate with without any preconditions. We have the Muslim Brotherhood rising up in this Arab Spring taking over the Middle East, militant Islam, Sharia. And if any of these people decide they want to play a role in this election. So it really is dangerous to start speculating on only what's known, under the assumption that pretty much nothing else is gonna happen between now and then, 'cause we know that's not true." The idea that the Muslim Brotherhood or Ahmadinejad would try to declare war with the sole purpose of re-electing President Obama is nothing short of ludicrous. The paranoia coming from Limbaugh and other conservatives is showing the frustration the party has with the current state of the Romney campaign. If President Obama wins re-election in November, it will be because the American people believe he is the best person for the job, not because of a threat from a foreign dictator.

Win Now – Polls

Slow Economy doesn’t mean Obama will lose, Obama retains slight lead in pollsDorning, 8/9/12(Mike, Reporter, “Slow U.S. Growth Still Leaves Room for Obama to Win Re-Election”, Bloomberg News, http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloomberg/article/Slow-U-S-Growth-Still-Leaves-Room-for-Obama-to-3748130.php, BMW)

Slow growth in the second quarter still leaves room for President Barack Obama to win an election contest dominated by economic concerns and shaping up as one of the closest in decades. The U.S. economy grew at a 1.5 percent annual rate from April through June, in line with forecasts and slowing from a 2.0 percent rate during the first three months of the year, the Commerce Department reported today. According to one election prediction model, the president retains a slight advantage in November’s election . “This sort of slow-growth region puts it in the too-close- to-call category,” said Alan Abramowitz , a political science professor at Emory University in Atlanta and developer of the forecasting model, which also factors in presidential job approval. Abramowitz said today that his model projects Obama will get 50.5 percent of the popular vote and has a two-thirds probability of winning. Strong economic growth historically has helped presidents win re- election, though it has not always been a prerequisite for a second term. Among the seven U.S. presidents returned to office since World War II, GDP growth has averaged 4.7 percent during the first nine months of their re-election year, above the overall 3.2 percent average since quarterly figures first were issued in 1947. So far this year, the average growth rate has been 1.75 percent as Obama approaches the Nov. 6 election. Past Presidents Ronald Reagan , whose experience with a deep recession early in his term has parallels to challenges Obama confronts, presided over an economy that grew at an average 6.3 percent rate during the first nine months of 1984. As Bill Clinton headed to re-election in 1996, growth averaged 4.5 percent. Even so, a weak economy has not necessarily meant defeat. Dwight Eisenhower , who like Obama remained personally popular with voters, was re-elected despite a sluggish economy in 1956. GDP grew at an average 0.3 percent annual rate during the first nine months of a year in which Eisenhower won a landslide victory with 57 percent of the vote . George W. Bush was also re-elected with below-normal growth, averaging 2.8 percent during the first nine months of 2004. Historically high growth has not always translated into re- election for incumbents.

Win Now – Economy

Obama is getting a boost in job numbers and re-election is looking likelyParnes, 8/08/12(Amie, White House Correspondent, “As jobs picture improves, so do Obama reelection chances”, The Hill, http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/242205-as-jobs-picture-improaaves-so-do-obamas-chances, BMW”

President Obama’s reelection got a boost Friday from the best monthly jobs report on the U.S. economy since February, something that gave his campaign team more fuel in making their argument that the economy is making steady progress. While the good news was coupled with an uptick in the unemployment rate to

8.3 percent, analysts predicted that if the job numbers—however murky—are maintained over the next several months, Obama is likely to win reelection in November against his opponent Mitt Romney. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday the economy added 163,000 jobs in July, more than expected and more than the economy added in May and June combined. To be sure, no sitting president since

Franklin Roosevelt has won reelection with a jobless rate above 8 percent, which poses a significant problem for Obama. A recent poll for The Hill shows that 53 percent believe that Obama has "taken the wrong actions and slowed the recovery down." After a series of bad jobs reports for Team Obama, A New York Times/CBS poll last month also showed that two out

three registered voters believes the president's policies contributed in some way to the economic downturn. That said, Friday’s numbers are “definitely helpful” to the Obama campaign, said Joel Prakken, a senior managing director of

Macroeconomic Advisers. “Numbers like this for the next three months, will definitely be an encouraging sign,” Prakken said. Political observers agreed with that assessment. While the reviews of the jobs numbers were mixed on Friday, giving a modest advantage to Obama, they point to the market’s reaction on Friday: stocks surged on the news, adding to the sense that the jobs report for once has given Obama’s campaign momentum. “The markets certainly thought the jobs numbers were good,” said Cal Jillson, a professor of political science at Southern

Methodist University, adding that the jobs numbers “signal the slowdown is not worsening and that the economy may be picking up a little.

Win Now – Independents

Obama in control of independentsCNN 8/9(“CNN Poll: Obama holds 7-point lead over Romney” http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/09/cnn-poll-obama-holds-7-point-lead-over-romney/) MattG

Washington (CNN) - Mitt Romney's unfavorable rating is up, most Americans think the Republican presidential challenger favors the rich, and it appears the number of people who believe that the economy will not get better if Romney is elected has edged up slightly, according to a new national poll.¶ But a CNN/ORC International survey released Thursday also indicates that Romney's supporters are increasingly getting behind the presumptive GOP nominee.¶ – Follow the Ticker on Twitter: @PoliticalTicker¶ It all adds up to a seven point advantage for President Barack Obama over the former Massachusetts governor, with 52% of registered voters questioned in the survey saying that they'd vote to re-elect the president and 45% backing Romney.¶ "Among independent voters, the poll indicates President Obama has a 53%-42% lead," CNN Polling Director Keating

Holland said. "The president holds a nine point advantage among women voters and a smaller six point edge among men."

Win Now – Public Prediction

Public prediction is Obama wins – empirically correctCNN 8/9(“CNN Poll: Obama holds 7-point lead over Romney” http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/09/cnn-poll-obama-holds-7-point-lead-over-romney/) MattG

Who do Americans think will win the election?¶ Regardless of which candidate they support, 63% think Obama will win re-election, with one third saying Romney will win.¶ "That may not translate directly into votes, but it is worth noting that in August of previous election years, the public accurately predicted the winner in 1996, 2000 and 2008, and in 2004 George W. Bush and John Kerry were tied," adds Holland.¶ Control of Congress is also up for grabs in November. According to the survey, 45% say the country would be better off if Congress were controlled by Democrats, with 39% saying things would be better if the GOP ran Capitol Hill.¶ The CNN poll was conducted by ORC International Tuesday and Wednesday (August 7-8), with 1,010 adults nationwide, including 911 registered voters, questioned by telephone. The survey's overall sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points.

Obama is winning.The American Prospect 8/6/12 Should Mitt Romney Be Winning?¶ JAMELLE BOUIE AUGUST 6, 2012 Conventional wisdom notwithstanding, there's no real evidence to suggest that this is the former Massachusetts governor's race to lose. http://prospect.org/article/should-mitt-romney-be-winning

In this election, despite the close polls, it’s clear that the fundamentals are on the side of President Obama. Yes, the economy is bad, but it’s better than it was when he took office, and it’s moving in the right direction. Obama is an incumbent, and so public attitudes about him and his administration are just about set in stone; a majority of Americans like Obama, and his approval rating is just below 50 percent. This is the first time Democrats have controlled the White House in a decade, and so Americans aren’t yet tired of the party. Moreover, the public remembers the disastrous record of the previous administration—we’re living with it—and has given Obama the benefit of the doubt when it comes to repairing the damage.¶

Voters are disappointed with Obama, but still don’t want to vote for Romney.The American Prospect 8/6/12 Should Mitt Romney Be Winning?¶ JAMELLE BOUIE AUGUST 6, 2012 Conventional wisdom notwithstanding, there's no real evidence to suggest that this is the former Massachusetts governor's race to lose. http://prospect.org/article/should-mitt-romney-be-winning

Likewise, today’s high unemployment rate would be much more significant for Obama if it represented a worsening of conditions over 2008 and early 2009. But it doesn’t. When Obama entered office, growth was negative and unemployment was climbing to doubled-digit levels. Today, growth is ongoing—albeit slow—and unemployment is on a slight downward slope. Neither is good, but both are better, and that’s how many voters approach the world.¶ More on point are the numbers on economic dissatisfaction. Even still, they don’t fit with Cillizza’s conclusion; voters are disappointed with Obama, but that doesn’t imply a willingness to support Romney, as evidenced by the former Massachusetts governor’s poor performance in polls of favorability.¶ As for the final observation. It sounds savvy to give an early advantage to Romney because of his money advantage. However, at the levels of spending you’ll see in this election—at least a billion dollars on both sides—a money advantage isn’t worth much; the marginal gain of an extra $100 million is small, and won’t determine the election.¶ Having set the expectation of a Romney win, Cillizza attempts to explain the reality of an Obama lead. And to that end, Cillizza credits Team Obama with running a good campaign, and leaves open the chance that tables will turn if Team Romney can win a few news cycles.¶ Does the campaign matter? Absolutely. Like any contest, effort matters, even when you have an advantage on the field.¶ But the truth is that there isn’t a discrepancy to explain. Cillizza notwithstanding, Obama’s performance is in line with the fundamentals of the race. This was confirmed by Cillizza’s colleague at the Post, Dan Balz, who looks for evidence that the race is a toss-up, and doesn’t find it. “[A]t this point,” he writes, “the available evidence suggests that the advantage, however small, is with Obama. If this were truly a dead even race, Romney should be ahead in these polls almost as often as he is behind.”¶ I don’t want to discount the possibility that things can change—they can, and they might. But the evidence is clear. For now, the idea that Romney should be winning is simply wrong.

Links

Link – Coal Power

Plan is unpopular with the public – they see renewables as more viable Dorn, Earth Policy Institute Former Research Associate, 09 (Jonathan, April 1, “Closing the door on building new coal-fired power plants in America,” http://grist.org/article/2009-03-31-closing-the-door-on-building/, d/a 7-20-12, ads)Power companies and utilities are responding to the increasing regulatory uncertainty and mounting public opposition by backing away from coal and turning to clean, renewable sources of energy, such as wind, solar, and geothermal. Dynegy Inc., a wholesale power provider serving 13 states, announced in January 2009 that it will no longer continue its joint venture with LS Power Associates, L.P., to build up to seven new coal-fired power plants. On the day that Dynegy made the announcement, its stock price rose 19 percent. Several weeks later, Arizona’s largest electric utility, Arizona Public Service Co., submitted a Resource Plan to the Arizona Corporation Commission indicating that it will not build any new coal-fired power plants because the carbon risk is too high. In late February, Oklahoma Gas & Electric released a plan to turn to renewable energy and defer building any fossil-fired power plants until at least 2020. The notion that the United States needs additional coal-fired electricity generation to meet electrical demand is misguided. Simply using electricity more efficiently could reap large energy gains. A recent study by the Rocky Mountain Institute found that if the 40 least energy-efficient states raised their electric productivity — the dollars of gross domestic product generated per kilowatt hour of electricity consumed — to the average level of the 10 most efficient states, 62 percent of coal-fired power generation in the United States could be shut down — roughly 370 coal plants.

Plan is a flip flop – Obama is pushing for the end of coal powerHughes, NewsBusters.org Contributor, 12(Taylor, June 12, “Networks Ignore Obama’s War on Coal, But Papers Find Him Unpopular In Coal Country,” Lexis, d/a 7-20-12, ads)President Barack Obama may have gotten the U.S. out of the war in Iraq, but at home he’s declared war on an entire industry, one that the whole country depends on. But unlike most wars, this one hasn’t gotten much coverage on the broadcast news networks. During the past year ABC, CBS, and NBC have sporadically mentioned coal industry in their newscasts, but have outright ignored Obama s war on coal . Much like in the past, the majority of the reports focused either on the danger of coal mining or climate change. Out of 13 news reports mentioning the coal industry this past year, only one sentence on CBS Morning News even connected Obama s regulation to the industry. Why would coal mining communities have a problem with Obama? Because he’s using environmental regulation to attack a major source of jobs and electricity, just as

he said he would. In 2008, Obama said his plans would force electricity prices to necessarily skyrocket. He also made it clear, If somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can it’s just that it will bankrupt them.

Momentum goes neg – public opposition is shutting down coal plants across the countryMarket Watch, 12

(April 25, “Challenges Face U.S. Coal-Fired Power Plant Projects, an Industrial Info News Alert,” http://www.marketwatch.com/story/challenges-face-us-coal-fired-power-plant-projects-an-industrial-info-news-alert-2012-04-25, d/a 7-20-12, ads)Throughout the U.S., coal-fired power projects are being cancelled or put on hold indefinitely due to increasing emissions regulations and public opposition. However, with increasing power demand, electric utilities must build new baseload plants, such as coal-fired or nuclear plants, to meet future demand. Many of these new coal-fired projects come with their own sets of unique challenges. Examples of major coal-fired projects under construction include plants belonging to American Electric Power Company AEP -0.17% in Arkansas and Peabody Energy CorporationBTU -0.61% in Illinois.

Link – Natural Gas

Public opposes fracking – misinformation campaigns are increasing Everley, Energy In Depth Spokesperson, 12(Steve, July 13, “Misinformation Campaign Targets Hydraulic Fracturing,” Lexis, d/a 7-20-12, ads)Perhaps those of us who are interested in oil and gas development -- supportive or opposed -- should review our old high school literature exams. Its all in a name, really: Opponents have latched on to a harsh-sounding name -- fracking, a percussive, abbreviated form of hydraulic fracturing -- and used it to fuel public opposition to the exploration of American energy resources. A closer look at the record, though, suggests that impacts from fracking are rarely based on scientific findings or even on basic facts. Yet opponents have effectively driven their own un- reality into public discourse, saturating the media with so many falsehoods that reporters mischaracterize the process now

as a matter of AP- style. Incentivized by the prospect of a catchy headline, reporters ascribe fracking to elements of oil and gas development far removed from the actual process.

Facts are irrelevant – misleading portrayals ensure opposition Everley, Energy In Depth Spokesperson, 12(Steve, July 13, “Misinformation Campaign Targets Hydraulic Fracturing,” Lexis, d/a 7-20-12, ads)And recent polling backs them up: A survey by Louisiana State University found that only 34.5 percent of respondents who heard the word fracking thought the process was safe, and only 38.6 percent of those who heard the word said there should be more drilling. When the respondents were given a description of the process instead of the word fracking, however, the percentage who said the process is safe jumped by nearly ten points, and support for more drilling climbed by more than 12 points into a clear majority. Imagine that: a fact- based discussion leads to different results than one based on semantics and talking points.That gap in public support is also why opponents describe everything happening in oil and gas development -- from initial geological surveying to well pad preparation to pipeline construction -- as fracking. Never mind that the impacts they cite are not due to hydraulic fracturing. Since hydraulic fracturing is one part of the process, they claim, all of the impacts can be attributed to fracking. Its a politically convenient (and intellectually lazy) effort to scapegoat a process that opponents do not really understand, but that they know sounds destructive.

Massive opposition to assisting natural gas development – voters want increased taxesMurse, Intelligence Journal Contributor, 12(Tom, June 8, “looking At Party Lines By The Numbers; Obama Field Office Poll Tidbits,” Lexis, d/a 7-20-12, ads)By more than a 2-to-1 margin, Pennsylvania voters think Gov. Tom Corbett should set aside his Grover Norquist pledge and consider hiking taxes in addition to spending cuts rather than trying to balance the budget by cuts alone. That's according to this week's Franklin & Marshall College Poll. Seventy-three percent of voters say they approve of a tax on companies that extract and sell natural gas - something Corbett vehemently opposes.

Massive public opposition to fracking – New Jersey provesSustainableBusiness.com, 11(August 5, “Opposition to Natural Gas Fracking Heats Up,” http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/22751, d/a 7-20-12, ads)

Public opposition to hydraulic fracturing is growing in the US and abroad as more people learn about the risks of the natural gas drilling process, known as "fracking." New Jersey lawmakers have passed the nation's first statewide ban of the practice, which involves injecting water, sand and toxic chemicals deep underground to break up dense rock

formations and release natural gas. There was strong bipartisan support for the ban - the state Senate voted 32-1 and the Assembly 56-11. “New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s signature is all that is necessary now for this critical and timely statewide ban to go into effect,” says Jim Walsh, Eastern Region Director of Food & Water Watch. “If he approves it, New Jersey will be the first state to stand up against the devastating environmental and public health impacts of fracking, which have wreaked havoc on other states across the U.S.” Food & Water Watch notes at least 61 localities across the US have passed measures against fracking. “Any benefits of gas production simply do not justify the many potential dangers associated with fracking such as pollution of our lakes, streams and drinking water supplies and the release of airborne pollutants. We should not wait until our natural resources are threatened or destroyed to act. The time to ban fracking in New Jersey is now,” says Senator Bob Gordon (D-Bergen). New Jersey follows in the footsteps of France, which in June became the first country to pass a nationwide ban on fracking. Meanwhile, following Governor Andrew Cuomo’s decision to allow fracking across 85% of New York’s Marcellus Shale (he only protected NYC's watershed), a coalition of 47 consumer, faith, food, environmental and multi-issue advocacy organizations today called for a statewide ban on the practice. Under the NY Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) plan, thousands of new wells will be drilled across the state, using billions of gallons of fresh water, and industrializing rural communities across the state. Over 1,000 cases of water contamination have been reported near fracking sites to date. “Governor Cuomo got it wrong when he said fracking can be done safely,” says Claire Sandberg, Executive Director of Frack Action.

“Not only does this practice carry an unacceptable level of risk, but there is no rationale for drilling when we know that the promises of limitless energy and continuous economic growth are not borne out by the facts.”

Plan is a flip flop for Obama – he’s pushing stricter regulations Ngai, Huffington Post Contributor, 12 (Catherine, May 5, “Obama proposes public land fracking rules,” Lexis, d/a 7-20-12, ads)The Obama administration released draft rules Friday that would require companies to publicly disclose what chemicals they use in hydraulic fracturing operations on public lands. Currently, operators are not required to disclose the chemicals they use on federal land, where approximately 90 percent of the wells drilled use hydraulic fracturing, or " fracking," techniques . The proposed rules would require public disclosure of chemicals used after fracturing operations have been completed.

Link – Renewables

Renewables are massively unpopular –Budgetary concerns Von Schirach, International Economic Development Consultant, 12(Paolo, International Affairs Commentator and Writer, May 11, “Renewable Energy In The US – Subsidies Politically Unpopular – Natural Gas A Much Cheaper Alternative – USG Should Focus On R&D,” http://schirachreport.com/index.php/2012/05/11/grim-prospects-for-renewable-energy-in-the-us-subsidies-politically-unpopular-natural-gas-a-much-cheaper-alternative-usg-should-focus-on-rd/, d/a 7-20-12, ads)American enthusiasm for renewable energy, not too deep to beginwith, has gone away. In part this has to do with loss of interest in “climate change” and its dire consequences. Unfortunately, climate change has been

and is mostly an issue of political belief, rather than upholding science. And as the intensity of the political fervor somehow waned, in large part replaced by more immediate economic fears, so did political support for all the

renewable energy technologies that were supposed to create, relatively quickly it was thought, workable alternatives to carbon

based energy. An additional reason for waning support is that keeping renewable energy alive means also subsidizing it for a

few more years. And this is less and less politically palatable at a time of budgetary constraints at every level.

Paying more for electricity simply because this kind is clean looks like an unaffordable luxury, whatever the consequences of burning more (cheaper) fossil fuels may be.

Link – Energy

Energy policy makes Obama look bad on economic policy and costs him swing statesMason 8/10(Jeff, writer for Reuters, “Obama knocks Romney on renewable energy, tax shelter” http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/08/09/us-usa-campaign-obama-idINBRE8781L120120809) MattG

(Reuters) - President Barack Obama, trying to blunt rival Mitt Romney's attacks on his economic record, accused the Republican on Thursday of promoting policies that would hurt renewable energy and cost jobs in important political swing states.¶ On the second day of a tour through Colorado, a politically divided state that could be key in deciding the November 6 election, Obama portrayed federal tax credits for the wind industry as a critical economic necessity that Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, would nix.¶ "At a moment when homegrown energy - renewable energy - is creating new jobs in states like Colorado and Iowa, my opponent wants to end tax credits for wind energy producers," Obama told a crowd of some 3,500 people at the Colorado State Fairgrounds in Pueblo.¶ The industry supports 5,000 jobs across Colorado, and 37,000 jobs would be at risk nationwide without the credits, he said.¶ "It's time to stop spending billions in taxpayer subsidies on an oil industry that is already making a lot of profit," Obama said. "Let's keep investing in new energy sources that have never been more promising."¶ The White House has made helping the renewable energy sector a centerpiece of Obama's first term in office, but the effort has created some problems for the Democratic president.¶ The collapse of Solyndra, a solar panel company, not long after it received a $535 million loan through Obama's economic stimulus package

prompted several investigations and allegations that Obama was wasting taxpayer money.¶ The president

did not mention Solyndra in his speech. Romney's campaign, in a rebuttal statement, said the former private equity executive

supported wind power but not big subsidies.¶ "Unfortunately, under President Obama's approach of massive subsidies and handouts, the industry has lost 10,000 jobs while growth in wind power has slowed every single year of his term," said Romney spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg.¶ "Governor Romney will instead set the industry on a course for success and growth by promoting policies that remove regulatory barriers, support free enterprise and market-based competition, and reward technological innovation."¶ The state of the U.S. economy is the dominant issue for voters this year, and Romney has accused Obama of not doing enough to address unemployment, which remains stuck above 8 percent.¶ Obama counters that Romney's support for tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and his opposition to government support for the once-struggling auto industry prove that his economic vision would not help spur sustainable growth.

Link – Nuclear Power

Massive public opposition to nuclear power – viewed as too risky Ramana, Princeton University Program on Science and Global Security Physicist, 11(M.V. August 3, “Nuclear power and the public,” http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/nuclear-power-and-the-public, d/a 7-20-12, ads)Japan is by no means alone. Around the world, nuclear energy has declined in popularity. In the United States, for

example, a Washington Post-ABC poll conducted in April 2011 found that 64 percent of Americans opposed the construction of new reactors. Another poll, conducted by CBS News in March 2011, soon after the Fukushima crisis began, found that only 43 percent of those polled would approve of building new reactors, down from a 57 percent approval rating in 2008. Support for nuclear power was similar or lower in countries as varied as Chile (12 percent), Thailand (16.6 percent), Australia (34 percent), and the United Kingdom (35 percent). Even in France, which relies on nuclear power for about three-quarters of its electricity, one poll found that a majority (57 percent) were in favor of abandoning nuclear energy. These approval ratings are not strictly comparable because the polls were conducted by different agencies, asking different questions and providing different kinds of information prior to asking the questions. Nevertheless, there is little doubt among those who study public opinion on nuclear power that, by and large, it does not command much support. Nuclear power wasn't always so unpopular. For example, in the United States in 1977, when CBS News conducted its first poll on nuclear power, 69 percent of those surveyed expressed support for building more nuclear plants. Just two years later, after the Three Mile Island accident, public support had plummeted to 46 percent, and it dropped further to 34 percent after the 1986 Chernobyl accident. Since the 1980s, a majority of the US population has consistently opposed the construction of new nuclear reactors. Not coincidentally, there has been practically no nuclear construction in the United States since Three Mile

Island. The public perceives nuclear power as a very risky technology. In some cases, association with nuclear facilities is even subject to stigma. The nuclear industry has tried a variety of strategies to break down public resistance to nuclear power, but they haven't worked well. With growing public concern about global warming, the industry is experimenting with a new strategy -- playing up the climate mitigation potential of

nuclear power. While this has increased the benefit side of the equation for nuclear power, it hasn't decreased the risk perception associated with the technology, and nuclear power remains a reluctant choice at best. Renewable energy technologies offer the same benefits, making it unlikely that a large-scale "nuclear renaissance" will materialize.

Opposition is staunch and bipartisan – would flip multiple votes to Romney ABC News, 11(April 20, “Nuclear Power: Po Nuclear Power: Opposition Spikes After Japan Earthquake,” http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nuclear-power-opposition-grows-japan-earthquake-abc-news/story?id=13412262#.UAnUlWHZATY, d/a 7-20-12, ads)Americans by a 2-1 margin oppose building more nuclear power plants in the United States, an 11-point

spike in opposition from a few years ago. In the aftermath of Japan's nuclear plant crisis, 64 percent in this ABC News/Washington Post poll oppose new nuclear plant construction, while 33 percent support it. "Strong" opposition now far outstrips strong support, 47-20 percent. Opposition is up from 53 percent in a 2008 poll, and strong opposition is up even more, by 24 points. The results reflect the significant challenges facing the nuclear power industry, which had been reaching for greater acceptance on the basis of factors including high oil prices, environmental concerns prompted by the Gulf oil spill a year ago and efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Opposition is not merely a not-in-my-back-yard phenomenon. Thesurvey, conducted for ABC News by Langer Research Associates, finds that 67 percent of Americans oppose construction of a nuclear plant within 50 miles of their home -- not significantly different than the number who oppose it regardless of location. Resistance is bipartisan, with majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents alike opposed to new nuclear plant construction. Still, there are differences among groups; opposition is higher among Democrats (75 percent, vs. 59 percent of Republicans and independents combined), women (73 percent, vs. 53 percent of men) and liberals (74 percent, vs. 60 percent of moderates and conservatives). Support for building more nuclear plants has fluctuated in the past, showing sensitivity to nuclear crises. Starting at 61 percent in the mid-1970s, support fell sharply after the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 and bottomed out at just 19 percent in May 1986 after the Chernobyl crisis (which began 25 years ago next week).

Safety concerns are fueling opposition – all indicators go neg ABC News, 11(April 20, “Nuclear Power: Po Nuclear Power: Opposition Spikes After Japan Earthquake,” http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nuclear-power-opposition-grows-japan-earthquake-abc-news/story?id=13412262#.UAnUlWHZATY, d/a 7-20-12, ads)Most Americans do not flatly say that nuclear power is unsafe; indeed, 53 percent say it's safe overall, 11 points above

the immediate post-Chernobyl level. But just 23 percent see it as "very safe," which apparently is what's needed to sustain

public support. Perceptions of safety dramatically affect support for new nuclear plants. Among people who think nuclear power plants are very safe, 84 percent favor building new ones. But that falls to 33 percent of those who just think it's only somewhat safe. And those who think it's unsafe are nearly unanimous (93 percent) in their opposition. In another measure, 42 percent say the crisis in Japan has made them less confident in the safety of nuclear power overall; 51 percent say it's had no effect. This, too, ties in closely with support for construction: Among those who are less confident now, 84 percent oppose building new plants. Among those whose opinions haven't changed, opposition falls to 48 percent.

Link – Obstructionism

Congressional approval of the plan disrupts Obama’s political strategy – he’s winning because of obstructionism Williams, Fox News Political Analyst, 12(Juan, June 11, “Opinion: President Obama’s campaign takes a page from Truman’s playbook,” http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/juan-williams/231959-opinion-president-obamas-campaign-takes-a-page-from-trumans-playbook, d/a 7-20-12, ads)President Obama is already blaming lack of action from Boehner’s Republican majority in the House of

Representatives for the poor economy. And that campaign strategy is just getting started. The question is how much political power accusations of “Republican obstructionism” will have with voters in the final stretch of the campaign. What is certain is that as the House, Senate and presidential campaigns enter the summer months,

every argument from now on will center on what the politically paralyzed Congress has failed to do on economic issues. The trend started last week with President Clinton’s declaration that President Obama should just go ahead and give Republicans in Congress another extension of the Bush tax cuts — though not permanently — in order to avoid an end of the year economic cliff. And Washington Post columnist Ezra Klein speculated last week that one reason to vote for a Republican president was that it would eliminate all excuses and force the GOP House majority to take action on the economy. The assumption at the heart of what Klein and Clinton are saying is congressional Republicans are currently playing politics while the economy burns. Stephanie Cutter, Obama’s reelection

spokeswoman, said last week there are “a million jobs on the table in Congress right now that they could move on.” Mitt Romney and congressional Republicans are quick to point out that the GOP-controlled House has passed some 30 “jobs” bills that have not been acted upon in the Senate. But those “jobs” bills are loaded with political poison pills for Democrats. They are not serious proposals with potential to be the basis for a deal that could be worked out in conference. The best political defense of GOP inaction on Capitol Hill comes from Ed Gillespie, senior adviser to Romney’s campaign and former chairman of the Republican National Committee. He said Congress is right to do nothing because the Obama White House has created “a hostile environment for job creation in our economy and that’s why … the only thing that’s going to change it are changing the policies, and that means changing the person in the White House.” The Obama campaign team’s response to the Gillespie defense is straight out of Harry Truman’s political playbook. In the 1948 race, the Democrat ran against a do-nothing, obstructionist Republican Congress and stunned his opponent with an upset win. The Obama team is already showing signs of going beyond the Truman playbook.

In a charge unprecedented in modern American presidential politics, they are accusing Republicans in Congress, working in coordination with Romney’s campaign, of not only “rooting for failure,” but of sabotaging the economy for political gain. A recent poll by ABC/Washington Post asked Americans who they thought was more responsible for the country’s current economic problems — President Obama or President Bush. The Republican president still gets 49 percent of the blame, while the Democrat who succeeded him is held responsible by 34 percent. But a November 2011 poll by a bipartisan group found 94 percent of Americans think congressional inaction is hurting the economy. That fits with Congress’s dismal job approval ratings. That is the opening for President Obama to play Harry Truman. Why is unemployment still so high? A big part of the reason is that public sector jobs are continually being lost at the federal, state and local level. Government payrolls dropped by 13,000 in May. By contrast, the private sector added 82,000 jobs. Yet the GOP Congress refuses to invest in public sector spending to steady the fragile economy. Obama has already cut taxes and reduced the number of public sector jobs since he took office. This is not a matter of opinion. It is an economic fact . But the GOP never acknowledges it and refuses to work on his plan for creating new jobs. The facts are there to build an argument. But is it enough for President Obama to stage a revival of the 1948 campaign, when the Democrat incumbent won reelection by attacking a do-nothing Congress? This time the chant will be, “Give ‘em hell, Barack!”

Link – Oil

Opposition to oil is derailing projects now Ceres.org, Advocate for sustainability leadership, 12(Ceres leads a national coalition of investors, environmental organizations and other public interest groups working with companies to address sustainability challenges such as global climate change and water scarcity, May, “Investor risks from Oil Shale Development,” http://www.ceres.org/resources/reports/investor-risks-from-oil-shale-development, d/a 7-20-12, ads)CCS projects in places such as Ohio, new York, and Germany have faced strong public opposition that complicated or derailed the projects.27 Public opposition to development of oil shale—based on the actual or perceived environmental impacts on land, air, water, or the global climate28—could similarly derail, delay,

or increase the costs of such projects. This public opposition may at times take the form of litigation, such as the lawsuit by environmental groups challenging BLM’s oil shale leasing plans.29

Link – Oil/Coal

Plan is perceived as part of Romney’s economic plan – key to Romney win.Kelley 7-18 (Jeremy Kelley, Jeremy Kelley covers Dayton city government and its effect on city residents. Jeremy has lived in the Dayton area for more than 20 years; The Republic, The Republic: Columbus Indiana newspaper providing news, sports, weather and information for the cities and towns of Columbus, Hope, Taylorsville, ...; Romney, Obama turn focus to economy, Ohio, http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/ROMNEY-8491930/ROMNEY-8491930) MattG

BOWLING GREEN, Ohio — Aware that jobs and the economy are key issues in the election, both presidential campaigns Wednesday pointed to jobs studies that they said bolstered their candidates. And as always, Ohio was a focal point for their messages. Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney focused on the economy during a campaign stop in Bowling Green, touting himself as much friendlier to small business than President Barack Obama and continuing to push his five-point economic plan. Romney called attention to a report from the National Federation of Independent Business, which said that higher tax rates proposed for high-income individuals would result in “a smaller economy, fewer jobs, less investment and lower wages.” The study estimated that Obama’s proposed tax policies for high-income Americans would cost 710,000 jobs nationwide and 27,500 in Ohio “over the long run,” but did not specify what that time period was. Romney said the tax policies

would especially hurt small business. Meanwhile, Obama’s campaign released a report that said Ohio added 44,700 manufacturing jobs since the economic recovery began. Obama has frequently cited his support for the auto bailout as a key to the rebound of manufacturing in Ohio . The president’s campaign on Wednesday began a “Made in Ohio” manufacturing tour, where supporters will spotlight how Obama’s policies have helped Ohio business. Vice President Joe

Biden will visit Columbus Thursday as part of that tour. “There is a choice in this election between President Obama’s vision for growing our

economy from the middle out and Mitt Romney’s vision for an economy built from the top down,” said Obama campaign “truth team” member Wade Kapszukiewicz. He said Romney led Bain Capital in sending jobs overseas, helping wealthy shareholders at the expense of the middle class. Wednesday marked a repeating theme in this election cycle. Both the Obama campaign and Ohio Republican Gov. John Kasich, who introduced Romney in Bowling Green, pointed to an ongoing recovery in the Ohio economy. They disagreed, of course, about who deserves the credit. While Obama touted his support for manufacturing, Kasich pointed to Republican-led efforts to overcome a 2010 budget deficit and make Ohio a great job-creation state in spite of “wind in my face from Washington, D.C.” Kasich, who has been absent from recent Romney campaign events in Ohio, immediately brought up Obama’s comments last week in Virginia about government help for business. In the speech touting the value of government and business working together, Obama uttered the phrase, “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that.” Romney supporters have jumped on the quote, saying the president insulted small-business owners by giving government credit for their success. Romney was somewhat measured in his response, first agreeing that everyone who succeeds gets a helping hand somewhere along the way. But he also called it “the height of foolishness” for

Obama to say people didn’t build their businesses themselves. Romney also focused on his five-point plan to re-energize the economy. The points are, taking advantage of national energy resources like oil and coal ; catching up to China

and Europe with more trade deals; passing a balanced budget; improving schools so students develop job skills; and reducing taxes and regulation, including killing the Dodd-Frank banking regulation bill, which was pushed by the Democratic Congress and signed by Obama after the 2008 financial crisis. Despite rumors that Romney might announce his vice presidential pick this week, he said Wednesday that he has not made a decision. When he mentioned Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, a VP possibility, during another part of his speech, the crowd roared its approval. Questions from a very anti-Obama crowd gave Romney several opportunities to attack the president, but again, Romney was often measured in his responses. When one woman called Obama

a monster, Romney was quick to say he wouldn’t use that word. When it came to jobs and the economy, however, Romney didn’t hold back, criticizing the president for not meeting with his jobs council for six months. “His priority is not creating jobs for you, his priority is keeping his own job, and that’s why he’s going to lose it,” Romney said.

Link – Solar/Wind

Solar and wind are huge losses for Obama – Solyndra and AboundJaffe 8/8(Mark, writer for the Denver Post, “Changing energy policy rules keep Colorado guessing in election year”, http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_21213987/changing-energy-policy-rules-keep-colorado-guessing-election) MattG

The question now is what impact the 2012 presidential election will have on the rules.¶ President Barack Obama has been a supporter of renewable energy, which he argued was a job creator, while trying to balance opening public lands to oil and gas development with conservation concerns.¶ Obama's presumptive Republican challenger Mitt Romney is opposed to incentives for renewable energy — such as the wind- production tax credit — and for opening as much public land to drilling as possible.¶ This debate is not an idle one for Colorado, where 22,394 people worked in oil and gas production in 2010 and nearly 19,000 are employed in the renewable energy sector, based on state figures.¶

And yet from the Western Slope well fields to the Eastern Plains wind farms, Colorado, like the rest of the country, has had to cope for decades with a lack of a consistent energy policy.¶ "We've been trying for an energy policy since Richard Nixon," said Charles Ebinger, director of the Energy Security Initiative at the Brookings Institution, in Washington, D.C.¶ "But we have too many conflicting interests," Ebinger

said. "Everything is a fight."¶ Nowhere is the weight of the vagaries of federal energy policy now falling heavier than in the wind and solar industry, company executives say.¶ The specter of the loss of the wind-production tax credit — equal to $22 for every megawatt-hour a wind farm produces — will lead to a 90 percent drop in the U.S. wind market, according to IHS Emerging Energy, a consulting group.¶ "The reality is we are going from the best year we've had in the United States to the worst," said Steve Dayney, chief executive officer of REpower USA, the Denver-based American subsidiary of a German wind- turbine maker. "We are looking at the Grand Canyon of cliffs."¶ The wind industry employs about 5,000 people in Colorado. Danish Vestas Wind Systems A/S is the prime employer, with 1,700 workers in four factories. And Vestas, which is also a major customer for component factories in the state, will be forced to lay off 1,600 employees if the tax credit is not renewed, according to Ditlev Engel, the company's CEO.¶ Dayney said the industry is prepared to see a phase-out of the tax credit to give companies time to adjust.¶ The Romney campaign rejects that idea. "The question is whether wind is a good investment," said Oren Cass, a Romney adviser. "If it is a good investment, investors should be lining up,

and if it isn't, the taxpayers shouldn't foot the bill."¶ Romney "supports any technology that is affordable," Cass said.¶

The Obama administration is for extending the wind tax credit and other incentives to renewable energy companies — pointing out that the oil and gas industry gets $4 billion in tax breaks.¶ Still, the administration's loan guarantees to aid startup solar panel makers — Solyndra and Loveland-based Abound — have drawn fire and left taxpayers on the hook for of millions of dollars. The companies were done in by a 70 percent fall in the price of solar panels — due to low-cost Chinese imports .¶ The Solyndra bankruptcy cost taxpayers $503 million, and the Abound failure will cost up to $60 million.¶ In May, the U.S. Department of Commerce imposed an average 31 percent tariff on Chinese solar panels, ruling they were being sold below cost.¶ The Solyndra and Abound failures are also an Obama administration failure, Cass said. "Government leading investment, that has been a disaster," he said.

Link – Solar Power

Solar power is unpopular - not seen as cost competitive Lifsher, LA Times Staff Writer, 05(Marc, June 27, “Governor's Solar Plan Is Generating Opposition,” http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jun/27/business/fi-solar27, d/a 7-20-12, ads)Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's plan to spend billions of dollars to put electricity-producing solar panels on a million California rooftops could be running into stormy weather. For the second year running, the governor is sponsoring legislation that would put photovoltaic solar systems at the head of the line for the bulk of state alternative energy funding. For Schwarzenegger and his backers in the environmental community and the solar industry, a massive push to use abundant "free power" from the sun is an easy call. "Today, in California, where we are famous for the sun, we are going to put the positive benefits of that sun to good use," Schwarzenegger said in February, announcing his personal support for SB 1, the solar power bill. Schwarzenegger is thinking big: He wants to increase the state's total solar output from about 101 megawatts to 3,000 megawatts by 2018. That's enough nonpolluting power to run about 2.25 million homes and eliminate the need to build six large natural gas-fired generating plants. The governor isn't the only Hollywood star backing sun power. Actors Edward Norton and Ed Begley Jr., both well-known environmental activists, spoke at a recent media event in South Central Los Angeles in support of SB 1. But the bill, despite such high-profile backing and a bipartisan 30-5 vote in the state Senate, is facing potential difficulties in the Assembly. Opposition from business lobbies, utilities, unions and even consumer groups is setting the stage for what could be a close vote. The first hint of how the bill will fare in the Assembly is expected to come

today when it faces its first hearing in the Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee. Most of the complaints about the governor's solar program center on its estimated 10-year, $2-billion-to-$3-billion price tag. Much of that would be paid by power users in the form of surcharges imposed by the California Public Utilities Commission. Proponents estimate that the annual rate hike would be about $15 per residential customer. But business groups -- usually among Schwarzenegger's staunchest supporters -- complain that increases for large power users such as big-box retailers and industrial operations would be much higher -- a key point in a state that already has the highest electricity rates in the continental United States. The governor's solar plan is "so expensive that it's not cost-effective," said Joseph Lyons, an energy lobbyist for the California Manufacturers and Technology Assn. "Our members need rate relief, and this goes in the other direction," Lyons said. Southern California Edison Co., the state's second-largest investor-owned utility, is also skeptical, saying the governor's bill favors rooftop solar systems over what it says are more cost-effective centralized solar generating stations. Even fans of solar power -- who

view photovoltaic panels as a crucial part of the state's alternative energy mix -- question the wisdom of earmarking the bulk of funding for one source, to the detriment of less-glamorous energy efficiency and conservation programs. "Solar is not even close to competitive," said Severin Borenstein, director of the University of California Energy Institute in Berkeley. He noted that solar power's long-run, average production cost of 25 cents to 30 cents per kilowatt hour, not including government subsidies or tax credits, is much higher than the 5 cents to 9 cents for wind power and 6 cents to 7 cents for modern, natural-gas-fired generation plants. Even a leading energy consumer advocate, the Utility Reform Network, is critical of the governor's solar dream, contending it would drive up utility bills for some lower-income residential ratepayers. "It singles out one technology ... it's not giving us the biggest bang for the buck," said Michael Florio, an

attorney for the group. Meanwhile, enthusiasm among home builders is lukewarm at best. They fear that a requirement that solar be offered as an option on most new homes beginning in 2010 would be unpopular with buyers.

Link – SpendingNew spending crushes ObamaMedved 2012 (Michael Medved, Michael Medved hosts a nationally syndicated daily radio talk show heard by more than 4 million listeners. He is also the author of 12 nonfiction books, most recently The 5 Big Lies About American Business.; The Daily Beast, A smart, speedy take on the news from around the world, combined with the depth and investigative power of Newsweek Magazine; Numbers Reveal Truth About Obama Economic Success Claims—and GOP Condemnation, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/03/numbers-reveal-truth-about-obama-economic-success-claims-and-gop-condemnation.html) MattG

Raw data show Obama can’t honestly claim a good record as a job creator, but they also suggest that the wild spending

growth Romney and company decry has already begun to subside under the influence of the Republican House. The outcome of the upcoming electoral battle between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney will depend on public perceptions of the president’s economic stewardship, with particular emphasis on his performance on the all-important issue of jobs. At a May 24th campaign rally in Des Moines, Iowa the president declared that “federal spending since I took

office has risen at the slowest pace of any president in almost sixty years.” Has the White House compiled an impressive record of “putting Americans back to work” as the Democrats proudly boast, or did administration policies actually delay normal processes of recovery, taking a bad situation and “making it worse” as the Romney campaign insists? Leaving aside the dubious nature of the proposition that any president actually creates jobs (other than new hires for the White House), there’s an easy way to cut through the dizzying flurry of conflicting statistics that partisans on both sides passionately promote: checking the raw, readily available data from the Department of Labor on how many Americans are working today compared with the number who held jobs at the end of the Bush administration. By that standard, the nation unequivocally lost jobs in the first 39 months of the Obama presidency: with 142,287,000 working in May, 2012 (the most recent statistics available) compared with 143,338,000 at the end of December, 2008—the last employment numbers announced under President George W. Bush. Moreover, these job losses occurred at a time of rapid population growth, with more than 8,100,000 new American residents (through both birth and immigration) over the same period. This explains the more dramatic increase of those listed by the government as “unemployed” (from 11,108,000 to 12,720,000) and the even more notable rise among those “not in the labor force” (from 80,588,000 all the way to 87,958,000). With 342,000 Americans in April alone giving up on the search for a job, the overall percentage of work-age population either employed or looking for work dropped in April to 63.6 percent—the lowest level since December, 1981, in the darkest days of the disastrous Carter-Reagan recession. The slight uptick in labor force participation in May—0.2 percent—hardly removed the sting from disastrous numbers for the overall job market. In other words, statistics strongly support the common perception that jobs remain fiendishly difficult to find, despite the administration’s happy talk about a burgeoning recovery. The president may not qualify as the catastrophic job killer of GOP caricature, but he can hardly claim the gleaming mantle of a robust job creator. Statistics show the dramatic difference in fiscal performance between Congresses controlled by Republicans and those dominated by Democrats. Nor can he plausibly pass himself off as a champion of tight-fisted spending restraint while throwing down a challenge to skeptical Republicans in another crucial issue of the campaign. At a May 24 campaign rally in Des Moines, Iowa, the president declared that “federal spending since I took office has risen at the slowest pace of any president in almost 60 years.” The Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler fact-checked this claim and bestowed on the commander-in-chief the coveted “Three Pinocchios” designation. Again, a quick check of numbers at the White House’s own website gives the lie to Obama claims of cutting deficits and bringing the budget under control: the last budget signed by George W. Bush and passed by the Democratic Congress (for fiscal year 2008) amounted to $2.77 trillion with a deficit of $459 billion. The next year’s budget (signed by Obama and again authorized by the Pelosi-Reid Congress) included a great deal of “emergency spending” for the Obama Stimulus Package and reached $3.52 trillion with a deficit of 1.4 trillion. In other words, deficit spending more than tripled in Obama’s first year as president, and it’s remained at comparably crippling levels ever since. As Andrew Taylor fact-checks the White House claims for the Associated Press, the president “measures up” with a 9.7 percent spending increase in 2009 “much of which is attributable to Obama” and “a 7.8 percent increase in 2010, followed by slower spending growth over 2011-13. Much of the slower growth reflects the influence of Republicans retaking control of the House and their budget and debt deal last summer with Obama.” This summary raises one more crucial point indisputably indicated by universally accepted statistics: the dramatic difference in fiscal performance between Congresses controlled by Republicans and those dominated by Democrats. In fact, partisan majorities in the House of Representatives (where the Constitution stipulates that spending bills must originate) seem to matter more to the scope of deficit spending than whether a donkey or an elephant occupies the Oval Office. President Obama rightly chides his Republican presidential predecessors for disappointing records of fiscal management, but fails to note that for all 12 years of the Reagan and first Bush administrations, and for the last two difficult years of the second Bush administration, Democrats wielded big majorities in the House. It’s no accident that Bill Clinton enjoyed a vastly better record of economic management in the six years (1996-2001) he hammered out budgets with a Republican House (and averaged a surplus of more than 1 percent of GDP) than the two years he collaborated with his fellow Democrats (and racked up deficits of 2.5 percent). By the same token, George W. Bush averaged deficits at a typical level of 2.5 percent of GDP during the six years he worked with Denny Hastert and fellow Republicans, but when Nancy Pelosi took over the House during his last two years, the numbers exploded to a disastrous rate of 6.7 percent. In raw dollar terms, the last “all-Republican budget” of 2007 (devised entirely by a GOP president and approved by a Republican House) brought a modest deficit of $160.7 billion, while the first “all-Democratic budget” of the Obama era in 2010 (wholly attributable to President Obama, and

passed by the Pelosi House) amounted to deficit spending of $1.293 trillion—or eight times more than the bad old days of Bush. The bottom line of any honest, uninflected examination of readily available budgetary and employment numbers provides both bad news and good news for President Obama’s reelection efforts. The bad news: while he hardly qualifies as the devastating, prosperity-wrecking destroyer depicted in conservative propaganda, he certainly can’t claim a good record as a job creator with fewer people working today than when he took office, and vastly more having left the labor force altogether. But the good news for Obama from the raw numbers also suggests that the wild spending growth that Romney and company regularly (and rightly) decry has already begun to subside under the influence of the Republican House. Based on historical patterns, the deficit might well continue to decline in a second Obama term—as long as the GOP maintains control of Congress and exercises stern supervision of the administration’s credit card

Any federal spending is unpopular among the public – blame goes to ObamaCollender 2012 [Stan, June 26, 2012, “America Realizes It Likes Federal Spending After All”,http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2012062626/america-realizes-it-likes-federal-spending-after-all] MattG

There’s about to be a big change in the federal budget debate. In the end, the big winner will be the part of the budget that supposedly is so unpopular — federal spending — that a candidate for office this year cannot currently say he or she supports it without risking massive political condemnation and reprisals. It’s been relatively easy to be anti-spending up to now because the reductions being proposed have mostly been theoretical and weren’t really likely to happen.

Link – Taxes

Public thinks tax cuts are bad idea for the economyPace 8/10(Julie, writer for Associated Press, “It's policy and personal: Romney hammered on taxes” http://www.bradenton.com/2012/08/10/4153163/policy-and-personal-romney-hammered.html) MattG

The president is pushing Congress to extend tax cuts only for families making less than $250,000 a year (individuals making less than $200,000). He wants to let the cuts expire at the end of the year for families who make more, though they would still be taxed at the lower rate for their first $250,000 in income.¶ Romney's tax plan calls for a full extension of the tax cuts, first passed under George W. Bush, plus an additional 20 percent cut across the board. Romney and some economists argue that raising taxes on anyone right now could send the sluggish economy back into a recession.¶ But Obama, seeking to tap into middle class economic anxiety, has mocked Romney's proposal as "trickle-down tax-cut fairy dust." And this week he called the plan "Romney-hood" or "Robin Hood in reverse."¶ Surveys suggest

Obama's plans resonate with voters.¶ A Pew Research Center Poll released last month showed 44 percent of Americans believe raising taxes on the wealthiest would help the economy, not hurt it. Just 22 percent believe the opposite. The same poll showed that Americans believe 2-to-1 that Obama's tax proposals would make the tax

system more fair, not less. Democrats say they're also buoyed by private polling in both the presidential election and competitive congressional races that shows strong voter support for the president's tax policies. One Democratic strategist said the internal polls show at least 60 percent of Americans, including independents and some Republicans, backing the notion that the wealthy should pay more in taxes and that the nation's deficit must be reduced through a combination of tax increases and spending cuts.

Impacts

Iran Strikes Ext

GOP win causes Iran strikesDilek 9-20-11 (Emine, addicting info, “All Republican Candidates Favor War with Iran” http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/09/20/all-republican-candidates-favor-war-with-iran/)

All Republican Candidates Favor War with Iran Prepare yourself my fellow Americans. If you elect a Republican President in the 2012 elections, more than likely we will be at war with Iran before his or her Presidency is over. In a disturbing new article written by Trita Parsi, a columnist for Salon.com, he expertly connects the dots on which single foreign policy issue is uniting all GOP candidates: Iran. He writes that when it comes to Arab Spring and all other foreign policy issues, GOP candidates are all over the place. But when it is about Iran, they all agree; USA must be tougher. Parsi asserts that “Republicans will present a narrative that diplomacy was tried and failed, sanctions are tough but insufficient, and the only remaining option is some form of military action. As the memory of the Iraq invasion slowly fades away, Republican strategists calculate, the American public will return to rewarding toughness over wisdom at the ballot boxes.” Although I agree with Parsi’s claim that Iran is the only foreign policy matter that unites all GOP candidates, I do not believe the memory of Iraq invasion is slowly fading. Contrary to his assertion, I believe Americans are fed up with the unending wars.

Romney supports Netanyahu in preventing Iranian nuclear weapons capability. The New York Times, 2k12 (“Romney to Back Israel’s Right to Strike Iran, Aide Says”http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/29/romney-to-back-israels-right-to-strike-iran-aide-says/, July 30, 2012)Mr. Romney and Mr. Netanyahu met Sunday morning for a working meeting, and the topic turned quickly to Iran. “I have to say that I heard some of your remarks a few days ago — you said that the greatest danger facing the world is of the Ayatollah regime possessing nuclear weapons capability,” Mr. Netanyahu said. “Mitt, I couldn’t agree with you more, and I think it’s important to do everything in our power to prevent the Ayatollahs from possessing the capability. We have to be honest and say that all the sanctions and diplomacy so far have not set back the Iranian program by one iota.” He added: “And that’s why I believe that we need a strong and credible military threat, coupled with the sanctions, to have a chance to change that situation.”

Mr. Romney, after acknowledging “a friendship which spans the years” — dating back to their days as young consultants in Boston — also discussed Iran. “Your perspectives with regards to Iran and its effort to become a nuclear-capable nation are ones which I take with great seriousness and look forward to chatting with you about further actions that we can take to dissuade Iran from their nuclear folly,” Mr. Romney said. At the annual

Herzliya Conference in 2007, Mr. Romney took a strong stance against Iran, arguing that the country’s nuclear capabilities must, can, and will be stopped. But the message coming out of Mr. Romney’s campaign in advance of his speech

represents a ratcheting up of his previous position. In excerpts released by his campaign, Mr. Romney plans to stress the importance of protecting Israel’s right to defend itself against Iran. “But today, the regime in Iran is five years closer to developing nuclear weapons capability,” Mr. Romney’s prepared remarks say. “Preventing that outcome must be our highest national security priority.”

Romney encourages Israeli action against Iran. The New York Times, 2k12 (“Romney to Back Israel’s Right to Strike Iran, Aide Says”http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/29/romney-to-back-israels-right-to-strike-iran-aide-says/, July 30, 2012)

JERUSALEM — In a speech here Sunday evening, Mitt Romney plans to assert that he respects Israel’s right to take pre- emptive action to stop Iran from developing nuclear capabilities that could be used for a weapon. Dan Senor, a senior Romney foreign policy adviser who helped orchestrate Mr. Romney’s visit here, told reporters in a briefing before the speech that Mr. Romney would express — several times — that it was “unacceptable” for Iran to develop the capability to build nuclear weapons and his view that Israel does have the right to take action against Iran. “If Israel has to take action on its own, in order to stop Iran from developing that capability, the governor would respect that decision,” Mr. Senor said. Previewing Mr. Romney’s remarks, Mr. Senor explained: “It is not enough just to stop Iran from developing a nuclear program. The capability, even if that capability is short of weaponization, is a pathway to weaponization, and the capability gives Iran the power it needs to wreak havoc in the region and around the world.”

If elected, Romney would support a military strike by Israel on Iran. The New York Times 2k12 (“In Jerusalem, Romney Delivers Strong Defense of Israel” http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/29/speaking-in-jersusalem-romney-delivers-defense-of-israel/, July 29, 2012)JERUSALEM – Mitt Romney said Sunday that preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear capabilities would be his “highest national security priority” if elected president, in a speech that emphasized the shared values and interests he

sees between Israel and the United States but which offered few specifics about the policies he would implement to pursue them. “We have a solemn duty and a moral imperative to deny Iran’s leaders the means to follow through on their malevolent intentions,” Mr. Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, told an audience of about 300, including a large contingent of American donors who flew here for the speech. “We must not delude ourselves into thinking that containment is an option.” Unlike the Obama administration, which generally speaks about stopping Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, Mr.

Romney echoed the language of Israel’s leaders, who talk instead about blocking Tehran from even the capability to develop one. His top foreign policy aide, Dan Senor, also went beyond Mr. Obama’s statements that all options

should remain on the table and that Israel has the right to defend itself by suggesting Mr. Romney is ready to support a unilateral military strike by Israel

Iran Strikes – A2: No Retal

Iran would target American troops in Afghanistan, and Petroleum infrastructure in the Persian Gulf. The New York Times 2k12 (“U.S. Sees Iran Attacks as Likely if Israel Strikes”, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/29/world/middleeast/us-sees-iran-attacks-as-likely-if-israel-strikes.html?pagewanted=all , February 29, 2012)WASHINGTON — American officials who have assessed the likely Iranian responses to any attack by Israel on its nuclear program believe that Iran would retaliate by launching missiles on Israel and terrorist-style attacks on United States civilian and military personnel overseas. While a missile retaliation against Israel

would be virtually certain, according to these assessments, Iran would also be likely to try to calibrate its response against American targets so as not to give the United States a rationale for taking military action that could permanently cripple Tehran’s nuclear program. “The Iranians have been pretty good masters of escalation control,” said Gen. James E. Cartwright, now retired, who as the top officer at Strategic Command and as vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff participated in war games involving both deterrence and retaliation on potential adversaries like Iran. The Iranian targets, General Cartwright and other

American analysts believe, would include petroleum infrastructure in the Persian Gulf, and American troops in Afghanistan, where Iran has been accused of shipping explosives to local insurgent forces.

The Iranian defense minister is committed to retaliation to an Israeli strike. Buck 2k12 (Tobias, Chief Executive Officer, President, Chairman and a Director of Paragon Medical, Inc “Israel gets ready for Iran retaliation”(http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/6840c9ac-6133-11e1-8a8e-00144feabdc0.html , Feb 27, 2012)As they ponder the option of a military strike against Iran, Israeli leaders have started to worry about targets closer to home. Prompted by concern over a possible Iranian counter-attack, they are debating how well their own country is prepared for war. Iranian leaders have left Israel in no doubt that a strike on its nuclear facilities would invite harsh retaliation. The latest threat came on Saturday, when Gen Ahmad Vahidi, the Iranian defence minister, warned that “a military attack by the Zionist regime will undoubtedly lead to the collapse of this regime”. On

previous occasions, Gen Vahidi has warned of a “crushing response” to any Israeli strike. Though some in Israel dismiss

such threats as bluster, most senior Israeli officials fear that the country’s home front would indeed be severely tested in a conflict with Iran.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei guaranteed retaliation from an Israeli attack. LA Times, 2k12 ("Iran's supreme leader warns of retaliation if Israel or U.S. strikes” http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/03/iran-nowruz-strike-back-israel.html, March 20, 2012)REPORTING FROM TEHRAN -- Iran will strike back with equal force if the United States or Israel attacks it over its nuclear program, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned in an address from the eastern city of Mashhad in observance of Nowruz,

the Persian new year. "The holy Koran states that if an enemy attacks you first, the enemy will certainly be defeated," he said. “This is divine law. We are not thinking of attacks and aggression, but we are attached to the existence and identity of the Islamic republic." Khamenei urged the U.S. to have a respectful attitude toward Iran. His words followed a video address from President Obama to Iranians, the fourth annual address he has created for Nowruz.

Iran Strikes – A2: No Escalation

Iranian retaliation would slow economic growth, and lead to war. Washington Times, 2k12 (‘Iran will retaliate if attacked, but how?”http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/2/iran-will-retaliate-if-attacked-but-how/?page=all, April 2, 2012)Middle East analysts are certain that Iran would retaliate if Israel strikes its nuclear facilities , though the

size, nature and targets of the counterattack remain mysteries. Iran has several options, such as an all-out military offensive that likely would engulf the entire region, a more limited assault using proxies in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, or a terrorism campaign against Israeli embassies and Jewish sites around the world. What’s more, the counterstrike options entail global consequences, including a slowing in economic growth because of higher oil and gasoline prices, fuel shortages from shipping disruptions in the Persian Gulf and the potential for the U.S. to become embroiled in another war.

Iranian retaliation would draw in US forces. Washington Times, 2k12 (‘Iran will retaliate if attacked, but how?”http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/2/iran-will-retaliate-if-attacked-but-how/?page=all, April 2, 2012)Iran has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, through which about one-fifth of the world’s petroleum is transported. Economic forecasters predict that closing the strait could push the price of oil to more than $200 a barrel. The Iranian regime also could sponsor attacks against U.S. forces in Afghanistan or strike U.S. assets in the Persian Gulf, such as the Navy’s 5th Fleet based in Bahrain. Alternatively, Tehran could

attack U.S. allies in the Persian Gulf, many of which have been agitating for a strike against Iran. Israel and Western nations suspect Iran of trying to build a nuclear weapon, which Tehran has denied. The Jewish state considers a nuclear-armed Iran an existential threat because of the regime’s call for Israel’s destruction. The U.S. has

urged Israel to allow international sanctions enough time to persuade Tehran’s leaders to change their behavior, but Israeli officials have said that the military should strike before Iran can secure its nuclear facilities from attack,

presumably by this summer. Suzanne Maloney, an Iran specialist at the Brookings Institution, said Tehran would “prefer to avoid a full-

fledged confrontation with Washington,” but that the density of U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf would make it difficult for Tehran to do anything in the Gulf without drawing a U.S. response.

Israel strike would draw in Iranian allies. Middle East Voices 2k12 (Arab Spring News and Conversation - Powered by VOA "Scenarios for Iran Retaliation Vary if Israel Strikes Nuclear Targets” http://middleeastvoices.voanews.com/2012/04/scenarios-for-iran-retaliation-vary-if-israel-strikes-nuclear-targets-97100/, APRIL 13, 2012)With Western patience running thin, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warns that time for diplomacy is not “infinite” and

that “all options remain on the table.” Israel says it will not stand by as fears grow that Iran is developing a nuclear weapons capability – an allegation Iran denies. China said recently that an Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities would set in motion a military backlash with far-ranging consequences. Analysts interviewed by VOA say an attack on Iran is likely to provoke a retaliatory missile barrage on Israel by Iran and its allies. They say Iran-sponsored terror could erupt against Jewish targets worldwide, U.S. interests, and American allies such as Saudi Arabia, which could be perceived by Iran as supportive of an Israeli strike

Strike would draw in Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine. Middle East Voices 2k12 (Arab Spring News and Conversation - Powered by VOA "Scenarios for Iran Retaliation Vary if Israel Strikes Nuclear Targets” http://middleeastvoices.voanews.com/2012/04/scenarios-for-iran-retaliation-vary-if-israel-strikes-nuclear-targets-97100/, APRIL 13, 2012)Analysts say it is far more likely, though, that Iran may ask its allies in Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories to inflict revenge on Israel. “Iran is more likely to hit back using proxy forces, sleeper cells and sympathizers who are closer,” Fitzpatrick said. Rubin says Syria is “the real gravitational center of the missile and rocket threat against Israel because of the proximity of our territories.” He said Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, an ally of Iran, may view an attack on Israel as “an escape from his battle against anti-government rebels and a way to win over Islamist elements within the country’s [Sunni Muslim] opposition.”

Iranian missiles can reach 35 US military bases in the Middle East. Glaser, 2k12 (John, Editorial assistant at The American Conservative., Senior Vice President of the Theology and Ethics Department, AntiWar.com“Iran Warns of Retaliation After Any US-Israeli Strike- A first strike would set off a dangerous tit-for-tat escalation of uncontrolled war over the entire Middle East”http://news.antiwar.com/2012/07/04/iran-warns-of-retaliation-after-any-us-israeli-strike/ , July 04, 2012)Iran has warned Washington that it could retaliate after any unilateral attack it sustains and destroy US military bases across the Middle East and target Israel within minutes following an uptick in threatening postures from the US

and Israel. “These bases are all in range of our missiles, and the occupied lands (Israel) are also good targets for us,” said Amir Ali Haji Zadeh, commander of the Revolutionary Guards aerospace division. Haji Zadeh said 35 US bases were within reach of Iran’s ballistic missiles, some of which can reach targets 1,300 miles away. ”We have thought of measures to set up bases and deploy missiles to destroy all these bases in the early minutes after an attack,” he added. Iran’s bluster, such as it is, is in response to a recent increase in rhetoric and military postures from the US and Israel, following a partial breakdown of nuclear talks last month.

China Trade War

Romney will label China a currency manipulator-that causes a trade warShobert 2012 (Benjamin A., Managing Director of Rubicon Strategy Group, also author of upcoming book Blame China, “Romney lays ground for China trade war,” http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/NB22Cb01.html) MattG

Part of what Romney wrote aligns with his early September 2011 economic plan, where he announced that his administration would formally label China a "currency manipulator". On this point, his Wall Street Journal op-ed doubled down; there, he wrote, " ... on day one of my presidency I will designate it a currency manipulator and take appropriate counteraction." As a head nod to the influential parts of the GOP who represent the interests of big-business, he subsequently added, "A trade war with China is the last thing I want, but I cannot tolerate our current trade surrender." For someone who claims not to want a trade war with China, Romney is making a pretty compelling case for how his administration would make one all but certain. It is a temptation to read Romney's op-ed as the sort of positioning during the primaries that Americans have come to expect during their elections. Even in the US-China policy-community, many draw comfort from past election cycles where blustery comments from potential presidential candidates were dramatically toned down - if they did not go away altogether -

once their transition into elected office took place. The present administration went through a similar smoothing out of the rough edges about its stance towards China once it emerged victoriously from both the primary and the general election. Admittedly, this is the safest way to interpret Romney's most recent volley towards the Chinese: as the primary shifts back to his "home state", China presents an issue that certainly has bi-partisan traction in a manufacturing-sensitive midwestern economy like Michigan, where China's economy is perceived to have benefited at the expense of middle-class American blue-collar workers. It is a note the Romney campaign believes can be safely struck not only in the midst of a heated GOP primary, but in the general election as well. Tradition says nothing should be made of Romney's saber rattling towards China, but is tradition wrong? Choosing to interpret Romney's attitude towards China as something not to be alarmed about overlooks a major difference between past election cycles and today's: now the American psyche is deeply frustrated over the difficulties the country's economy must face. In the past, the relative confidence felt about America's economic future allowed many to overlook the potential threat China might present. Today, that confidence is gone. The average American worker remains traumatized and deeply insecure since the 2008 financial crisis. Many also feel brutalized over the ugly state of American politics, precisely when the latter should be shedding light on how best to deal with the former. An economic crisis has quickly devolved into a political one, leaving many in middle America eager for someone to blame. Tied to these economic insecurities are deep misgivings about America's place in the world, which go back to the US response to 9/11 and the subsequent invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Americans are torn between the GOP world view that argues for America to remain a hegemonic force for good around the world, versus a libertarian-progressive framework that believes that America can be powerful and influential, but must do so within a the realities of both a multi-polar world and the economic limitations imposed on Washington based on years of fiscal imprudence. When Romney disparagingly writes of President Barack Obama that he "came into office as a near supplicant to Beijing", he touches on this insecurity and appeals to the American desire to appear muscular and able to "go it alone" where others counsel caution and compromise. The popular temper American politicians tap into over China is not necessarily new, although a good argument could be made that negative portrayals of China during American elections has been growing more common in this, and recent election cycles. Conventional thinking has it that the real decision-makers about American policy towards China are those who never run for elected office, the safe wise men (SIC) who, behind closed doors, know how to calm everyone down and focus on how best to maintain the status-quo. That is precisely why Romney's ongoing diatribe against China is so distressing: he is supposed to be one of those calm, level-headed people that could be trusted not to demagogue China in order to score cheap political points. For US-China policy-makers, Romney's elevation of China as an issue for the general election should not be overlooked, downplayed, or rationalized. To have the supposedly most business-savvy candidate for president the country has seen in years run within the most pro-business, historically

free trade American political party with a major plank of his economic plan being to call out China as a currency manipulator is noteworthy. But it would be a mistake only to point out Romney's fixation on how China has negatively hurt the American economy: after all, of the 17 paragraphs that constitute Romney's editorial, only two of them have to do with matters related to the two countries' economies. The other 15 all focus on Romney's assertion that China is not a trustworthy partner for America, and that the Beijing model represents, as he writes, "a widespread and disquieting norm" that must be challenged by a change in American policy towards China. If there is a common thread that ties together Romney's heavy-handed editorial about China it is this: the American and Chinese attitudes about freedom and fairness are not shared values, and because they are not shared values nor is it likely they will become shared anytime soon, the policy of engagement towards China that stressed overlooking these differences has served its purpose and must be discarded. Yes, as Romney sees it, the cause for doing so will initially be realizations forced upon Americans as a result of the 2008 financial crisis; but, if Romney is correct, 2008 simply brought into focus something America had been willing to overlook when times were good: specifically, that the United States was doing business with a repressive government that had no aspirations of ever changing. It wanted commerce, not democracy. Throughout his piece, Romney repeatedly points towards the "suppression of political and personal freedom", takes issue with the Obama administration having "demurred from raising issues of human rights" with the Chinese government, to what is perhaps both his most direct and confusing statement: towards the end of his op-ed, Romney writes of China, "A nation that represses its own people cannot ultimately be a trusted partner in an international system based on economic and political freedom." As a portrayal of the tension that has existed in China relative to its reform process for the last 30 years, this is an obvious frustration. Where Romney fails is in how to respond to China's shortcomings. He makes little attempt to answer the question; rather, he simply makes note of the fact that "While it is obvious that any lasting democratic reform in China cannot be imposed from the outside, it is equally obvious that the Chinese people currently do not yet enjoy the requisite civil and political rights to turn internal dissent into effective reform." Romney seems to believe China would reform more quickly if only America spent more on its military, took a more confrontational position up in the Asia Pacific region towards China, and called Beijing out on its unfair trade practices. Long-time China policy hands might chuckle at this sort of brutishness, but to do so is a mistake given these policy proposals are all coming from the most sane, pro-business candidate still viable in the GOP primary. If one of the last bulwarks that has separated mob rule towards Beijing has been the stoic Republican Party's view of China, then Romney's fixation on the country as a threat to the American economy and ideals the country holds dear is worth noting. Of all of Romney's statements, the most dangerous may be the false choice he offers the American people: that China's rise is somehow incompatible with America's ongoing safety and economic stability. Romney begins his op-ed by asking the question, "Should the 21st century be an American century?", as if the only two choices were between an American and Chinese century. This is dangerous and highly reductionist thinking, and its impact ranges from how Romney would have American economic policy towards China change, to more fundamental questions of whether the United States should further increase military spending in order to deal with China as a potential regional threat. As he frames it, this also leaves little oxygen in the room for other countries - both developed and emerging - who feel they have something of note to offer the 21st century. Romney's words need to be properly called what they are: irresponsible fear mongering. The path towards war has been paved by comments just like these in times past, in moments of historical insecurity just like those his desired-presidency would encounter. Romney wants the reader to believe that, as he writes, "The sum total of my approach will ensure that this is an American, not a Chinese century". What is the key to making sure this happens? According to Romney, it is making sure that China is not a "prosperous tyranny" that can "pose problems for us, for its neighbors, and for the entire world". Absent throughout Romney's op-ed is any reference to what China is doing better than America, where China's single-minded focus on economic growth forces politics to take a second chair to questions of how best to align national industrial policy with limited resources, or what role government should play in helping American entrepreneurs compete with China's growing bio-tech and green technology industries. Rather, Romney wants to cast China in the role of villain, a role the country easily fits within the American imagination, and one American politics seems bent on making a reality.

These trade conflicts culminate in global nuclear war and nuclear terrorismPanzner, Instructor New York Institute of Finance, ‘8 (Michael J.-, Financial Armageddon: Protecting Your Future from Four Impending Catastrophes, P. 136-138)

Continuing calls for curbs on the flow of finance and trade will inspire the United States and other nations to spew forth

protectionist legislation like the notorious Smoot-Hawley bill. Introduced at the start of the Great Depression, it triggered a series of tit-for-tat economic responses, which many commentators believe helped turn a serious economic downturn into a prolonged and devastating global disaster. But if history is any guide, those lessons will have been long forgotten during the next collapse. Eventually, fed by a

mood of desperation and growing public anger, restrictions on trade, finance, investment, and immigration will almost

certainly intensify. Authorities and ordinary citizens will likely scrutinize the cross-border movement of Americans and outsiders alike, and lawmakers may even call for a general crackdown on nonessential travel. Meanwhile, many nations will make transporting or sending funds to

other countries exceedingly difficult. As desperate officials try to limit the fallout from decades of ill-conceived, corrupt, and

reckless policies, they will introduce controls on foreign exchange. Foreign individuals and companies seeking to acquire certain American infrastructure assets, or trying to buy property and other assets on the cheap thanks to a rapidly depreciating dollar, will be stymied by limits on investment by non-citizens. Those efforts will cause spasms to ripple across economies and markets, disrupting global payment, settlement, and clearing mechanisms. All of this will, of course, continue to undermine business confidence and consumer spending. In a world of lockouts and lockdowns, any link that transmits systemic financial pressures across markets through arbitrage or portfolio-based risk management, or that allows diseases to be easily spread from one country to the next by

tourists and wildlife, or that otherwise facilitates unwelcome exchanges of any kind will be viewed with suspicion and dealt with accordingly. The rise in isolationism and protectionism will bring about ever more heated arguments and dangerous confrontations over shared sources of oil, gas, and other key commodities as well as factors of production that must, out of necessity, be acquired from less-than-friendly nations. Whether involving raw materials used in strategic industries or basic necessities such as food, water, and energy, efforts to

secure adequate supplies will take increasing precedence in a world where demand seems constantly out of kilter with supply. Disputes over the misuse, overuse, and pollution of the environment and natural resources will become more commonplace. Around the world, such tensions will give rise to full-scale military encounters, often with minimal provocation. In some instances, economic conditions will serve as a convenient pretext for conflicts that stem from cultural and religious differences. Alternatively, nations may look to divert attention away from domestic problems by channeling frustration and populist sentiment toward other countries and cultures. Enabled by cheap technology and the waning threat of American retribution, terrorist groups will likely boost the frequency and scale of their horrifying attacks,

bringing the threat of random violence to a whole new level. Turbulent conditions will encourage aggressive saber rattling and interdictions by rogue nations running amok. Age-old clashes will also take on a new, more

heated sense of urgency. China will likely assume an increasingly belligerent posture toward Taiwan, while Iran may embark on overt colonization of its neighbors in the Mideast. Israel, for its part, may look to draw a dwindling list of allies from around the world into a growing number of conflicts. Some observers, like John Mearsheimer, a political scientist at the University of Chicago, have even speculated that an “intense confrontation” between the United States and China is “inevitable” at some point. More than a few disputes will turn out to be almost wholly ideological. Growing cultural and religious

differences will be transformed from wars of words to battles soaked in blood. Long-simmering resentments could also degenerate quickly, spurring the basest of human instincts and triggering genocidal acts. Terrorists employing biological or nuclear weapons will vie with conventional forces using jets,

cruise missiles, and bunker-busting bombs to cause widespread destruction. Many will interpret stepped-up conflicts

between Muslims and Western societies as the beginnings of a new world war.

Economy

Republican administration would halt financial regulation-causes global economic crisisKonczal 2012 (Michael, fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, “Financial Regulation,” Washington Monthly, January/February, http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/january_february_2012/features/financial_regulation034477.php) MattG

Immediately after the GOP took the House last year, Alabama Republican and chairman of the House banking committee Spencer Bachus made the mistake of saying what he actually believes about financial regulation. “In Washington, the view is that the banks are to be regulated,” he told the Birmingham News, “and my view is that Washington and the regulators are there to serve the banks.” This view is consistent with thirty years of Republican-backed financial deregulation as well as with the conservative explanation of what went wrong in the financial crisis. And if the Republicans manage to take both elected branches of the government next year, this is likely to be the spirit in which they’ll approach the post-Dodd-Frank era. On July 21, 2010,

President Obama signed the Dodd- Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act into law. A large reworking of the financial economy, it was opposed by Republicans from the beginning. House Republicans voted in committee against crucial planks like derivatives reform and throughout the entire process added loopholes and exemptions, including one that removed auto lending from the consumer financial protection umbrella. With few exemptions, notably on the matter of auditing the Federal Reserve, there was no bipartisan support for new regulations. Going forward, the Republicans’ intentions with respect to Dodd-Frank are already clear: in Congress, they have introduced repeal legislation, and every major Republican presidential candidate has pledged to repeal Dodd- Frank in its entirety. It’s fair to take them at their word. Even if a Republican majority set out to kill the bill in one fell swoop but was blocked by a Democratic filibuster, it wouldn’t really matter. That’s because there are a series of simple steps Republicans can take to pull apart Dodd- Frank piece by piece. The collective effect would be similar to that of an overall repeal and would leave the global financial system in serious peril. Why does the GOP view Dodd-Frank as an unnecessary overreach? In their minds, there’s no problem to solve where the financial system is concerned. While the vast majority of economists and financial experts view the 2008 collapse of the banking sector, and the ensuing Great Recession, as the result of decades of unrestrained, unregulated experimentation by Wall Street firms, the right rejects this view. Conservatives see the crash as a cautionary tale about government intervention in the housing markets, in which the subprime mortgage boom was egged on by community organizers and government-sponsored enterprises like Fannie Mae. That George W. Bush was one of the biggest backers of “the ownership society” and that the much-maligned community activists were actually shouting early warnings about problems in the housing market are inconvenient facts to be ignored. As if suffering from a form of ideological color blindness, wherever there are large market failures in the current infrastructure of our financial system, conservatives can’t see the problems themselves, only the presence of the government. It has long been the case that, in the conservative imagination, the best market is one with the least amount of rules. In the 1990s, Senator Phil Gramm infamously told SEC Chair Arthur Levitt that “unless the waters are crimson with the blood of investors, I don’t want you embarking on any regulatory flights of fancy.” This guiding principle led many at Alan Greenspan’s Federal Reserve to ignore signs of fraud in subprime lending early on, despite the warnings. At the same time, there was a very conscious effort to tie state regulators in knots whenever possible, mostly by overruling, or “preempting,” state laws on behalf of large national banks. And in the years since the crisis, even without controlling the White House and the Senate, Republicans have managed to block key presidential appointments, tighten budgets, and harass regulators at every turn. All of these strategies— softening federal oversight, hampering regulatory institutions, and interfering in any state-level attempts to provide tough oversight of the financial industry—would surely be reprised by a Republican White House and Congress in each of the major battlegrounds on financial reform.

Rigorous studies proves a strong correlation between decline and conflictRoyal ‘10 (director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense (Jedediah, Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal, and Political Perspectives, pg 213-215)

Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict . Political science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defence behaviour of interdependent stales. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level. Pollins

(20081 advances Modclski and Thompson's (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that r hythms in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre-eminent power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As such, exogenous shocks such as economic crises could usher in a redistribution of relative power (see also Gilpin. 19SJ) th at leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of miscalc ulation (Fcaron. 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a declining power (Werner. 1999). Separately. Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level. Copeland's (1996. 2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that 'future expectation of trade' is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions and security behaviour of states. He argues that interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits

from trade so long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations. However, if the expectations of future t rade decline, particularly for difficult to replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict increases , as states will be inclined to use force to gain access to those resources . Crises could potentially be the trigger for

decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states.4 Third, others have considered the link between economic decline and external armed conflict at a national level. Mom berg and Hess (2002)

find a strong correlation between internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of economic downturn. They write. The linkage, between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict lends to spawn internal conflict , which in turn returns the favour. Moreover, the presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and external conflicts self-reinforce each other (Hlomhen? & Hess. 2(102. p. X9> Economic decline has also been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blombcrg. Hess. & Wee ra pan a, 2004). which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. "Diversionary theory" suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increased incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a 'rally around the flag' effect. Wang (1996), DcRoucn (1995), and Blombcrg. Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of force arc at least indirecti) correlated. Gelpi (1997). Miller (1999). and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that Ihe tendency towards diversionary tactics arc greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of weak economic performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically linked lo an increase in the use of force. In summary, rcccni

economic scholarship positively correlates economic integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science scholarship links economic decline with external conflict al systemic, dyadic and national levels.' This implied connection between integration, crises and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and deserves more attention.

Russia RelationsRomney will reverse the relations resetWashington Times 2012(Guy Taylor, 7/1/12, “Romney would support foreign friends, confront adversaries,” http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/1/romney-has-no-intention-of-making-frenemies/?page=all#pagebreak) MattG

Call it the “friend-enemy” distinction.¶ Mitt Romney has assembled a foreign-policy platform rooted in the belief that adversaries such as Russia must be confronted for backsliding on democracy and that Israel must be supported in the face of common threats such as a nuclear-armed Iran.¶ Advisers to the former Massachusetts governor contrast that approach and a belief in “American exceptionalism” with those of President Obama, whose foreign policy they characterize as putting its energy into trying to bargain with enemies while taking friends for granted.¶ “Gov. Romney believes that in foreign policy, you start with your friends,” said Eliot Cohen, who wrote the foreword to the Romney campaign’s 43-page foreign policy white paper last fall.¶ “Obama believes that no, you start with your enemies, you see where you can cut deals and negotiate,” said Mr. Cohen, who heads the Strategic Studies Program at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies. “Under the Obama approach, your friends are kind of an afterthought, and in some cases, if its useful to rough up your friends a little bit, you do that, too.”¶ As an example of the latter, Mr. Cohen cited Mr. Obama’s awkward relations with Israel. He also said the administration’s foundering “reset” with Russia, its initial overtures to Iran and its 2010 appointment of an ambassador to Syria all showed how fruitless it is to try to cut deals with adversaries.¶ If Mr. Romney wins the presidential election in November, his foreign policy will be anchored to what one adviser describes as a “Reaganesque” philosophy that a robust U.S. military conveys as much meaning to those watching from abroad as to the men and women of the armed services at home.¶ “My experience with Mitt Romney is that he believes strongly in peace through strength,” said Richard S. Williamson, a senior foreign policy adviser to the Romney campaign who held key positions under Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush.¶ “I had the privilege of working on Reagan’s senior White House staff, and so I had a pretty good sense of the man,” said Mr. Williamson. “I find Romney very similar in his approach. I would say Romney’s view is very Reaganesque.”¶ The former Massachusetts governor “believes strongly in American exceptionalism, that America is a great country and the world is a better place if America leads,” Mr. Williamson said. “This is a huge contrast with Barack Obama. I don’t think anyone would argue that Mr. Obama believes in American exceptionalism. He believes that you should ‘lead from behind,’ whatever the heck that means.”¶ But while Mr. Romney has compiled a star-studded roster of nearly two dozen foreign policy advisers, the vast majority are known more for their alignment with post-9/11 foreign policy of George W. Bush than the Cold War-era Reagan administration. Mr. Williamson is one of only a few whose resumes reach back to that time.¶ Others, including former counterterrorism chief Cofer Black, former CIA Director Michael V. Hayden, for Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and former U.N. Ambassador John R. Bolton, are more known for service under George W. Bush — leaving open the possibility that Mr. Romney is as inclined to embrace a Bush-style “with us or against us” foreign policy as anything else.¶ Such assertions offer a broad-stroke outline of how the Romney camp thinks U.S. foreign policy should be adjusted but sheds little light on what, precisely, Mr. Romney would do differently.¶ More neutral analysts, not tied to the Romney campaign, say this is his weak point.¶ “Rather than taking clear positions, there’s a lot of political positioning critical of Obama, but not really offering any clarity about what he would do differently on key foreign policy issues like Iran, Afghanistan and Israel,” said Brian Katulis, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.¶ “My analysis on this is that the Romney camp, and Republicans more generally, are struggling to deal with sharp divisions within their own party on foreign policy,” Mr. Katulis said. “One key camp is small-government proponents like the tea party and tax-cut advocates calling for a much smaller military, and the other is the defense hawks and neocons who are calling for even an expansion in defense spending.”¶ As a result, Mr. Romney has developed a penchant for embracing rhetoric over substance when it comes to foreign policy, Mr. Katulis said, going on to accuse Mr. Romney and his advisers of exaggerating Mr. Obama’s dovishness.¶ “The most recent, clearest example was Romney’s statement in mid-June when asked what he would do on Israel. He said he would do the exact opposite of what Obama has done,” Mr. Katulis said. “If Romney really wanted to do the opposite of what Obama has done on Israel that would mean he would vote in favor of supporting the Palestinian statehood bid at the United Nations.”¶ Romney staffers flatly dismiss such claims.¶ “Barack Obama’s policy toward Israel in the last four years — from repeatedly offering up to Congress budget cuts for missile-defense cooperation with Israel to saying that Israeli-Palestinian negotiations have to start with the indefensible 1967 borders — has resulted in chilled relations between the United States and our closest alley,” said Alex Wong, the campaign’s foreign policy director.¶ “What Mr. Romney meant is that, should he become president, he will wholeheartedly support Israel,” Mr. Wong said. “His first trip as president will be to Israel to send a message to the world that our relationship is rock solid, and he will basically reverse the policy of putting down our ally, which has been the basis of Barack Obama’s policy.”¶ Mr. Wong stressed other areas where Mr. Romney’s foreign policy differs clearly, and specifically, from Mr. Obama’s.¶ “In Afghanistan, while Mr. Romney agrees with 2014 as a realistic time frame for the withdrawal of U.S. troops, he simply would not have announced the withdrawal date ahead of time the way that Mr. Obama did,” Mr. Wong said.¶ “In Iran, Mr. Romney would have stood up for Iranian dissidents who demonstrated against their government during the 2009 Green Movement,” he said. “Obama said he wasn’t about to meddle in Iran’s internal affairs for fear of endangering his ‘no preconditions’ engagement policy. That policy ultimately failed.”¶ Mr. Romney also would “send a message to the ayatollahs that we are serious about the military option in order to stop their nuclear arms program,” said Mr. Wong. “To make that clear, we would establish a permanent presence of U.S. aircraft carrier task forces in both the Eastern Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf region.”¶ The presumptive Republican nominee has also has promised to reverse Obama-era defense budget cuts with the goal of setting core defense spending at a floor of 4 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product.¶ Critics contend some of the Romney camp’s positions are more bluster than backbone, particularly since the Obama administration’s proposed

defense spending cuts put the defense budget at 4.6 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product by 2015.¶ While the U.S.-Israel relationship has faced rhetorical strain under Mr. Obama, the administration has increased security-related assistance to Israel. It also has maintained the presence of aircraft carriers, albeit not “permanent,” in the eastern Mediterranean and Persian Gulf.¶ But Mr. Romney has been verifiably more aggressive than the Obama administration on Syria. While it’s unclear whether he would back a U.S. or NATO-led military intervention in Syria, he asserted recently that the United States “should work with partners to arm the opposition so they can defend themselves” — a strategy the administration has repeatedly said that it does not support.¶ On the campaign trail, Mr. Romney has raised the eyebrows of critics and supporters alike with variety of other aggressive foreign policy assertions.¶ He has vowed to declare China a currency manipulator on his first

day in office, asserted that the U.S. should not negotiate with the Taliban but “go anywhere they are and kill them,” and described Russia as America’s “No. 1 geopolitical foe.” Mr. Romney also came out strongly against the signing of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia.

US-Russian relations are critical for global security, preventing proliferation, sustaining US leadership and averting nuclear war. Allison and Blackwill, 11 [Graham, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs; Douglas Dillon Professor of Government; Faculty Chair, Dubai Initiative, Harvard Kennedy School, Robert D., International Council Member, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, 10 Reasons Why Russia Still Matters,”http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/21469/10_reasons_why_russia_still_matters.html]

That central point is that Russia matters a great deal to a U.S. government seeking to defend and advance its national interests. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s decision to return next year as president makes it all the more critical for Washington to manage its relationship with Russia through coherent, realistic

policies. No one denies that Russia is a dangerous , difficult, often disappointing state to do business with. We should

not overlook its many human rights and legal failures. Nonetheless, Russia is a player whose choices affect our vital interests in nuclear security and energy. It is key to supplying 100,000 U.S. troops fighting in Afghanistan and preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Ten realities require U.S. policymakers to

advance our nation’s interests by engaging and working with Moscow. First, Russia remains the only nation that can erase the United States from the map in 30 minutes. As every president since John F. Kennedy has recognized,

Russia’s cooperation is critical to averting nuclear war. Second, Russia is our most consequential partner in preventing nuclear terrorism . Through a combination of more than $11 billion in U.S. aid, provided through the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program, and impressive Russian professionalism,

two decades after the collapse of the “evil empire,” not one nuclear weapon has been found loose.Third, Russia plays an essential role in preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and missile-delivery systems. As Washington seeks to stop Iran’s drive toward nuclear weapons, Russian choices to sell or withhold sensitive technologies are the difference between failure and the possibility of success. Fourth,

Russian support in sharing intelligence and cooperating in operations remains essential to the U.S. war to destroy Al Qaeda and combat other transnational terrorist groups. Fifth, Russia provides a vital supply line to 100,000 U.S. troops fighting in Afghanistan. As U.S. relations with Pakistan have deteriorated, the Russian lifeline has grown ever more important and now accounts for half all daily deliveries. Sixth, Russia is the world’s largest oil producer and second largest gas producer. Over the past decade, Russia has added more oil and gas exports to world energy markets than any other nation. Most major energy transport routes from Eurasia start in Russia or cross its nine time zones. As citizens of a country that imports two of every three of the 20 million barrels of oil that fuel U.S. cars daily, Americans feel Russia’s impact at our gas pumps. Seventh, Moscow is an important player in today’s international system. It is no accident that Russia is one of the five veto-wielding, permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, as well as a member of the G-8 and G-20. A Moscow more closely aligned with U.S. goals would be significant in the balance of power to shape an environment in which China can emerge as

a global power without overturning the existing order. Eighth, Russia is the largest country on Earth by land area,

abutting China on the East, Poland in the West and the United States across the Arctic. This territory provides transit corridors for supplies to global markets whose stability is vital to the U.S. economy. Ninth, Russia’s brainpower is reflected in the fact that it has won more Nobel Prizes for science than all of Asia, places first in most math competitions and dominates the world chess masters list. The only way U.S. astronauts can now travel to and from the International Space Station is to hitch a ride on Russian rockets. The co-founder of the most advanced digital company in the world, Google, is Russian-born Sergei Brin. Tenth,

Russia’s potential as a spoiler is difficult to exaggerate. Consider what a Russian president intent on frustrating U.S. international objectives could do — from stopping the supply flow to Afghanistan to selling S-300 air defense missiles to Tehran to joining China in preventing U.N. Security Council resolutions. So next time you hear a policymaker dismissing Russia with rhetoric about “who cares?” ask them to identify nations that matter more to U.S. success, or failure, in advancing our national interests.

The impact is extinctionBostrom 2002 [Nick, Dir. Future of Humanity Institute and Prof. Philosophy – Oxford U., Journal of Evolution and Technology, “Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazards”, 9, March, http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html]

The first manmade (SIC) existential risk was the inaugural detonation of an atomic bomb. At the time,

there was some concern that the explosion might start a runaway chain-reaction by “igniting” the atmosphere. Although we now know that such an outcome was physically impossible, it qualifies as an existential risk that was present at the time. For there to be a risk, given the knowledge and understanding available, it suffices that there is some subjective probability of an adverse outcome, even if it later turns out that objectively there was no chance of something bad happening. If we don’t know whether something is objectively risky or

not, then it is risky in the subjective sense. The subjective sense is of course what we must base our decisions on.[2] At any given time we must use our best current subjective estimate of what the objective risk factors are.[3] A much greater existential risk emerged with the build-up of nuclear arsenals in the US and the USSR. An all-out nuclear war was a possibility with both a substantial probability and with consequences that might have been persistent enough to qualify as global and terminal . There was a real worry among those best acquainted with

the information available at the time that a nuclear Armageddon would occur and that it might annihilate our species

or permanently destroy human civilization.[4] Russia and the US retain large nuclear arsenals that could be used in a future confrontation, either accidentally or deliberately. There is also a risk that other states may one day build up large

nuclear arsenals. Note however that a smaller nuclear exchange, between India and Pakistan for instance, is not an existential risk, since it would not destroy or thwart humankind’s potential permanently. Such a war might however be a local terminal risk for the cities most likely to be targeted. Unfortunately, we shall see that nuclear Armageddon and comet or asteroid strikes are mere preludes to the existential risks that we will encounter in the 21st century.

Russia Ext

Romney win decimates relations with RussiaLarison 6/27/12 (Daniel Larison, Daniel Larison is a columnist and contributing editor at The American Conservative and blogs at Eunomia. He recently completed his doctorate in Byzantine history at the University of Chicago.; The American Conservative, U.S.-Russian Relations Would Get Much Worse Under Romney, http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/u-s-russian-relations-would-get-much-worse-under-romney/) MattG

Ognyan Minchev offers an unpersuasive interpretation of Putin’s thinking:¶ Putin might share some of that same distrust of liberal partners and be more apt to deal with a hard-line conservative in the White House.¶ Yet, there would almost certainly be tradeoffs. A conservative president would likely engage in more assertive policies toward Moscow. A more active U.S. policy toward the Middle East, the South Caucasus, or Central Europe would risk clashing more openly with Russia’s positions. Why would Putin want this, given the fragility of Russian power today? Threats have been a key driver of Russian

power politics throughout the history of the Empire. Putin’s calculations could take many forms. A more active U.S. policy on disputed issues might demonstrate not only American power but also reveal American weaknesses. A more assertive U.S. presence in the spheres of Russian interest might also provoke more active opposition by China, and Russia may benefit from greater competition between Beijing and Washington. Or Putin might prefer an immediate, open rivalry with what he perceives to be a weakened United States across a range of

issues.¶ The easier (and more accurate) answer is that Putin doesn’t actually want a “hard-line conservative in the White House.” Putin distrusts the U.S. because he believes that the Bush administration behaved in an ungrateful and untrustworthy fashion in the previous decade, and U.S.-Russian relations improved as much as they did because the current administration seemed to be more reliable. U.S.-Russian relations reached their lowest point in the last twenty years in no small part because of a “more active U.S. policy” toward the Middle East, the South Caucasus, and central Europe. Putin might be willing to deal with a more hard-line American President, but only so long as it this translated into tangible gains for Russia. Provided that the hard-liner was willing to live up to his end of the bargain, there could be some room for agreement, but there isn’t any. Since Romney’s Russia policy is essentially to never make any deals with the current Russian government, Putin doesn’t have much of an incentive to cooperate. That will guarantee that U.S.-Russian relations will deteriorate much more than they have in the last year.

October Surprise

Obama will strike Iran if he starts to lose the election- prefer our evidence- media reports underestimate this risk Longstreet 2012 (thirty-year veteran of the broadcasting business, as an “in the field” and “on-air” news reporter (contributing to radio, TV, and newspapers) and a conservative broadcast commentator. 1-14- http://www.federalobserver.com/2012/01/14/war-clouds-continue-to-gather/) MattG

So when will this war begin. Well, let me put it this way: The Iranians should carefully watch Obama’s poll numbers. If those numbers continue their slide downwards, the Iranians are going get the heck bombed out of them. Americans are extremely reluctant to change Presidents in the middle of a war. Obama knows this and is expected to act accordingly. Some conservative writers and commentators expect that war in the Middle East is currently

scheduled for October 2012. That would be the famed “October Surprise.” On the other hand, those in my camp believe the Iranians, in all their hyped-up passion, will do something stupid like firing on a tanker or a US warship or aircraft, or even worse, make an attempt to close the Straits of Hormuz by sewing it with mines and other hazards to maritime traffic. That would be the spark that would bring down the considerable wrath of that naval armada lying off their shores. Then there are the Israelis. They have had enough of Iran’s threats and Iran’s war on Israel by proxy. Israel’s secret war of sabotage in Iran can only deliver limited success at delaying and derailing Iran’s race to build or acquire a nuclear bomb. Israel could decide, at any moment, that enough is enough and launch their fighter-bombers and cruise missiles at Iran’s nuclear facilities. Even if it only buys a few months or a couple of years of breathing space for Israel, it is becoming clear there is no other way to effectively deter Iran from building their coveted Islam Bomb. The situation in the Middle East today is far, far, more dangerous than the US media is reporting. A single spark will ignite a devastating war that will affect practically every nation on earth to some degree or other. Those of us who continue to sound the warning bell of a huge war in the Middle East are being compared to the boy Peter in the story of “Peter and the Wolf.” An article at Haaretz.com noted that those who make such public comparisons seem always to leave out the end of Aesop’s famous tale of the boy who called wolf too much. In the end, the wolf actually DID come — and the sheep were slaughtered. (SOURCE) So, with that ending in mind, I have no concern about continually pointing to those dark, foreboding, clouds gathering in the east. Since the mainstream media seems to be ignoring a certain war to protect Obama’s prospects in the coming election, someone must stand as a watchman on the ramparts and sound the alarm when clouds of dust from the approaching armies of the enemy is

sighted and when the sound of distant war drums is heard. Today those dust clouds are clearly seen over the horizon and the pounding of the drums can be heard in the distance — and we are sounding the alarm.

Iran strikes causes multiple scenarios for nuclear war, CBW use and terrorist attacks.Russell -09 (James A. Russell, managing editor of Strategic Insights, the quarterly ejournal published by the Center for Contemporary Conflict at the Naval Postgraduate School, Spring 2009, Strategic Stability Reconsidered: Prospects for Escalation and Nuclear War in the Middle East, Security Studies Center)

Iran’s response to what would initially start as a sustained stand-off bombardment (Desert Fox Heavy) could take a number of different forms that might lead to

escalation by the United States and Israel, surrounding states, and non-state actors. Once the strikes commenced, it is difficult to imagine Iran remaining in a Saddam-like quiescent mode and hunkering down to wait out the attacks. Iranian leaders have unequivocally stated that any attack on its nuclear sites will result in a wider war81 – a war that could involve regional states on both sides as well as non-state actors like Hamas and Hezbollah. While a wider

regional war need not lead to escalation and nuclear use by either Israel or the United States, wartime circumstances and domestic political pressures could combine to shape decision-making in ways that present nuclear use as an option to achieve military and political objectives. For both the United States and Israel, Iranian or proxy use of chemical, biological or radiological weapons represent the most serious potential escalation triggers. For Israel, a sustained conventional bombardment of its urban centers by Hezbollah rockets in Southern Lebanon could also trigger an escalation spiral. Assessing relative probability of these scenarios is very difficult and

beyond the scope of this article. Some scenarios for Iranian responses that could lead to escalation by the United States and Israel are: Terrorist-type asymmetric attacks on either the U.S. or Israeli homelands by Iran or its proxies using either

conventional or unconventional (chemical, biological, or radiological) weapons. Escalation is more likely in response to the use of unconventional weapons in populated urban centers. The potential for use of nuclear retaliation against terrorist type attacks is problematic, unless of course the sponsoring country takes official responsibility for them, which seems highly unlikely. Asymmetric attacks by Iran or its proxies

using unconventional weapons against U.S. military facilities in Iraq and the Gulf States (Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE, Qatar); • Long-range missile strikes by Iran attacking Israel and/or U.S. facilities in Iraq and the Gulf States: • Conventional missile strikes in and around the Israeli reactor at Dimona • Airbursts of chemical or radiological agents in Israeli urban areas; • Missile strikes using non-conventional weapons against US Gulf facilities such as Al Udeid in Qatar, Al Dhafra Air Base in the UAE, and the 5th Fleet Headquarters in Manama, Bahrain. Under all scenarios involving chemical/biological attacks on its forces, the United States

has historically retained the right to respond with all means at its disposal even if the attacks come from a non-nuclear weapons state.82 • The involvement of non-state actors as part of ongoing hostilities between Iran, the United States, and Israel in which Hezbollah and/or Hamas became engaged presents an added dimension for conflict escalation. While tactically allied with Iran and each other, these groups have divergent interests and objectives that could affect their involvement (or non-involvement in a wider regional war) – particularly in ways that might prompt escalation by

Israel and the United States. Hezbollah is widely believed to have stored thousands of short range Iranian-supplied rockets in southern Lebanon. Attacking Israel in successive fusillades of missiles over time could lead to domestic political demands on the Israeli military to immediately stop these external attacks – a mission that might require a wide area-denial capability provided by nuclear weapons and their associated PSI overpressures, particularly if its conventional ground operations in Gaza prove in the mid- to longterms as indecisive or strategic ambiguous as its 2006 operations in Lebanon. • Another source of uncertainty is the Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) – referred to here as “quasi-state” actor. The IRGC manages the regime’s nuclear, chemical and missile programs and is responsible for “extraterritorial” operations outside Iran. The IRGC is considered as instrument of the state and reports directly to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. So far, the IRGC has apparently refrained from providing unconventional weapons to its surrogates. The IRGC also, however arms and funds various Shiite paramilitary groups in Iraq and Lebanon that have interests and objectives that may or may not directly reflect those of the Iranian supreme leader. Actions of these groups in a wartime environment are another source of strategic uncertainty that could shape crisis decision-

making in unhelpful ways. • The most likely regional state to be drawn into a conflict on Iran’s side in a wider regional war is Syria, which is widely reported to have well developed missile and chemical warfare programs. Direct Syrian military involvement in an Israeli-U.S./Iranian war taking the form of missile strikes or chemical attacks on Israel could serve as another escalation trigger in a nuclear-use scenario , in particular if chemical or bio-chem weapons are used by the Syrians, technically crossing the WMD-chasm and triggering a retaliatory strike using any category of

WMD including nuclear weapons. • The last – and perhaps most disturbing – of these near-term scenarios is the possible use by Iran of nuclear weapons in the event of conventional strikes by the United States and Israel. This scenario is built on the assumption of a U.S. and/or Israeli intelligence failure to detect Iranian possession of a nuclear device that had either been covertly built or acquired from another source. It is possible to foresee an Iranian “demonstration” use of a nuclear weapon in such a scenario in an attempt to stop an Israeli/U.S. conventional

bombardment. A darker scenario would be a direct nuclear attack by Iran on Israel, also precipitated by conventional

strikes, inducing a “use them or lose them” response. In turn, such a nuclear strike would almost certainly prompt an Israeli and U.S. massive response – a potential “Armageddon” scenario.

2NC

Independents Key—Colorado Independents will decide which way Colorado votesEischen 7/3 (Faith, “Swing State Colorado: ‘Tossup’ in Upcoming November Election”, 2012, http://ivn.us/2012/07/03/swing-state-colorado-tossup-in-upcoming-november-election/)

President Obama flew out to Colorado at the end of last week “to get a firsthand view of the fires and their

toll on residential communities”. The potential political motivations of such a visit are not lost in this election year. Colorado has recently been grappling with the state’s most destructive wildfire in its history. President

Obama declared the wildfires a “major disaster” and promised Colorado federal aid to help with the high costs of damages.

Colorado, one of nine main swing states, will play an important factor in the upcoming presidential

election in November . Both President Obama and Gov. Romney’s presidential campaigns will target swing states in efforts to lock in the coveted amount of electoral votes on Election Day. On Sunday, Eva Longoria,

celebrity and national co-chair for the Obama Campaign, was on hand in Colorado to kick off the campaign’s “Women Vote 2012″. In 2008, Obama won 53.5% of Colorado, while McCain only received 44.8%. This was a serious accomplishment for Obama considering Colorado voted reliably Republican in eight of the last nine presidential elections prior to 2008. Although Obama gained

9 electoral votes from Colorado in 2008, Colorado is considered a strong tossup in the 2012 presidential election .

In the upcoming election President Obama and Mitt Romney must appeal to the emerging independent electorate in Colorado. Both presidential candidates may struggle with this task as they continue to court the bases of each of their own

political parties. The centrist think tank, Third Way conducted a study of swing states including Colorado. Third Way found that the percentage of registered Republicans and Democrats barely increased since 2008, while newly declared independents drastically rose , in comparison. Third Way analyst Lanae Erickson said in Colorado, it’s now

practically a three-way tie in registration. “Independents actually rose by nearly 10 percent in Colorado just since 2008. So there’s been a huge surge in independent voters. And, so, as a proportion of the electorate, independents have really gained on both parties.”

Colorado KeyColorado is a key swing stateTodd and Murray et. al 7/10 (Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Brooke Brower, and Natalie Cucchiara, NBC, “First Thoughts: The importance of Colorado and Iowa”, 2012, http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/10/12660842-first-thoughts-the-importance-of-colorado-and-iowa?lite)MattG

The importance of Colorado and Iowa: Today, President Obama and Mitt Romney will campaign in two battleground states that are important to their paths to 270 electoral votes. Obama stumps in Cedar Rapids, IA at 1:50 pm ET, and the Hawkeye State -- which launched his presidential bid in 2008 -- has been frustrating this time around for him. Polls show the president deadlocked with Romney, and reporting like this recent Des Moines Register dispatch suggests that many of the folks who were fired up and ready to go in ’08 aren’t as much in ’12. (Some Obama folks think the president’s problems in Iowa stem from disappointment due to the higher expectations folks in the state had for him.) Here’s why Iowa, despite its six electoral votes, is important to Obama’s path to 270: Winning the state gives him more flexibility. For instance, he could lose FL, OH, and VA and still surpass that magic number if he wins CO, IA, NV, NH, and NM. But if you take Iowa away, then he has to win one of FL, OH, and VA.*** They make life easier getting to 270: Meanwhile, Romney today is in Colorado, where he holds a town hall in Grand Junction at 12:35 pm ET. And just like

Obama’s situation with Iowa, Romney winning Colorado gives him MUCH more flexibility getting to 270 electoral votes. For instance, if the former Massachusetts governor wins that state, he can still lose Virginia but win the presidency by capturing FL, IA, NH, and OH. But if he loses Colorado to Obama, then he has to win in Virginia (or another state that John Kerry won in ’04). Bottom line: Obama winning Iowa and Romney

winning Colorado makes life a lot easier for them.

A2 – No Impact on Election

Energy policy is a huge controversy for the electionJaffe 8/8(Mark, writer for the Denver Post, “Changing energy policy rules keep Colorado guessing in election year”, http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_21213987/changing-energy-policy-rules-keep-colorado-guessing-election) MattG

The question now is what impact the 2012 presidential election will have on the rules.¶ President Barack Obama has been a supporter of renewable energy, which he argued was a job creator, while trying to balance opening public lands to oil and gas development with conservation concerns.¶ Obama's presumptive Republican challenger Mitt Romney is opposed to incentives for renewable energy — such as the wind- production tax credit — and for opening as much public land to drilling as possible.¶ This debate is not an idle one for Colorado, where 22,394 people worked in oil and gas production in 2010 and nearly 19,000 are employed in the renewable energy sector, based on state figures.¶

And yet from the Western Slope well fields to the Eastern Plains wind farms, Colorado, like the rest of the country, has had to cope for decades with a lack of a consistent energy policy.¶ "We've been trying for an energy policy since Richard Nixon," said Charles Ebinger, director of the Energy Security Initiative at the Brookings Institution, in Washington, D.C.¶ "But we have too many conflicting interests," Ebinger

said. "Everything is a fight."¶ Nowhere is the weight of the vagaries of federal energy policy now falling heavier than in the wind and solar industry, company executives say.¶ The specter of the loss of the wind-production tax credit — equal to $22 for every megawatt-hour a wind farm produces — will lead to a 90 percent drop in the U.S. wind market, according to IHS Emerging Energy, a consulting group.¶ "The reality is we are going from the best year we've had in the United States to the worst," said Steve Dayney, chief executive officer of REpower USA, the Denver-based American subsidiary of a German wind- turbine maker. "We are looking at the Grand Canyon of cliffs."¶ The wind industry employs about 5,000 people in Colorado. Danish Vestas Wind Systems A/S is the prime employer, with 1,700 workers in four factories. And Vestas, which is also a major customer for component factories in the state, will be forced to lay off 1,600 employees if the tax credit is not renewed, according to Ditlev Engel, the company's CEO.¶ Dayney said the industry is prepared to see a phase-out of the tax credit to give companies time to adjust.¶

A2 – Too Complicated

People don’t need to know specifics – they lump policies into overall agendas which still influences their decisionHull 8/2(Dana, writer for Mercury News, “Majority of Californians say they know nothing about emissions cap-and-trade program” http://www.mercurynews.com/elections/ci_21213312/more-than-half-californians-say-they-know-nothing) MattG

California's landmark global-warming bill was a white-hot topic in the 2010 governor's race and remains

former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's signature environmental achievement.¶ But as the state prepares to unroll the law's cap-and-trade program in November with the first state auctions of emissions permits, a new poll finds that 57 percent of Californians say they have never heard anything about the program.¶ The statewide poll by the Public Policy Institute of California further found that 30 percent of respondents said they had heard "a little," while just 12 percent said they had heard "a lot."¶ "Cap-and-trade is a very complicated issue to the average Californian,"

said Mark Baldassare, president and¶ CEO of the PPIC. "It's not something that has been at the center of attention for them. Connecting the dots between cap-and-trade and global warming continues to be a challenge for policymakers."¶ The cap-and-trade program sets lower limits on companies' greenhouse gas emissions and allows those who emit less

than their cap to sell permits to those who exceed their limits.¶ The issues of climate change and energy policy have been largely absent in the presidential election, which has been dominated by the economy. But those issues remain important to Golden State voters: Seven in 10 likely voters in California say that the candidates' positions on global warming and energy policy are important in determining their vote, according¶ Advertisement¶ ¶ to the new poll. Thirty percent said the issue is very important, while 42 percent said it's somewhat important.¶ By a 54 percent to 33 percent margin, majorities of likely voters say they trust President Barack Obama more than Republican challenger Mitt Romney to handle global warming and energy policy. But among the 1,131 likely voters surveyed on the question of overall preference for president, Obama's margin over Romney was only 11 percentage points: 51 percent to 40 percent. That's far tighter than four years ago, when Obama carried California by a stunning 24 points.¶ But likely voters' preference for Obama on global warming and energy policy does not translate to support for his overall handling of environmental issues. Likely voters are split, with 46 percent approving and 46 percent disapproving of his handling of environmental issues.¶ "California voters have high standards when it comes to the environment," Baldassare said. "They trust Obama more than Romney, but they don't feel Obama has done enough. A lot of enthusiasm for Obama has faded, particularly in the environmental arena."

A2 – Election Predictions Fail

Political scientists make accurate predictions – their criticisms are wrongNyhan ’11 (Brendan, 11-16, Nyhan has a PhD in political science and an assistant professor in the Department of Government at Dartmouth College, “The attack on election forecasting straw men”, http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2011/11/the-election-forecasting-straw-man.html) MattG

In recent days, journalists, bloggers, and commentators have reared up to bash a fictitious conventional wisdom about election forecasting. The premise for many of these statements is that political scientists believe that campaigns and other non-economic factors don't matter in presidential elections. For instance, The Daily Beast's Michael Tomasky describes "the political-science theory of presidential elections and economic determinism" as "pretty much strictly a function of economic conditions." At Real Clear Politics, Sean Trende states that Emory's Alan Abramowitz thinks "presidential elections can be reduced to a simple equation." And in a Bloomberg View column, Ronald Klain, the former chief of staff for Al Gore and Joe Biden, writes that "a group of political scientists, mathematicians and scholars have argued that a handful of factors determine of presidential elections, irrespective of the campaigns." But as the political scientists John Sides and Seth Masket have already pointed out, these are straw men. Very few political scientists think campaigns don't matter or that elections can be perfectly forecast in advance. In an earlier post, Sides expressed this point well:

“Because people continually overestimate the effect of campaigns, this blog holds up the other end of the dialectic by emphasizing the economy and defending those who do. But plenty of research has identified the effects of campaigns too... it's time to abandon this whole it's-either-the-economy-or-the-campaign dichotomy...” Even New York Times blogger Nate Silver, who has become something of a professional critic of political scientists, concedes the point in a post today, writing that the view Klain ascribes to forecasters "is certainly not the majority opinion within the discipline." What's bizarre about this flurry of articles is that election forecasting is such an obscure topic in the political press. The conventional wisdom that presidential election outcomes are largely unpredictable in advance and that the outcomes we observe are primarily the result of campaign strategy is vastly more prominent. So why is everyone so worried about forecasting models? A related straw

man is the idea that political scientists think their models make perfectly precise predictions. Here, for instance, is what Silver wrote: “[P]olitical scientists as a group badly overestimate how accurately they can forecast elections from economic variables alone. I have written up lengthy critiques of several of these models in the past...” The three posts that Silver links to critique a historian's non-quantitative model which few political scientists would endorse, Ray Fair's forecasting model, and the "Bread and Peace" model of Douglas Hibbs. Only the last two are representative of the field, and political scientists have criticized Fair's model at length in the past (PDFs). More generally, as Jacob Montgomery and I wrote last week, there is certainly reason to be concerned that these models are too confident about their predictions, but most sophisticated quantitative researchers in political science are aware of these concerns and do not interpret the forecasts so literally. Moreover, we can evaluate which models perform well in making forecasts beyond the data used in estimation and combine their predictions to create more accurate forecasts with appropriate estimates of uncertainty, as Montgomery and his co-authors do in their article

(PDF). Silver dismisses this exercise as a "game show" and disparages any attempt to evaluate the models by their future performance -- "most of how they perform over the ne

A2 – Tetlock

Tetlock is wrong – Quantitative predictions workVoeten 6-24 (Erik, Voeten is the Peter F. Krogh assistant professor of geopolitics and global justice at the School of Foreign Service and the department of Government at Georgetown University, “Dart-Throwing Chimps and Op-Eds”, The Monkey Cage, http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/06/24/dart-throwing-chimps-and-op-eds/) MattG

When the House passed the Flake amendment to cut NSF funding for political science The New York Times (and most other newspapers) did not find the event sufficiently interesting to be worthy of valuable newspaper space. So why then does the editorial page seem so eager to debunk political science as a “science?” We as political scientists have barely recovered from the alleged inferiority complexes we suffer as part of our apparent inability to overcome “physics envy” and now we hear that “political scientists are not real scientists because they can’t predict the future.” One would

almost be tempted to think that the message conveyed in these pieces suits the editorial page editors just fine. Indeed, Stevens explicitly writes that policy makers could get more astute insights from reading the New York Times than from reading academic journals. If this was the purpose of placing the op-ed, then the editorial board has been fooled by what can charitably be described as Stevens’ selective reading of the prediction literature; especially Tetlock’s book. Here is how Stevens summarizes this research: “Research aimed at political prediction is doomed to

fail. At least if the idea is to predict more accurately than a dart-throwing chimp.” But Tetlock did not evaluate the predictive ability of political science research but of “experts” who he “exhorted [..] to inchoate private hunches into precise public predictions” (p.216). As Henry points out, some of these experts have political science PhDs but they are mostly not political science academics. Moreover, Tetlock’s purpose was not to evaluate the quality of research but the quality of expert opinion that guides public debate and government advice. Two points are worth emphasizing. The first is that the media, and especially editorial page editors, make matters worse by ignoring the track record of pundits and indeed rewarding the pundits with personal qualities that make them the least likely to be successful at prediction. Here is how Tetlock summarizes the implications of his research for the media: “The sanguine view is that as long as those selling expertise compete vigorously for the attention of discriminating buyers (the mass media), market mechanisms will assure quality control. Pundits who make it into newspaper opinion pages or onto television and radio must have good track records; otherwise, they would have been weeded out. Skeptics, however, warn that the mass media dictate the voices we hear and are less interested in reasoned debate than in catering to popular prejudices. As a result, fame could be negatively, not positively, correlated with long-run accuracy. Until recently, no one knew who is right, because no one was keeping score. But the results of a 20-year research project now suggest that the skeptics are closer to the truth. I describe the project in detail in my book Expert Political Judgment: How good is it? How can we know? The basic idea was to solicit thousands of predictions from hundreds of experts about the fates of dozens of countries, and then score the predictions for accuracy. We find that the media not only fail to weed out bad ideas, but that they often favor bad ideas, especially when the truth is too messy to be packaged neatly.” The second point is that simple quantitative models generally do better at prediction than do experts, regardless of their education.

This is not because these models are that accurate or because experts don’t know anything but because people are terrible at translating their knowledge into probabilistic assessments of what will happen. This is why a simple model predicts 75% of the outcome of Supreme Court cases correctly whereas constitutional law experts (professors) get only 59% right. Since predictive success is not the gold standard for social science, as Stevens would have it, this has not yet led to a call to do away with constitutional law experts or randomly allocate them research funds.

Affirmative

Non-Unique

Romney Win – Swing State

Romney wins Iowa – critical swing stateElliot 2012(Richard, writer for Examiner, “Why Mitt Romney will win Iowa” http://www.examiner.com/article/why-mitt-romney-will-win-iowa) MattG

This presidential election is shaping up to be a close one, and the candidates are battling over a dozen or so swing states that will decide the outcome. One of those states is Iowa, with its six Electoral College votes.¶ Democrat Barack Obama won Iowa handily in 2008, but polls show a much closer race this time around. Those polls, coupled with an analysis of Iowa's voter registration data, offer some very encouraging news for

Obama's Republican challenger Mitt Romney.¶ First, some history. In 2004, Republican George W. Bush narrowly carried Iowa with 751,957 votes (50%) to Democrat John Kerry's 741,898 votes (49%). At the time of the election that year, there were 610,336 active registered Republican voters in Iowa, compared to 605,934 active registered Democrats and 748,393 active registered independents. In percentage terms, 31% of the state's active registered voters were Republicans, 31% were Democrats, and 38% were independents.¶ Party registration is not static, however, and by the time Election Day in 2008 rolled around Democrats had a significant advantage. The number of active registered Republicans dropped to 592,397 (a decline of about 18,000), while the number of active registered Democrats jumped to 698,839 (an increase of almost 93,000). The number of active registered independents in November 2008 was 711,705, a decline of nearly 37,000. In percentage terms, Republicans were just 29.6% of the electorate, Democrats had surged to 34.9%, and independents had dropped to 35.5%. This Democratic advantage predictably led to an easy win for Obama, who carried the state with 828,940 votes to John McCain's paltry 682,379 votes, a 54%-44% margin.¶ Now flash-forward to the present day. As of August 2nd, the number of active registered Republican voters in Iowa is 620,584, an increase of around 28,000 since 2008. More importantly, the number of active registered Democrats has shrunk to 598,995, a decline of roughly 100,000. The number of active registered independents is now 659,838, a drop of about 52,000. Looked at in percentage terms, Republicans now comprise 33% of the electorate, Democrats 32%, and independents 35%.¶ Let's compare:¶ 2004 (Republican victory)¶ GOP - 610,336 - 31%¶ Dem - 605,934 - 31%¶ Ind - 748,393 - 38%¶ 2008 (Democratic victory)¶ GOP - 592,397 - 29.6%¶ Dem - 698,839 - 34.9%¶ Ind - 711,705 - 35.5%¶ 2012 (???)¶ GOP - 620,584 - 33%¶ Dem - 598,995 - 32%¶ Ind - 659,838 - 35%¶ As you can see, the electorate is slightly more favorable to Republicans now than it was in 2004, when Bush carried the state (albeit narrowly). This suggests a Romney victory in Iowa in November, although probably not by a very wide margin.

Romney Win – Economy

Romney will win he has a lead in the economy Tau, 8/9 (August 9th, 2012, Bryan, Freelance writer for Politico, “Poll: Voters blame Obama for the economy,” Politico, http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/07/poll-voters-blame-obama-for-the-economy-129400.html)

Voters by and large believe that President Obama's economic policies have contributed to the persistent malaise in the economy, according to a new poll. The CBS/New York Times survey finds that 64 percent of voters believe that Obama's policies have contributed significantly or somewhat to the persistent weakness in the economy. Still, 81 percent of voters believe the same about the policies of former President George W. Bush. Obama leads Mitt Romney in measures of middle class security — with 52 percent of respondents saying that Obama will do more to help the middle class. The survey also finds that 52 percent of voters believe that Romney's policies favor the rich. Obama's relentless assault on Mitt Romney's business record are also showing no real signs of significantly shaping the race. Sixty percent of voters say that Bain makes no difference, while 23 percent say it makes them less likely to vote for him. Seventy-three percent of voters say that Romney's wealth makes no difference. Romney gets better marks on handling the economy, with 49 percent of voters saying he would do a better job than Obama. Romney also has an advantage among voters on the budget deficit, taxes, and illegal immigration. Voters trust Obama more on

foreign policy and social issues. Obama has only a one point advantage over Romney on handling of terrorism issues, 44 to 43 percent.

Romney Win – Polls

Democrats should be scared- Romney is ahead in the pollsLoGiurato, 8/8 (Brett, August 8th, 2012, Political reporter for Business Insider, “Here Are The Numbers That Should Have Democrats Frightened In An Awful Poll For Obama,” Business Insider, http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-enthusiasm-democrats-republicans-romney-poll-2012-7)

A new CBS/New York Times poll that gives Mitt Romney a 1-point advantage over President Barack Obama also displays some concerning numbers for the president and his re-election chances. First, the

enthusiasm gap between Democrats and Republicans when compared to 2008 gives Romney a distinct advantage in potential turnout. Only 27 percent of Democrats say they are more excited than 2008 to vote in this election. That compares with an insurgence of Republican enthusiasm — an astounding 49 percent of Republicans are more enthusiastic. Second, there is the growing perception that Obama deserves at least some of the blame for the state of the economy.

Sixty-four percent of voters now think that Obama deserves at least some blame. That compares with a June Gallup poll in which only 52 percent of Americans assigned him a "great deal" or "moderate" amount of blame. And the third is perhaps the most damning statistic. Forty-six percent of voters think Obama's economic policies will

never help. About 34 percent think his policies will help the economy if he's given another term. Overall, voters prefer Romney 49-41 on handling the economy and jobs, which was graded as the most important issue of the election. The one bit of silver lining for the Obama camp? The middle class still prefers him. Fifty-two percent think Obama will do more to help the middle class, compared with just 38 percent that pick Romney.

Romney Win – Independents

Obama will lose, the independents will vote for Romney Walter, ABC News Political Director, 8/10 (Amy, August 10th, 2012, “Obama Has Problems With Independent Voters,” ABC News, http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/obama-has-problems-with-independent-voters/)

Digging into the crosstabs of our ABC/Washington Post poll it’s clear that Obama has a significant problem with independent voters. On every measure, independents are significantly more disappointed with the president and more open to a Mitt Romney message. While 45 percent of voters overall say they approve of Obama’s handling of the economy, just 37 percent of independents believe that. Obama has a 12 point advantage among all voters on the issue of “who has presented a clearer plan for dealing with the economy – Obama or Romney?” But among independents that flips to an eight point advantage for Romney. Even on the issue of Romney’s record in business, independent voters are more sympathetic to the Republican. Among all voters, more thought that Romney in his work as a corporate investor did more to cut jobs than create them (42 percent to 36 percent). But among independents, that flips to a six point advantage for Romney – 43-37 percent. So, why isn’t Romney ahead? As ABC pollster Gary Langer points out, the Democratic base is more energized and engaged. But, if Republican enthusiasm and participation increases, Obama has some very serious problems. Even with universal support among Democrats, Obama can’t win if he’s losing independent voters by these significant margins.

Link Turns

Economy

Plan boosts econ – saves election for ObamaKennedy 2012 (Stephanie Kennedy, ABC Senior Reporter Sydney/Canberra/Washington.; Abc news, Get breaking national and world news, broadcast video coverage, and exclusive interviews. Find the top news online at ABC news.; Economy key to Obama election fight, http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2012/s3496775.htm) MattG

In the United States, it's exactly six months until the presidential election and over the weekend Barack Obama kicked off his official re-election campaign. And the theme of the president's bid to win in November will be familiar to many Australians. Some may remember Julia Gillard's 2010 election slogan 'Moving Forward'. Well, this year Barack Obama is using 'Forward' as his campaign slogan. The backdrop to the 2012 presidential election is the slow recovery and the number of people still out of work. Stephanie Kennedy reports from Washington. STEPHANIE KENNEDY: The president's re-election slogan is 'Forward', but at his official campaign launch in the key battleground state of Ohio, Barack Obama was looking backwards to his 2008 election slogans. BARACK OBAMA: If people ask what this campaign is about, you tell them it's still about hope. (applause and cheers) You tell them it's still about change. (applause and cheers) You tell them it is still about ordinary people who believe that in the face of great odds we can make a difference in the life of this country. (applause and cheers) STEPHANIE KENNEDY: But the Republican's are now arguing that the president's hope and change has turned into hype and blame. Reince Priebus is the chairman of the Republican National Committee. REINCE PRIEBUS: What this president has done is he went from a candidate or hope and change and now he is the president of hype and blame. He blamed everybody, he blames earthquakes,he blames ATMs, tsunamis, Europe, the Congress, Republicans. Everyone is to blame except Barack Obama. And we are going to focus in on what Barack Obama promised and what Barack Obama delivered because we think it is going to be a referendum on him in November. STEPHANIE KENNEDY: Both sides are fighting this election on the economy and the latest data shows the unemployment rate ticking down a fraction to 8.1 per cent and less people looking for work. Alice Rivlin is an economist and former vice chair of the Federal Reserve.

ALICE RIVLIN: There is good reason to think that this was an unusually poor report. No way to make it a great report but the economy is chugging along. It's not doing well. It depends what you expected. No one should have expected a roaring boom after this kind of a recession. STEPHANIE KENNEDY: David Axelrod is the president's chief campaign strategist and he's defended the president's economic track record. DAVID AXELROD: We've come a long way from where we were. We are in the middle of recovering from this recession, but there is a larger project which is how do we rebuild this economy in the long term so the middle class is growing and not shrinking and people who work hard can get ahead, people who act

responsibly are rewarded for that responsibility. That is what we are working on. STEPHANIE KENNEDY: This presidential election campaign will be won by the candidate voters perceive offers the best hope for a speedier recovery that creates more jobs and economic growth. In Washington this is Stephanie Kennedy reporting for AM.

Renewable Energy

Obama spins the plan as a win for his agenda – sways critical swing-statesMason 8/10(Jeff, writer for Reuters, “Obama knocks Romney on renewable energy, tax shelter” http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/08/09/us-usa-campaign-obama-idINBRE8781L120120809) MattG

(Reuters) - President Barack Obama, trying to blunt rival Mitt Romney's attacks on his economic record, accused the Republican on Thursday of promoting policies that would hurt renewable energy and cost jobs in important political swing states. On the second day of a tour through Colorado, a politically divided state that could be key in deciding the November 6 election, Obama portrayed federal tax credits for the wind industry as a critical economic necessity that Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, would nix. "At a moment when homegrown energy - renewable energy - is creating new jobs in states like Colorado and Iowa, my opponent wants to end tax credits for wind energy producers," Obama told a crowd of some 3,500 people at the Colorado State Fairgrounds in Pueblo. The industry supports 5,000 jobs across Colorado, and 37,000 jobs would be at risk nationwide without the credits, he said. "It's time to stop spending billions in taxpayer subsidies on an oil industry that is already making a lot of profit," Obama said. "Let's keep investing in new energy sources that have never been more promising." The White House has made helping the renewable energy sector a centerpiece of Obama's first term in office, but the effort has created some problems for the Democratic president.

Supporting expansion of renewable energy wins Colorado and Iowa for Obama – key to the electionHennessey 8/9(Kathleen, writer for CSM, Christian Science Monitor, “Obama slams Romney opposition to wind power tax credit” http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0809/Obama-slams-Romney-opposition-to-wind-power-tax-credit) MattG

President Barack Obama kept the pressure on GOP opponent Mitt Romney on Thursday in a fight over a wind energy tax credit, as he stumped in southeastern Colorado, a hub of wind power.¶ “At a moment when homegrown energy,

renewable energy, is creating new jobs in states like Colorado and Iowa, my opponent wants to end tax credits for wind energy producers. Think about what that would mean for a community like Pueblo,” Obama told a crowd of about 3,500 people at the Colorado State Fairgrounds. “Thewind industry supports about 5,000 jobs across this state. Without those tax credits, 37,000 American jobs, including potentially hundreds of jobs right here in Pueblo, would be at risk.”¶ With that jab, the campaign welcomed to the trail a perennial feature: the swing state micro-issue.¶ Are you more liberal than

Barack Obama? Take the quiz to find out.¶ Whether it’s ethanol subsidies in Iowa or Yucca Mountain nuclear waste facility in Nevada, candidates have long sought to land on the right side of local concerns out of fear that they can have an outsized impact in an important state. In the case of the wind credits, the impact could be felt in two key states: Iowa and Colorado, both major producers in the still-nascent industry that is dependent on federal tax credits.¶ Romney has said he does not support the extension of the tax credit, a position in line with his criticism ofObama’s investment in alternative-energy production. Romney has cast Obama’s green energy push as ill-advised and wasteful, zeroing in on the federal investment in the failed

solar firm Solyndra.¶ But it’s a position that had the GOP candidate catching flak as he toured Iowa on Wednesday.¶ Obama piled on in remarks on Thursday.¶ “Colorado, it is time to stop spending billions in taxpayer subsidies on an oil industry that’s already making a lot of profit, and keep investing in a clean energy industry that’s never been more promising. That’s the choice in this election,” Obama said.¶ Obama also drew a contrast on immigration, ribbing Romney for his support for “something called self-deportation,” while touting his recent decision to allow some young illegal immigrants — those brought to the U.S. as children — to stay in the country.¶ Obama described the so-called “dream” kids as American “in every single way except a piece of paper.”

Renewable energy is a win for ObamaJaffe 8/8(Mark, writer for the Denver Post, “Changing energy policy rules keep Colorado guessing in election year”, http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_21213987/changing-energy-policy-rules-keep-colorado-guessing-election) MattG

The question now is what impact the 2012 presidential election will have on the rules.¶ President Barack Obama has been a supporter of renewable energy, which he argued was a job creator, while trying to balance opening public lands to oil and gas development with conservation concerns.¶ Obama's presumptive Republican challenger Mitt Romney is opposed to incentives for renewable energy — such as the wind- production tax credit — and for opening as much public land to drilling as possible.¶ This debate is not an idle one for Colorado, where 22,394 people worked in oil and gas production in 2010 and nearly 19,000 are employed in the renewable energy sector, based on state figures.¶

And yet from the Western Slope well fields to the Eastern Plains wind farms, Colorado, like the rest of the country, has had to cope for decades with a lack of a consistent energy policy.¶ "We've been trying for an energy policy since Richard Nixon," said Charles Ebinger, director of the Energy Security Initiative at the Brookings Institution, in Washington, D.C.¶ "But we have too many conflicting interests," Ebinger

said. "Everything is a fight."¶ Nowhere is the weight of the vagaries of federal energy policy now falling heavier than in the wind and solar industry, company executives say.¶ The specter of the loss of the wind-production tax credit — equal to $22 for every megawatt-hour a wind farm produces — will lead to a 90 percent drop in the U.S. wind market, according to IHS Emerging Energy, a consulting group.¶ "The reality is we are going from the best year we've had in the United States to the worst," said Steve Dayney, chief executive officer of REpower USA, the Denver-based American subsidiary of a German wind- turbine maker. "We are looking at the Grand Canyon of cliffs."¶ The wind industry employs about 5,000 people in Colorado. Danish Vestas Wind Systems A/S is the prime employer, with 1,700 workers in four factories. And Vestas, which is also a major customer for component factories in the state, will be forced to lay off 1,600 employees if the tax credit is not renewed, according to Ditlev Engel, the company's CEO.¶ Dayney said the industry is prepared to see a phase-out of the tax credit to give companies time to adjust.¶

Spending

Plan boosts jobs and swings election in Obama’s favorMedved 2012 (Michael Medved, Michael Medved hosts a nationally syndicated daily radio talk show heard by more than 4 million listeners. He is also the author of 12 nonfiction books, most recently The 5 Big Lies About American Business.; The Daily Beast, A smart, speedy take on the news from around the world, combined with the depth and investigative power of Newsweek Magazine; Numbers Reveal Truth About Obama Economic Success Claims—and GOP Condemnation, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/03/numbers-reveal-truth-about-obama-economic-success-claims-and-gop-condemnation.html) MattG

Raw data show Obama can’t honestly claim a good record as a job creator, but they also suggest that the wild spending

growth Romney and company decry has already begun to subside under the influence of the Republican House. The outcome of the upcoming electoral battle between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney will depend on public perceptions of the president’s economic stewardship, with particular emphasis on his performance on the all-important issue of jobs. At a May 24th campaign rally in Des Moines, Iowa the president declared that “federal spending since I took

office has risen at the slowest pace of any president in almost sixty years.” Has the White House compiled an impressive record of “putting Americans back to work” as the Democrats proudly boast, or did administration policies actually delay normal processes of recovery, taking a bad situation and “making it worse” as the Romney campaign insists? Leaving aside the dubious nature of the proposition that any president actually creates jobs (other than new hires for the White House), there’s an easy way to cut through the dizzying flurry of conflicting statistics that partisans on both sides passionately promote: checking the raw, readily available data from the Department of Labor on how many Americans are working today compared with the number who held jobs at the end of the Bush administration. By that standard, the nation unequivocally lost jobs in the first 39 months of the Obama presidency: with 142,287,000 working in May, 2012 (the most recent statistics available) compared with 143,338,000 at the end of December, 2008—the last employment numbers announced under President George W. Bush. Moreover, these job losses occurred at a time of rapid population growth, with more than 8,100,000 new American residents (through both birth and immigration) over the same period. This explains the more dramatic increase of those listed by the government as “unemployed” (from 11,108,000 to 12,720,000) and the even more notable rise among those “not in the labor force” (from 80,588,000 all the way to 87,958,000). With 342,000 Americans in April alone giving up on the search for a job, the overall percentage of work-age population either employed or looking for work dropped in April to 63.6 percent—the lowest level since December, 1981, in the darkest days of the disastrous Carter-Reagan recession. The slight uptick in labor force participation in May—0.2 percent—hardly removed the sting from disastrous numbers for the overall job market. In other words, statistics strongly support the common perception that jobs remain fiendishly difficult to find, despite the administration’s happy talk about a burgeoning recovery. The president may not qualify as the catastrophic job killer of GOP caricature, but he can hardly claim the gleaming mantle of a robust job creator. Statistics show the dramatic difference in fiscal performance between Congresses controlled by Republicans and those dominated by Democrats. Nor can he plausibly pass himself off as a champion of tight-fisted spending restraint while throwing down a challenge to skeptical Republicans in another crucial issue of the campaign. At a May 24 campaign rally in Des Moines, Iowa, the president declared that “federal spending since I took office has risen at the slowest pace of any president in almost 60 years.” The Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler fact-checked this claim and bestowed on the commander-in-chief the coveted “Three Pinocchios” designation. Again, a quick check of numbers at the White House’s own website gives the lie to Obama claims of cutting deficits and bringing the budget under control: the last budget signed by George W. Bush and passed by the Democratic Congress (for fiscal year 2008) amounted to $2.77 trillion with a deficit of $459 billion. The next year’s budget (signed by Obama and again authorized by the Pelosi-Reid Congress) included a great deal of “emergency spending” for the Obama Stimulus Package and reached $3.52 trillion with a deficit of 1.4 trillion. In other words, deficit spending more than tripled in Obama’s first year as president, and it’s remained at comparably crippling levels ever since. As Andrew Taylor fact-checks the White House claims for the Associated Press, the president “measures up” with a 9.7 percent spending increase in 2009 “much of which is attributable to Obama” and “a 7.8 percent increase in 2010, followed by slower spending growth over 2011-13. Much of the slower growth reflects the influence of Republicans retaking control of the House and their budget and debt deal last summer with Obama.” This summary raises one more crucial point indisputably indicated by universally accepted statistics: the dramatic difference in fiscal performance between Congresses controlled by Republicans and those dominated by Democrats. In fact, partisan majorities in the House of Representatives (where the Constitution stipulates that spending bills must originate) seem to matter more to the scope of deficit spending than whether a donkey or an elephant occupies the Oval Office. President Obama rightly chides his Republican presidential predecessors for disappointing records of fiscal management, but fails to note that for all 12 years of the Reagan and first Bush administrations, and for the last two difficult years of the second Bush administration, Democrats wielded big majorities in the House. It’s no accident that Bill Clinton enjoyed a vastly better record of economic management in the six years (1996-2001) he hammered out budgets with a Republican House (and averaged a surplus of more than 1 percent of GDP) than the two years he collaborated with his fellow Democrats (and racked up deficits of 2.5 percent). By the same token, George W. Bush averaged deficits at a typical level of 2.5 percent of GDP during the six years he worked with Denny Hastert and fellow Republicans, but when Nancy Pelosi took over the House during his last two years, the numbers exploded to a disastrous rate of 6.7 percent. In

raw dollar terms, the last “all-Republican budget” of 2007 (devised entirely by a GOP president and approved by a Republican House) brought a modest deficit of $160.7 billion, while the first “all-Democratic budget” of the Obama era in 2010 (wholly attributable to President Obama, and passed by the Pelosi House) amounted to deficit spending of $1.293 trillion—or eight times more than the bad old days of Bush. The bottom line of any honest, uninflected examination of readily available budgetary and employment numbers provides both bad news and good news for President Obama’s reelection efforts. The bad news: while he hardly qualifies as the devastating, prosperity-wrecking destroyer depicted in conservative propaganda, he certainly can’t claim a good record as a job creator with fewer people working today than when he took office, and vastly more having left the labor force altogether. But the good news for Obama from the raw numbers also suggests that the wild spending growth that Romney and company regularly (and rightly) decry has already begun to subside under the influence of the Republican House. Based on historical patterns, the deficit might well continue to decline in a second Obama term—as long as the GOP maintains control of Congress and exercises stern supervision of the administration’s credit card

Link Takeouts

No Internal – Energy not key

People are dumb – energy policies are too complicated to factor into voting decisions – economic policy outweighsHull 8/2(Dana, writer for Mercury News, “Majority of Californians say they know nothing about emissions cap-and-trade program” http://www.mercurynews.com/elections/ci_21213312/more-than-half-californians-say-they-know-nothing) MattG

California's landmark global-warming bill was a white-hot topic in the 2010 governor's race and remains

former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's signature environmental achievement.¶ But as the state prepares to unroll the law's cap-and-trade program in November with the first state auctions of emissions permits, a new poll finds that 57 percent of Californians say they have never heard anything about the program.¶ The statewide poll by the Public Policy Institute of California further found that 30 percent of respondents said they had heard "a little," while just 12 percent said they had heard "a lot."¶ "Cap-and-trade is a very complicated issue to the average Californian,"

said Mark Baldassare, president and¶ CEO of the PPIC. "It's not something that has been at the center of attention for them. Connecting the dots between cap-and-trade and global warming continues to be a challenge for policymakers."¶ The cap-and-trade program sets lower limits on companies' greenhouse gas emissions and allows those who emit less

than their cap to sell permits to those who exceed their limits.¶ The issues of climate change and energy policy have been largely absent in the presidential election, which has been dominated by the economy.