Spending Trade Off

Spending Trade Off DDW 2009

Ike, Lisa, Ed

Spending DAs

1 NASA tradeoff 1NC

NASA is on the chopping block all funding elsewhere comes from it Kyle Brady June 22, 2009 http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/6/22/745498/-The-Decimation-of-a-Generations- Future (programmer and business owner)

By being in such massive debt, there are going to be consequences. We’ve already seen the beginnings of this at the state-level, as California goes broke and will not be able to operate independently for much longer. What happens when the federal government, the glue that holds the states together, falls into a faulty relationship and has to question its very existence? Programs are going to be cut, funding to states lessened, and our dreams shattered, since all of history shows us the lawmakers will protect themselves and their interests first, and be concerned about the general welfare of the population at a later point. NASA, the ultimate embodiment of American frontierism, is already on the chopping block, with massive budget cuts and restrictions likely coming down the pipe – despite being a crucial part of our future, both in terms of space exploration and technological innovation.

Paygo rules require that new spending trade off with old spending Hoyer + Miller JUNE 25, 2009 [both hoyer and miller are democratic senators, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588708823850591.html]

President Obama has made the pay-as-you-go rule -- a.k.a. "paygo" -- a central part of his campaign for fiscal responsibility. Under paygo, Congress is compelled to find savings for the dollars it spends. In the 1990s, paygo proved to be one of our most valuable tools for climbing out of a budgetary hole. As President Obama put it earlier this month, "It is no coincidence that this rule was in place when we moved . . . to record surpluses in the 1990s -- and that when this rule was abandoned, we returned to record deficits that doubled the national debt." President George W. Bush and the Republican Congress set paygo aside, turning borrowed money into massive tax cuts for the most privileged. Borrowing made those tax cuts politically pain-free as long as Mr. Bush was in office, but it only passed the bill on to the next generation -- along with ever-inflating interest payments. Democrats, on the other hand, understand that we owe it to our fiscal future to pay our bills up-front. As soon as our party took back Congress in 2007, we made the principle of paying for what we buy part of the House rules. To be sure, Congress hasn't always lived up to that commitment, usually when the Senate rejected House bills that were paid for. But that is all the more reason to give paygo the force of law. On Mr. Obama's behalf, we have introduced legislation to keep Congress, whether controlled by Democrats or Republicans, from sacrificing our fiscal health to the political pressures of the moment.

NASA is key to prevent extinction

2 Spending Trade Off DDW 2009

Ike, Lisa, Ed

Jason G. Mathney, 07 (MBA is a Consultant to the Center for Biosecurity of UPMC. Previously he worked for the World Bank, the Center for Global Development, and the Packard Foundation, evaluating public health projects. He is a Sommer Scholar and PhD student in Health Economics at Johns Hopkins' Bloomberg School of Public Health. He received a BA from the University of Chicago, an MPH from Johns Hopkins University, and an MBA from Duke University. He has published on health economics, risk analysis, biotechnology, and bioethics. ) We already invest in some extinction countermeasures. NASA spends $4 million per year monitoring near-Earth asteroids and comets (Leary, 2007) and there has been some research on how to deflect these objects using existing technologies (Gritzner & Kahle, 2004; NASA, 2007). $1.7 billion is spent researching climate change and there are many strategies to reduce carbon emissions (Posner, 2004, p. 181). There are policies to reduce nuclear threats, such as the Non- Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, as well as efforts to secure expertise by employing former nuclear scientists. Of current extinction risks, the most severe may be bioterrorism. The knowledge needed to engineer a virus is modest compared to that needed to build a nuclear weapon; the necessary equipment and materials are increasingly accessible and because biological agents are self-replicating, a weapon can have an exponential effect on a population (Warrick, 2006; Williams, 2006).5 Current U.S. biodefense efforts are funded at $5 billion per year to develop and stockpile new drugs and vaccines, monitor biological agents and emerging diseases, and strengthen the capacities of local health systems to respond to pandemics (Lam, Franco, & Shuler, 2006). There is currently no independent body assessing the risks of high-energy physics experiments. Posner (2004) has recommended withdrawing federal support for such experiments because the benefits do not seem to be worth the risks.

As for astronomical risks, to escape our sun’s death, humanity will eventually need to relocate. If we survive the next century, we are likely to build self-sufficient colonies in space. We would be motivated by self-interest to do so, as asteroids, moons, and planets have valuable resources to mine, and the technological requirements for colonization are not beyond imagination (Kargel, 1994; Lewis, 1996).

Colonizing space sooner, rather than later, could reduce extinction risk (Gott, 1999; Hartmann, 1984; Leslie, 1999), as a species’ survivability is closely related to the extent of its range (Hecht, 2006). Citing, in particular, the threat of new biological weapons, Stephen Hawking has said, “I don’t think the human race will survive the next thousand years, unless we spread into space. There are too many accidents that can befall life on a single planet” (Highfield, 2001). Similarly, NASA Administrator, Michael Griffin (2006), recently remarked: “The history of life on Earth is the history of extinction events, and human expansion into the Solar System is, in the end, fundamentally about the survival of the species.”

3 Uniqueness Wall

1. The budget gives NASA 18.7 billion Space.com 26 February 2009 (http://www.space.com/news/090226-nasa-obama-2010- budget.html) (respected news source for space news)

U.S. President Barack Obama has proposed a funding boost for NASA that provides more support for Earth sciences missions and aviation, while keeping the agency's three space shuttles on target for a 2010 retirement. NASA would receive $18.7 billion for the 2010 fiscal year under the budget proposal released by the White House on Thursday. That would be an increase from the $17.2 billion NASA received in 2008 and represents an overall boost of more than $2.4 billion for the space agency when coupled with the additional $1 billion it received in the recent economic stimulus bill.

2. NASA funding is going up now but is not completely decided Kenneth Kesner June 25, 2009(http://blog.al.com/space- news/2009/06/nasa_funding_restored_to_187_b.html) (writer for al.com) A Senate subcommittee has restored hundreds of millions to NASA's proposed 2010 budget that were cut in the House version of a more than $65 billion spending bill, according to Alabama U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby, R- Tuscaloosa. Earlier this month, the House approved a spending bill that moved hundreds of millions out of exploration and support programs in the NASA budget of $18.686 billion requested by President Barack Obama.

3. extend the 1nc uniqueness card that said that it was not entirely decided how much would be spent on NASA funding

4. Obama will push the NASA budget up now Associated Feb 26, 2009 (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1513884/obama_2010_budget_to_increase_nasa. html) online news outlet President Barack Obama's FY2010 budget request contains a generous increase for NASA, from a projected 2009 level of $17.8 billion to $18.7 billion in FY2010. The 2010 Obama budget request also endorses the return to the Moon program.

There are few details as of yet of how the money will be distributed among the various NASA accounts in the 2010 Obama budget requests.But there are indications as towhat Obama's priorities will be for the space agency.

2010 NASA budget highlights include, according to the White House:

"Provides $18.7 billion for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Combined with the $1 billion provided to the agency in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, his represents a total increase of more than $2.4 billion over the 2008 level.

Ike, Lisa, Ed Link wall

1. Space is on the chopping block any new spending will kill it Space politics.com June 25 2009 http://www.spacepolitics.com/2009/06/ (the source for all space politics news)

The Commerce, Justice, and Science subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee marked up their FY2010 appropriations bill yesterday and appear to have more closely followed the White House’s request than the House did earlier this month. According to the summary, the bill provides $18.68 billion for NASA overall, equal to the administration’s topline request. The summary doesn’t give the full breakout of funds by account so it’s hard to tell how closely this matches the president’s request (especially if they created a “Construction and environmental compliance” account like the House did.) Also unclear is the fate of some smaller programs, like Centennial Challenges and related innovation efforts that are feared to be on the chopping block despite their small ($20 million) price tag. However, we do know thanks to the Orlando Sentinel that the bill includes three earmarks for Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) totaling $1.6 million, primarily for facilities at the Kennedy Space Center and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station.

2. The first thing to go in any fiscal dispute is NASA because people are ignorant Jeff Brooks. (An author of the Space Review) July 2 2007. (http://thespacereview.com/article/898/1)

“ I think we should solve our problems here on Earth before we go into space.” This line, or some facsimile of it, has probably been heard countless times by just about every advocate of space exploration. For many people, it seems to sum up the totality of their thinking on the subject. Not a few politicians invoke it on those rare occasions when space exploration comes up in political discourse.

3. The absence of political makes NASA always an easy target and the first thing to get cut Jeff Brooks. (An author of the Space Review) April 14 2008. (http://thespacereview.com/article/1102/1)

For far too long, space exploration has been an invisible issue on the political campaign trails of America. While the 2008 election cycle has seen more discussion of space issues than we have seen in previous years, it still ranks very far down the list of priorities when compared to nearly every other issue. Not surprisingly, candidates tend to avoid the subject of space exploration on the campaign trail, either through simple disinterest or to avoid giving their opponents an opportunity to accuse them of fiscal extravagance. Since space exploration is not an important subject on the campaign trail, there is not much incentive to make it a major issue in Congress. This disastrous political cycle is the main reason why we were not on Mars two decades ago and why ships with human crews are not voyaging into the outer solar system today. The lack of a fully-empowered political action committee has been a major contributing factor in the lack of strong political leadership on space exploration. Politicians must be made to know that they will gain by supporting space exploration and will suffer if they don’t. Until the space advocacy movement learns to play political hardball, its efforts will continue to be largely ineffectual. After all, if there were no such thing as the National Rifle Association, how many politicians would care about gun control?

5 4. Political pressure is against NASA now only a few key congress people are saving it from being chopped Space Ref.ca( http://www.spaceref.ca/news/viewpr.html?pid=28501) June 20 2009 (SpaceRef Interactive Inc. is a privately owned and operated company co-founded by Marc Boucher and Keith Cowing in the summer of 1999 and is based out of Reston, Virginia and with offices in Vancouver, Canada. SpaceRef's 21 news and reference web sites are designed to allow both the novice and specialist alike to explore outer space and Earth observation.) (Washington, DC) - Today, Congresswoman Suzanne Kosmas (FL-24) defended NASA's human spaceflight program and the thousands of Central Florida jobs it supports by voting against drastic cuts to exploration funding. Kosmas voted no on the FY 2010 Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations bill, which provides only $3.3 billion for exploration, $670 million less than the President's budget request. According to preliminary estimates, the funding included in this bill for exploration could cause additional delays of up to 2 years and increase costs by up to $8 billion due to inefficiencies and loss of key skills and core capabilities.

"The funding levels in this bill for NASA's human spaceflight program are simply unacceptable," said Congresswoman Kosmas. "These cuts will cause years of delays and put at risk the highly skilled workforce that is critical to Central Florida's economy and that may not be easily reassembled for future programs. These funding levels could also threaten our national security interests by forcing us to rely even more on Russia for access to space and the International Space Station, sending billions of our taxpayer dollars overseas. I will keep fighting to restore exploration funding before this bill becomes law in order to preserve jobs, support our national security interests, and maintain a robust human spaceflight program."

Kosmas and a bipartisan group of legislators, including fellow Space Coast representative, Bill Posey (FL-15), took to the House floor this week to speak out against the cuts and to urge for restoration of human spaceflight funding before the bill becomes law. Kosmas and Posey had previously sent a letter to the Appropriations Committee urging them to reverse the cuts and maintain a robust human spaceflight program.

Ike, Lisa, Ed TANF link

TANF funding goes through the congress and would trigger the link This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-1094 entitled 'Welfare Reform: Information on TANF Balances' which was released on September 08, 2003.

To better understand states' spending patterns for TANF funds as the Congress debates the program's reauthorization,[Footnote 3] you asked us to provide information on (1) TANF balances, including the amount of funds transferred to states' child care and social services block grants, that remain unspent and (2) the extent to which these balances reflect reserves available for future use. To address these questions, we interviewed program and finance officials at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which oversees the TANF, child care,[Footnote 4] and the social services block grants. We reviewed U.S. Treasury balance reports as of July 31, 2003, the most recent available, and used this information to estimate TANF balances through September 30, 2003 (the end of fiscal year 2003). While states can save some of their federal funds each year, they are not allowed to draw those funds from the U.S. Treasury until they actually spend those funds.[Footnote 5] While balances recorded by Treasury provide some information on the level of unspent TANF funds, they do not distinguish TANF funds transferred to the other block grants from those that remained within the TANF program.

7 ICE link

Congress controls ICE- all news funding would go through it a trigger the link John Bicknell Aug 8 2008 (http://public.cq.com/docs/cqt/news110-000002935682.html) staff writer for cq today The head of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement will ask Congress to consider taking disciplinary action against one of its members for a statement he made equating ICE agents with the Gestapo, a senior agency official said Wednesday. Luis V. Gutierrez, vice chairman of the House Judiciary subcommittee that handles immigration, has called for a moratorium on ICE enforcement actions until Congress passes a comprehensive overhaul, something it has failed to do in each of the past two years. In a column written for Politico, Gutierrez, D-Ill., commenting on recent ICE arrests of illegal immigrants in Iowa, said: “You know who is in charge now? The Gestapo agents at Homeland Security. They are in charge.” A senior ICE official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Julie L. Myers, the assistant secretary of Homeland Security for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, was “absolutely appalled and deeply angered” by the statement. The official said Myers would send a letter to senior members of Congress asking that disciplinary action be taken against Gutierrez’ for his remarks. Another official, Jamie Zuieback, director of congressional affairs for ICE, went on the record. “It’s not OK,” Zuieback said. “Aside from being demeaning to the law enforcement officers that uphold the very laws passed by Mr. Gutierrez’s Congress, it’s potentially dangerous. No member of Congress should be encouraging the public to defy or demean federal law enforcement officers. Words matter.” A call seeking comment from Gutierrez was not returned. Similar comments from the immigration activist community are not all that uncommon, and at least one other Democratic House member has made a similar remark.

Granting benefits to immigrants costs über ducats Robert Rector June 26, 2007 (Robert Rector is a leading national authority on poverty, the U.S.welfare system and immigration and is a Heritage Foundation Senior Research Fellow.) (http://www.heritage.org/research/immigration/wm1523.cfm)

Heritage research has shown that low skill immigrants (those without a high school degree) receive, on average, three dollars in government benefits and services for each dollar of taxes they pay. This imbalance imposes a net cost of $89 billion per year on U.S. taxpayers. Over a lifetime, the typical low skill immigrant household will cost taxpayers $1.2 million.[4]

Future taxpayer costs will be increased by policies which increase (1) the number of low skill immigrants entering the U.S., (2) the length of low skill immigrants' stays in the U.S., or (3) low skill immigrants' access to government benefits and services. Unfortunately, this is exactly what the Senate immigration bill does:

The bill would triple the flow of low skill chain immigration into the U.S. By granting amnesty to at least 12 million illegal immigrants, the bill would greatly lengthen their stay in the U.S., particularly during retirement years. The bill would grant illegal immigrants access to Social Security and Medicare benefits and, over time, to more than 60 different federal welfare programs. Although the bill does not currently permit Z visa holders to bring spouses and children in from abroad, this would likely be amended at some future point on humanitarian grounds, resulting in another 5 million predominantly low-skill immigrants entering the country. Heritage research has concluded that the cost of amnesty alone will be $2.6 trillion once the amnesty recipients reach retirement age.

In an effort to defend the Senate bill, the White has contested these conclusions. As described below, many of the assertions made by the White House are inaccurate or misleading. Prisons Link

Even private prisons are funded by congress and would trigger the link 8 Spending Trade Off DDW 2009

Ike, Lisa, Ed

Tom Perry dec 1 2008 (http://americas.irc-online.org/am/5705) directs the TransBorder Project of the Americas Policy Program (www.americaspolicy.org) at the Center for International Policy in Washington

Private prison companies aren't worried that the Democratic Party sweep will mean that fewer immigrants are sent their way because of party promises of enacting comprehensive immigration reform. GEO Group's chairman George Zoley assured investors on Nov. 3: "These federal initiatives to target, detain, and deport criminal aliens throughout the country will continue to drive the need for immigration detention beds over the next several years and these initiatives have been fully funded by Congress on a bipartisan basis."

The costs of prison health care are astronomical Denise Humm-Delgado 2009 professor at Simmons college of social services (http://books.google.com/books?id=3nudnkrEza0C&pg=PA153&lpg=PA153&dq=sigurdson+2000+this+cost+saving+is+only+an+illusion. +we+seem+to+forget+that+we+pay+for+incarceration+with+taxes.+we+also+take+individuals, +jobs+and+resources&source=bl&ots=ORyREaKqHf&sig=pxQeDROVLHRvCwWDm1v_alIr- Ac&hl=en&ei=kjpRSt6nBY6MMuP5yPUP&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1) This local cost saving is only an illusion. We seem to forget that we pay for incarceration with taxes. We also take individuals, jobs and resources out of our communities and move them to central facilities (prisons), in which adequate care is very expensive because of the added cost of incarceration. We have not saved money overall; we have only shifted where we spend it… The resultant cost in suffering to patients, families and victims of crime is arguably unmeasurable.

9 A2: just pay for both

PAYGO rules increase Fiscal D – Sequestration ensures success RTTNEWS.com June 25, 2009 http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/TOP%20STORY/2390190/

The Director of the Office of Management and Budget said Thursday that the new Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2009 would strengthen the country's enforcement of and reemphasize its commitment to fiscal discipline. At a hearing before the full House Budget Committee, OMB Director Peter Orszag emphasized the need to enact the PAYGO Act proposed by the Obama Administration into law. "We should follow that Hippocratic Oath that first directs doctors to do no harm," Orszag said. PAYGO rules, enacted as part of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, require that increases in direct spending and decreases in revenue be offset by other spending cuts or revenue increases. Starting in the late 1990s, when the federal budget was in surplus, Congress began loosening PAYGO rules before fully abandoning them in 2002. However, facing a fiscal year 2009 deficit of $1.7 trillion, the Obama administration has endorsed making PAYGO a statutory part of the budget process in order to reign in new entitlement spending and new tax cuts. Before the committee, Orszag outlined the rules of the PAYGO Act and described how the OMB would enforce those rules to make sure Congress adheres to the PAYGO principle. In prepared testimony, Orszag said that the OMB would maintain a PAYGO ledger to record "the average ten-year budgetary effects of all legislation enacted through 2013 that affects governmental receipts or mandatory outlays relative to the baseline." Orszag also said that the PAYGO Act would enforce budget constraint through the threat of sequestration and will force policy makers to make decisions to pay for new mandatory spending and tax reductions. Speaking more specifically, Orszag added that President Obama could sequester resources from non-mandatory programs if there is a net cost found on the PAYGO ledger. "Set up in this way, sequestration strongly encourages policymakers never to violate PAYGO budget constraint and trigger sequestration--in other words, sequestration is in practice a threat, not a remedy," he said.

Fiscal D now – PAYGO rules bring credibility Humberto Sanchez writer for congress daily June 18, 2009 http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0609/061809cdam2.htm

Citing the need to bring down the nation's ballooning deficit, House Democratic leaders Wednesday introduced pay/go legislation requiring that new tax and mandatory spending legislation that adds to the deficit be offset. "The legislation introduced today to make pay-as-you-go budgeting the law of the land will help return our nation to sound fiscal health," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., in a statement. "Just as every American family must live within their means, so must the federal government." The bill, which has 155 cosponsors, comes after President Obama last week called on Congress quickly to restore pay/go spending constraints that so many have credited with the surpluses of the late 1990s.

Ike, Lisa, Ed

***AFF answers***

11 Aff answers: NASA

NASA’s Budget is Not Close to Covering Space Exploration Already Jean- Louis Santini. (Writer for Physorg.com, a partner of the Scientific America Partner) July 5, 2009. (http://www.physorg.com/news166004852.html) But NASA's budget is not big enough to cover the cost of Constellation's Orion capsule, a more advanced and spacious version of the Apollo lunar module, and the Ares 1 and Ares V launchers needed to put it in orbit. Constellation is projected to cost about 150 billion dollars, but estimates for the Ares 1 have skyrocketed from 26 billion dollars in 2006 to 44 billion dollars last year. With a space exploration budget of six billion dollars in 2009, Senator Bill Nelson of Florida said: "NASA simply can't do the job it's been given -- the president's goal of being on the moon by 2020." Nelson, a former astronaut, deplored that between 2020 and 2015 the United States will have no way of transporting its astronauts to the ISS except aboard Russian Soyuz space craft. Meanwhile, a group of active and retired NASA engineers, who are critical of the Constellation project, have been working in their spare time on a parallel project dubbed Jupiter Direct. It envisions using the Orion capsule but replacing the Ares launchers with a family of launchers with common components based on existing shuttle technology. Proposals presented to Obama's commission on human space flight estimate Jupiter's cost at 14 billion dollars, half the original estimate for the Ares 1. The commission chairman, respected former Lockheed Martin chief executive Norman Augustine, said it comes down to money."With a few exceptions, we have the technology or the knowledge that we could go to Mars if we wanted with humans. We could put a telescope on the moon if we wanted," he said. "The technology is by and large there. It boils down to what can we afford?"

NASA Has a Large Amount of Funding and Wouldn’t be Effected if Some Was Used Jeff Brooks. (An author of the Space Review) July 2 2007. (http://thespacereview.com/article/898/1) It is obvious to those who are knowledgeable about the potential of a robust space program that, far from diverting resources away from efforts to solve Earth’s problems, the answers to many of our problems are to be found in space. However, for the purposes of this essay, we shall limit ourselves to examining how the funding for NASA stacks up when compared to the various programs that are often cited as more deserving than the space agency.

NASA Has Sufficient Spending, Besides Space Exploration, Even if Cuts Were Made Jeff Brooks. (An author of the Space Review) July 2 2007. (http://thespacereview.com/article/898/1) According to budget documents obtained from the Government Printing Office, the national budget for 2007 totals about $2.784 trillion. At $16.143 billion, spending on NASA accounts for 0.58% of this. Compare this to NASA’s allocation during the mid-1960s when, despite the pressures of the war effort in Vietnam and President Johnson’s Great Society programs, NASA spending made up more than five percent of the federal budget.

Federal Government Has No Intention to Cut NASA; They are Focusing on Other Programs Rich Lowry. (Author, Editor of the National Review) July 7, 2009. (http://www.lincolntribune.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=13043) Now, almost every other day, Barack Obama finds another hundred billion dollars to cut out of Medicare and Medicaid.

Space Exploration Hasn’t Occurred For a While NASA Watch. November 29, 2006. (http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2006/11/space_explorati_3.html) Sadly, space exploration was often touted as an example of America's technological prowess - and a harbinger of things to come in our nation's future. Now it doesn't even rank worth a mention when the topic of "our Innovation Future" is discussed. Yet nations such as China and India see such things as a source of national pride - and something to aspire toward - accomplishments we now seem to have forgotten.

Ike, Lisa, Ed

13 ***F22 DISAD***F-22 1NC (1/2)

F-22’s still exist LATimes April 7, 2009 (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-defense7- 2009apr07,0,6842364.story) (really, you don’t know what the LA times is? really?)

Wasteful Pentagon spending is something that most members of Congress would like to eliminate -- as long as the cuts are made in somebody else's state. The problem the Obama administration faces as it seeks support for its defense budget is that pretty much everybody would feel some pain.

President Obama released his $534-billion military budget proposal weeks ago, but Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates fleshed it out Monday by listing specific programs to be cut or expanded. The plan would increase spending by 4% over fiscal 2009, though judging from the reaction of congressional hawks, one would think the Pentagon were being gutted. Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) commented in a blog post from Afghanistan that "President Obama is disarming America" and betraying our troops abroad. The fear-mongering won't end there. Still, the opposition in Congress has a lot more to do with money than with national security concerns. Defense contractors have spread their operations across the country, and program cuts mean lost jobs. On Monday, Gates announced that production of the F-22 would be halted at 187. That shouldn't be too controversial given that only 183 were ordered, but components for the Lockheed fighter jet are built in 44 states, giving it a great deal of political support.

F-22’s are on the chopping block David Swanson, Feb 4,2009 (author of multiple books, pundit, community organizer) (http://open.salon.com/blog/davidswanson/2009/02/04/putting_war_waste_on_the_chopping_block)

Fraud finds new paths during wars, but it is the chief product of Pentagon contracts unrelated to particular wars as well. Often, in fact, it's devoted to preparation for wars that could never happen. This week Chalmers Johnson published an article called "The Looming Crisis at the Pentagon: How Taxpayers Finance Fantasy Wars," in which he wrote: "The Air Force and the Army are still planning as if, in the reasonably near future, they were going to fight an old-fashioned war of attrition against the Soviet Union, which disappeared in 1991; while the Navy, with its eleven large aircraft-carrier battle groups, is, as William S. Lind has written, 'still structured to fight the Imperial Japanese Navy.'"

Johnson named a few specific items worthy of the chopping block: "Given the present major recession, whose depths remain unknown, the United States has better things to spend its money on than Nimitz-class aircraft carriers at a price of $6.2 billion each (the cost of the USS George H. W. Bush, launched in January 2009, our tenth such ship) or aircraft that can cruise at a speed of Mach 2 (1,352 miles per hour).

"… Gates is also sympathetic to the desire of a few reformers in the Pentagon to dump the Lockheed-Martin F- 22 'Raptor' supersonic stealth fighter, a plane designed to meet the Soviet Union's last proposed, but never built, interceptor.

"… Gates has not yet found the nerve -- or the political backing -- to pull the plug on the F-22; nor has he even dared to bring up the subject of canceling its more expensive and technically complicated successor, the F-35 'Joint Strike Fighter.'"

Ike, Lisa, Ed F-22 1NC (2/2)

F-22’s are essential to hegemony- their loss would have a rippling affect out to all the rest of the military Mark Bowden, March 2009 (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/200903/air-force) (contributing editor to vanity fair magazine)

But even reasonable decisions can have harsh consequences. Without a full complement of Raptors, America’s aging fighters are more vulnerable, and hence more likely to be challenged. Complaints from the Air Force tend to be dismissed as the laments of spoiled fighter jocks denied the newest, hottest toy. But the picture on Rodriguez’s wall reminds us of the stakes for the men and women in the cockpit. Countries such as Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea will be more likely to take on the U.S. Air Force if their pilots stand a fighting chance. This could well mean more air battles, more old-style aces—and more downed American pilots. The impact will not be felt only by aviators. Owning the sky is the first prerequisite of the way we fight wars today. Air supremacy is what enables us to send an elaborate fleet of machinery caterwauling over a targeted nation, such as Afghanistan or Iraq: the orchestrating AWACS (“Airborne Warning and Control System,” the flying surveillance-and-command center ); precision bombers; attack planes, helicopters, and drones; ground support; rescue choppers; and the great flying tankers that keep them all fueled. This aerial juggernaut enables modern ground-fighting tactics that rely on the rapid movement of relatively small units, because lightly armed, fast-moving forces can quickly summon devastating air support if they encounter a heavy threat. Wounded soldiers can count on speedy evacuation and sophisticated emergency medical care. Accomplishing all this with anything like the efficiency American forces have enjoyed since the Vietnam War depends on owning the sky, which means having air-to-air hunter-killers that can shoot down enemy planes and destroy surface-to-air missile (SAM) sites before the rest of the fleet takes to the sky. Superior fighters are the linchpin of our modern war tactics. Having owned the high ground for so long, we tend to forget that it is not a birthright. Unless the 21st century is the first in human history to somehow transcend geopolitical strife, our military will face severe tests in the coming years. The United States will be expected to take the lead in any showdown against a sophisticated air force. So it is worth examining the nature of air-to-air combat today, and the possible consequences of not building a full fleet of F-22s.

US hegemony is key to preventing proliferation and global nuclear war. Khalilzad, 95 (Zalmay, director of the Strategy and Doctrine Program at RAND & former US Ambassador to Afghanistan) "Losing the Moment? The United States and the World After the Cold War," Washington Quarterly, Spring, p. proquest)

Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values — understood as democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.

15 Uniqueness wall

1. F-22’s exist Morning Edition, February 27, 2009 · http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101189936

The F-22 Raptor is the most expensive fighter jet ever built. It was designed to fight advanced Soviet planes, but President Obama has said he wants to cut "cold war weapons systems." Cutting the F-22 would save lots of money, but it would cost thousands of jobs. The Air Force is expected to ask the White House to sign off on 60 more planes over the next three years.

2. Extend the uniqueness from the 1NC which says that F-22’s still exist- that’s the LA times 09

3. The F-22 is being paid for right now but its final fate has been delayed Flight International February 27,2009 (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/02/27/323198/f-22-funding- decision-pushed-back.html) (british aviation news company)

The US Department of Defense has delayed a decision on extending production of the Lockheed Martin F-22 beyond a 1 March deadline imposed by Congress. It instead wants to keep all options open as it assembles its fiscal year 2010 defence budget, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell told reporters on 25 February. Extending F-22 production partly hinges on committing funds this year for long-lead parts. The Pentagon is authorised to spend up to $140 million up to 1 March, but has so far only released $50 million.

4. The f-22 is on the fence but is being funded now Jen DiMascio is a writer who specializes in defense. Before coming to Politico, she covered Congress for Defense Daily and military policy and purchasing for Inside the Army. June 25, 2009 (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/24219.html)

The House approved its version of a bill to authorize defense spending for fiscal year 2010 that also included money for an alternative engine for the Air Force's Joint Strike Fighter. The Senate Armed Services Committee approved a defense bill that provides $1.75 billion to buy seven F-22s. It also approves funding for an alternate engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter made by General Electric and Rolls Royce. The Obama administration threatened a veto over both issues Wednesday, and action in both chambers indicates lawmakers would face difficulty overriding the executive branch. The Senate committee bucked its chairman, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and ranking member, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who agree with the president that the nation has committed to make enough F-22s already. Votes on both fighter jet issues were close. Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), the Raptor's biggest champion, was jubilant. "Our debate and vote took place with full awareness of the administration’s veto threat, and the result of the vote speaks for itself,” said Chambliss. Levin and McCain told reporters they anticipate a robust debate on both issues as well as on policies for military commissions that would try detainees.

Ike, Lisa, Ed LINK WALL (1/2)

1. Any military spending will come from F-22’s Ernest Istook, June 6, 2009 (Distinguished Fellow at The Heritage Foundation and chairs the National Advisory Board for Save Our Secret Ballot, www.SOSballot.org.) http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32169

President Obama is not a totally profligate spender. But his selectively-parsimonious approach disturbs many who want to maintain a strong national defense. Almost half of Obama’s budget cuts are to defense. All are then plowed back into spending increases elsewhere. This is the first wartime “peace dividend.” And the cuts are being imposed without any analytical support. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, “[We] finance our capabilities to fight the wars we are in today and the scenarios we are most likely to face in the years ahead.” But what are those scenarios?

***the card continues***

The F-22 Raptor . This highly-expensive fighter is also incredibly capable, easily surpassing any other fighter in the world. Our only other new fighter, the F-35, is still at least five years away from first deployment. The Air Force says it needs more F-22s, but it’s terminating production to meet Obama’s budget targets. In a Washington Post column, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz and Secretary of the Air Force Michael Donley explained: . . . last summer [we] concluded that 243 aircraft would be a moderate-risk force. … [But] purchasing an additional 60 aircraft to get to a total number of 243 would create an unfunded $13 billion bill just as defense budgets are becoming more constrained. If 243 F-22s are a “moderate risk” isn’t Gates’ plan for only 187 a higher risk? And let’s not forget what risk means: it means that lives and wars will be lost.

2. Extend the link that F-22’s are on the chopping block now and that any new military funding would crowd them out- that’s Swanson on Feb 4

3. Any new funding will trade off with the f-22 because Obama is concerned about the military pricetag NeverYet Melted.com (http://neveryetmelted.com/2009/02/25/raptor-on-the-chopping-block/) (right wing cite devoted to the American way)

[US] complete dominance is eroding. Some foreign-built fighters can now match or best the F15 in aerial combat, and given the changing nature of the threats our country is facing and the dizzying costs of maintaining our advantage, America is choosing to give up some of the edge we’ve long enjoyed, rather than pay the price to preserve it. The next great fighter, the F22 Raptor, is every bit as much a marvel today as the F15 was 25 years ago, and if we produced the F-22 in sufficient numbers we could move the goalposts out of reach again. But we are building fewer than a third of the number needed to replace the older fighters in service. After losing hope of upgrading the whole F15 fleet, the Air Force requested 381 F22s, the minimum number that independent analysts said it needs to retain its current edge. Congress is buying 183, and has authorized the manufacture of parts for 20 more at the front end of the production line, enough to at least keep it working until President Obama decides whether or not to continue building F-22s. Like so many presidential dilemmas, it’s a Scylla-and-Charybdis choice: a decision to save money and not build more would deliver a severe blow to a sprawling and vital U.S. industry at a time when the nation is mired in recession. And once the production line for the F-22 begins to shut down, restarting it will not be easy or cheap, even in reaction to a new threat. Each plane consists of about 1,000 parts, manufactured in 44 states, and because of the elaborate network of highly specialized subcontractors needed to fashion its unique airframe and avionics, assembling one F-22 can take as long as three years. Modern aerial wars are usually over in days, if not hours. Once those 183 to 203 new Raptors are built, they will have to do. Our end of the fight will still be borne primarily by the current fleet of aged F15s.

17 When Obama unveiled his national-security team in December, he remarked that he intended “to maintain the strongest military on the planet.” That goal will continue to require the biggest bill in the world, but the portion that bought aerial dominance for so long may have become too dear. .. .

Ike, Lisa, Ed Link Wall (2/2)

4. The F-22 is already having a hard time vying for a spot in the military budget any new spending would crowd it out Lara Jakes Feb 13, 2009 (writer for the AP) (http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2009/02/ap_pentagon_budget_021309w/)

A Pentagon spokesman said Friday the military must tighten its budget belt by looking at ways to share equipment and services instead of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines each paying for its own. To that end, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell signaled that requests to build more F-22 fighter jets could be one area facing cuts. The Obama administration is expected to decide by March 1 whether to spend $523 million on 20 more of the radar-evading stealth planes beyond 183 that are already planned — one of the first major defense spending decisions of the new presidency. Lawmakers fear that ending F-22 spending would result in thousands of lost jobs during the global recession that began last year. But Pentagon leaders, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates, have expressed doubt that more F-22s are needed, especially since the military plans to buy several thousand F-35s, a much cheaper plane. Morrell said the issue of F-22s was being weighed amid ongoing Pentagon budget talks “both financially and in terms of balancing capabilities and risk.” “ We need to make hard choices in this economic climate, particularly with regards to programs that are having trouble being executed,” Morrell told reporters at a Pentagon briefing Friday. “We need to look for cost efficiencies.” Earlier this week, Gates said the Pentagon has not yet decided on the F-22 spending, calling it “one of the programs that, along with a number of others — many others — that we will be looking at.”

19 F-22 Key 2 hege (1/3)

The F-22 is essential to air supremacy and its loss will result in our hegemony being challenged Mark Bowden, March 2009 (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/200903/air-force) (contributing editor to vanity fair magazine)

American air superiority has been so complete for so long that we take it for granted. For more than half a century, we’ve made only rare use of the aerial-combat skills of a man like Cesar Rodriguez, who retired two years ago with more air-to-air kills than any other active-duty fighter pilot. But our technological edge is eroding —Russia, China, India, North Korea, and Pakistan all now fly fighter jets with capabilities equal or superior to those of the F-15, the backbone of American air power since the Carter era. Now we have a choice. We can stock the Air Force with the expensive, cutting-edge F22—maintaining our technological superiority at great expense to our Treasury. Or we can go back to a time when the cost of air supremacy was paid in the blood of men like Rodriguez.

F-22s are crucial for the US to maintain control over the airways Loren B. Thompson, Ph.D, 7/16/08, Heritage Foundation, Lexington Institute Issue Brief, “Further F-22 Production is crucial to winning Future Wars”, http://blog.nationalsecurity.org/2008/07/further-f-22-pr.html#52768886 Today, the Pentagon doesn't have a coherent plan for how it will sustain global air dominance over the next 30 years without a sufficient number of F-22s, because it has convinced itself that unconventional warfare is the wave of the future. In other words, it doesn't think U.S. air dominance will be challenged. Not surprisingly, some potential adversaries like Russia see this as an invitation to begin competing again for command of the skies. The next administration needs to step back from all the trendy ideas of the past eight years and focus on some basic facts about military preparedness... 1. Air dominance -- the ability to control airspace -- is the most important capability U.S. forces have. Without it, soldiers and sailors on the surface are constantly in danger from hostile aircraft, and friendly aircraft cannot safely accomplish missions like bombing and airlift. 2. U.S. air dominance is at risk today around the world from new surface-to-air missiles that can shoot down any plane that is not stealthy or shielded from detection by electronic jamming. Additional danger comes from new foreign fighters that match or surpass the F-15. 3. Even without these new threats, the current fleet of cold-war fighters is so old that it cannot be counted on to provide air dominance in the future. Many Air Force fighters operate on flight restriction due to metal fatigue, corrosion and other age-related maladies. 4. The F-22 is the only fighter the U.S. is building that was designed mainly as an air dominance aircraft rather than as a tradeoff of competing roles. It can conduct bombing, intelligence gathering and information warfare, but these do not detract from the air dominance mission. 5. Most of the money required to build 381 F-22s has already been spent, and cannot be recovered -- including $24 billion spent by five administrations to develop the plane. So the real question today is whether warfighters will get a good return on that investment by buying enough planes.

F-22 Key 2 hege (2/3) 20 Spending Trade Off DDW 2009

Ike, Lisa, Ed

F-22s are critical in fighting in future wars John Gapper, journalist, 7/16/08, Financial Times, “America’s air force misses the Target”, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d7d3b01c-535f-11dd-8dd2-000077b07658.html What impresses the US air force, however, is not what pleases the US government. The F-22 has become a symbol of what Robert Gates, the defence secretary, has dubbed " 'next-war-itis' - the propensity of much of the defence establishment to be in favour of what might be needed in a future conflict". Mr Gates wants the US military instead to focus on the "war on terror" and asymmetric conflicts in which it has to work with allies to combat suicide bombers and insurgents in hot, dusty countries. The kind of air support that such campaigns require is helicopters and cargo aircraft, not a 21st-century stealth fighter jet. As a result, he has stood firm against the USAF's wish to have 381 F-22s to replace its ageing fleet of F-15s, a Vietnam-era fighter that has been repeatedly patched and upgraded. The US will buy only 183 and intends to make do instead with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a forthcoming stealth aircraft that is cheaper and more versatile. Mr Gates may be right that the F-22 will prove an unnecessary precaution in the world as we know it and that five squadrons is "a reasonable buy". But there are two difficulties with his obstinate position, one military and the second financial. The military problem is that air superiority is something the US takes for granted but is not inevitable. Mr Gates clearly believes the USAF is stuck in the past but he could equally be accused of being stuck in the present. While terrorism is the immediate threat, China's military rise and Russia's military resurgence are worries for the future. If it came to a "peer" battle with another military power, the US would have sheer numbers on its side. But Russian-built Sukhoi Su-27s, which have been acquired by countries including China, could match the US's "fourth generation" aircraft - F-15s and the like - in a fight. It would require a "fifth generation" stealth fighter - either an F-22 or an F-35 - to see them off. The US should have plenty of Joint Strike Fighters: it has ordered about 2,400 for its air force, marines and navy, which are due to enter service in 2011.

F-22s are unprecedented at establishing air dominance, and have the capabilities to deal with new threats. Todd Lopez, Staff Writer at Air Force Print News. 6/23/06 “F-22 excels at establishing air dominance” http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123022371

"Even without stealth, this is the world's best fighter," General Lewis said. "The F-22, its ability with speed and maneuverability, is unprecedented. The problem with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter in establishing air dominance is that you have to buy two or three to replace the F-22, because it only has half the weapons load, and it doesn't have the speed. You can't replace (the F-22) one-for-one with an F-35 or any other legacy fighter such as the F- 15E."

During Exercise Northern Edge 2006 in Alaska in early June, the F-22 proved its mettle against as many as 40 "enemy aircraft" during simulated battles. The Raptor achieved a 108-to-zero kill ratio at that exercise. But the capabilities of the F-22 go beyond what it can do. It is also able to help other aircraft do better.

"When you are outnumbered on the battlefield -- the F-22 helps the F-18 and the F-15s increase their performance," General Lewis said. "It gives them more situational awareness, and allows them to get their expenditures because you can't kill all these airplanes with just the weapons aboard the F-22. It takes the F-15's and F-18's weapons. It was very successful, (in its) ability to get everybody to integrate."

One role the F-22 is particularly good at, General Lewis said, is establishing air dominance. This means making airspace above an area safe for other aircraft to come in do their mission. The F-22 is superb at performing air- to-air combat and eliminating surface-to-air missiles. In fact, the F-22 is capable of dealing with both of those threats at the same time.

21 "Because of its stealth and its speed, it is unique in that category, in that it allows us to establish air dominance," General Lewis said. "It goes after the aircraft, the SAMs, and the cruise missiles. And it can do it all at the same time. The legacy (aircraft) can do any one of those, kind of okay, but they can't survive in contested airspace. They can first F-22 Key 2 hege (3/3) ***card continues no text omitted*** try to take care of the aircraft, then they can work on the SAMs. But the F-22 has demonstrated, last year in (final operational testing and evaluation), that we can do that simultaneously."

Of particular interest to the Air Force is the F-22's ability to deal with "double digit SAMs." A double digit SAM, Air Force parlance for Russian-designed mobile surface-to-air missiles, is so named for the two digit designator in their NATO reporting name. The Russian-designed S-300P Angara, for instance, is designated "SA-10" by NATO countries. The "S-300PMU Favorit" is designated the "SA-20." Both Russia and China manufacture these weapons systems, and they are readily available on the market. These weapons are highly mobile and pose a threat to Air Force legacy aircraft such as the F-15 and F-16.

F-22 Jets are necessary for preparation against future enemies Daniel Collins and Trish Choate, staff writers, 7/13/08, Times Record News Washington Bureau, “Signs of Things to Come”, http://www.timesrecordnews.com/news/2008/jul/13/sign-things-come/ If Iran’s missile tests are a sign of things to come, short-range fighting capabilities nurtured at Sheppard Air Force Base should be among priorities for U.S. national defense. But the base’s mission to train fighter pilots shouldn’t be the only priority, as far as Wichita Falls’ congressman is concerned.“If this missile test reminds us of anything, it’s that we can’t afford to neglect any part of our capability,” Mac Thornberry, R-Clarendon, of the 13th Congressional District said. Iran conducted its second day of long-range weapon tests Wednesday in the Persian Gulf. The country’s military has fired at least one rocket capable of reaching Israel. The tests raise the possibility of armed conflict. Thornberry, a senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, said Iran’s missile tests show the need for a full range of defense. Long-range bombers and unmanned aerial vehicles, short-range fighter jets, missile defense and intelligence are key, he said. The Department of Defense has emphasized investing in short-range fighter planes such as the F-35 and the F-22, another new fighter jet. Sheppard might someday become home to an F-35 mission — not for pilot training but for maintenance training. The base already has a mission to educate maintainers for the F-22. But some argue long-range strike capabilities will be more important in future wars. “There’s concern, even in the case of Iran, that getting short-range aviation in is not so easy and you might actually be better off investing in long-range aviation,” Steve Kosiak, a military and budget analyst in Washington, said. “If you’re spending $300 billion on the F-35 program, what does that say about your potential for investing in modernizing your long-range aviation capabilities?” Bombers such as the 36 B-1Bs assigned to Dyess Air Force Base in Abilene have become workhorses in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They’ve won commanders over for their long-range strike capacity, ability to loiter in airspace, high payload space and maneuverability. Some question how relevant short-range fighters such as the F-35 and the F-22 will be in future wars similar to the one in Iraq or in conflict with worrisome nations like China or Russia, said Kosiak of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Air Force had about one-third less short-range aircraft than a decade before in Desert Storm, he said. “There’s no right or wrong answer,” Kosiak said. “If you think the future threats are in the Pacific theater where distances are so great that short-range aircraft are of very limited value then you might not think (short-range planes) are that relevant.” The Government Accountability Office has found fault with how the Pentagon prioritizes weapons development. A GAO report released this month said the Department of Defense will need about $1.6 trillion to complete major weapons systems already in development. “The funding process doesn’t properly prioritize what gets started and what doesn’t, so you get too many programs going,” Michael Sullivan, a GAO analyst, said. The report said the DOD does not fully commit funding to develop programs, despite a department mandate.

Ike, Lisa, Ed

The department accepts unrealistic cost estimates for projects. When the tab becomes much larger than expected — many times doubling or tripling — officials scale back considerably.

23 Military Link

College first is expensive and would trigger the link if many people at all do it which is required to solve Rod Powers 2009 (http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/armyjoin/a/collegefirst.htm) Rod has covered the US Military for About.com since 1999. He is the author of ASVAB for Dummies and Barrons' Officer Candidate School Tests. Rod is wholly familiar with military life, having been stationed or deployed to several bases around the world during his 22 years of service. His military decorations include the Meritorious Service Medal with three oak-leaf clusters.

The Army offers a unique enlistment incentive called "Army College First," that allows college students to enlist in the Army in the Delayed Enlistment Program (DEP), continue with their college education, receive a monthly stipend from the Army, then enter the Army at the advanced rank of E-4 (if at least 30 college credits were earned under the program). Depending on MOS (job), individuals may also be eligible for a $3,000 "College First" Enlistment Bonus.

Ike, Lisa, Ed Impact Wall (1/3)

And American primacy is vital to accessing every major impact—the only threat to world peace is if we allow it to collapse Thayer 06. (Bradley, professor of security studies at Missouri State, The National Interest, “In Defense of Primacy”, November/December, p. 32-37)

THE MIDTERM elections this November mark the unofficial commencement of the 2008 presidential campaign, and over the next two years, Americans will begin to contemplate and debate the legacy of George W. Bush. Among the more contentious elements of the Bush legacy has been the conduct of foreign policy. While some have focused on the operational mistakes of the Bush Administration, others have argued that its overall orientation--what I would describe as the maintenance of American primacy--is itself flawed and counterproductive to long-term American national interests. A grand strategy based on American primacy means ensuring the United States United States, officially United States of America, republic (2005 est. pop. 295,734,000), 3,539,227 sq mi (9,166,598 sq km), North America. The United States is the world's third largest country in population and the fourth largest country in area. It consists of 50 states and a federal district. stays the world's number one power--the diplomatic, economic and military leader. Those arguing against primacy claim that the United States should retrench, either because the United States lacks the power to maintain its primacy and should withdraw from its global commitments, or because the maintenance of primacy will lead the United States into the trap of "imperial overstretch o·ver·stretch. Those arguing for a grand strategy of retrenchment are a diverse lot. They include isolationists, who want no foreign military commitments; selective engagers, who want U.S. military commitments to centers of economic might; and offshore balancers, who want a modified form of selective engagement that would have the United States abandon its landpower presence abroad in favor of relying on airpower and seapower to defend its interests. But retrenchment, in any of its guises, must be avoided. If the United States adopted such a strategy, it would be a profound strategic mistake that would lead to far greater instability and war in the world, imperil American security and deny the United States and its allies the benefits of primacy. There are two critical issues in any discussion of America's grand strategy: Can America remain the dominant state? Should it strive to do this? America can remain dominant due to its prodigious military, economic and soft power capabilities. The totality of that equation of power answers the first issue. The United States has overwhelming military capabilities and wealth in comparison to other states or likely potential alliances. Barring some disaster or tremendous folly, that will remain the case for the foreseeable future, With few exceptions, even those who advocate retrenchment acknowledge this. So the debate revolves around the desirability of maintaining American primacy. Proponents of retrenchment focus a great deal on the costs of U.S. action--but they fail to realize what is good about American primacy. The price and risks of primacy are reported in newspapers every day; the benefits that stem from it are not. A GRAND strategy of ensuring American primacy takes as its starting point the protection of the U.S. homeland and American global interests. These interests include ensuring that critical resources like oil flow around the world, that the global trade and monetary regimes flourish and that Washington's worldwide network of allies is reassured and protected. Allies are a great asset to the United States, in part because they shoulder some of its burdens. Thus, it is no surprise to see NATO in Afghanistan or the Australians in East Timor. In contrast, a strategy based on retrenchment will not be able to achieve these fundamental objectives of the United States. Indeed, retrenchment will make the United States less secure than the present grand strategy of primacy. This is because threats will exist no matter what role America chooses to play in international politics. Washington cannot call a "time out", and it cannot hide from threats. Whether they are terrorists, rogue states or rising powers, history shows that threats must be confronted . Simply by declaring that the United States is "going home", thus abandoning its commitments or making unconvincing half-pledges to defend its interests and allies, does not mean that others will respect American wishes to retreat. To make such a declaration implies weakness and emboldens aggression. In the anarchic world of the animal kingdom, predators prefer to eat the weak rather than confront the strong. The same is true of the anarchic world of international politics. If there is no diplomatic solution to the threats that confront the United States, then the conventional and strategic military power of the United States is what protects the country from such threats. And when enemies must be confronted, a strategy based on primacy focuses on engaging enemies overseas, away from American soil. Indeed, a key tenet of the Bush Doctrine is to attack terrorists far from America's shores and not to wait while they use bases in other countries to plan and train for attacks against the United States itself. This requires a physical, on-the-ground presence that cannot be achieved by offshore balancing. Indeed, as Barry Posen Posen: see Poznań, Poland. has noted, U.S. primacy is secured because America, at present, commands the "global commons"--the oceans, the world's airspace and outer space--allowing the United States to project its power far from its borders, while denying those common avenues to its enemies. As a consequence, the costs of power projection for the United States and its allies are reduced, and the robustness of the United States' conventional and strategic deterrent capabilities is

25 increased. (2) This is not an advantage that should be relinquished lightly. A remarkable fact about international politics today--in a world where American primacy is clearly and unambiguously on Impact Wall (2/3) display--is that countries want to align themselves with the United States. Of course, this is not out of any sense of altruism, in most cases, but because doing so allows them to use the power of the United States for their own purposes-- their own protection, or to gain greater influence. Of 192 countries, 84 are allied with America--their security is tied to the United States through treaties and other informal arrangements--and they include almost all of the major economic and military powers. That is a ratio of almost 17 to one (85 to five), and a big change from the Cold War when the ratio was about 1.8 to one of states aligned with the United States versus the Soviet Union. Never before in its history has this country, or any country, had so many allies. U.S. primacy--and the bandwagoning effect--has also given us extensive influence in international politics, allowing the United States to shape the behavior of states and international institutions. Such influence comes in many forms, one of which is America's ability to create coalitions of like-minded states to free Kosovo, stabilize Afghanistan, invade Iraq or to stop proliferation through the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). Doing so allows the United States to operate with allies outside of the UN, where it can be stymied by opponents. American-led wars in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq stand in contrast to the UN's inability to save the people of Darfur or even to conduct any military campaign to realize the goals of its charter. The quiet effectiveness of the PSI in dismantling Libya's WMD programs and unraveling the A. Q. Khan proliferation network are in sharp relief to the typically toothless attempts by the UN to halt proliferation. You can count with one hand countries opposed to the United States. They are the "Gang of Five": China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea and Venezuela. Of course, countries like India, for example, do not agree with all policy choices made by the United States, such as toward Iran, but New Delhi is friendly to Washington. Only the "Gang of Five" may be expected to consistently resist the agenda and actions of the United States. China is clearly the most important of these states because it is a rising great power. But even Beijing is intimidated by the United States and refrains from openly challenging U.S. power. China proclaims that it will, if necessary, resort to other mechanisms of challenging the United States, including asymmetric strategies such as targeting communication and intelligence satellites upon which the United States depends. But China may not be confident those strategies would work, and so it is likely to refrain from testing the United States directly for the foreseeable future because China's power benefits, as we shall see, from the international order U.S. primacy creates. The other states are far weaker than China. For three of the "Gang of Five" cases--Venezuela, Iran, Cuba--it is an anti-U.S. regime that is the source of the problem; the country itself is not intrinsically anti-American. Indeed, a change of regime in Caracas, Tehran or Havana could very well reorient relations. THROUGHOUT HISTORY, peace and stability have been great benefits of an era where there was a dominant power-- Rome, Britain or the United States today. Scholars and statesmen have long recognized the irenic effect of power on the anarchic world of international politics. Everything we think of when we consider the current international order--free trade, a robust monetary regime, increasing respect for human rights, growing democratization is directly linked to U.S. power. Retrenchment proponents seem to think that the current system can be maintained without the current amount of U.S. power behind it. In that they are dead wrong and need to be reminded of one of history's most significant lessons: Appalling things happen when international orders collapse. The Dark Ages followed Rome's collapse. Hitler succeeded the order established at Versailles. Without U.S. power, the liberal order created by the United States will end just as assuredly. As country and western great Ral Donner sang: "You don't know what you've got (until you lose it)." Consequently, it is important to note what those good things are. In addition to ensuring the security of the United States and its allies, American primacy within the international system causes many positive outcomes for Washington and the world. The first has been a more peaceful world. During the Cold War, U.S. leadership reduced friction among many states that were historical antagonists, most notably France and West Germany. Today, American primacy helps keep a number of complicated relationships aligned--between Greece and Turkey, Israel and Egypt, South Korea and Japan, India and Pakistan, Indonesia and Australia. This is not to say it fulfills Woodrow Wilson's vision of ending all war. Wars still occur where Washington's interests are not seriously threatened, such as in Darfur, but a Pax Americana does reduce war's likelihood, particularly war's worst form: great power wars. Second, American power gives the United States the ability to spread democracy and other elements of its ideology of liberalism. Doing so is a source of much good for the countries concerned as well as the United States because, as John Owen noted on these pages in the Spring 2006 issue, liberal democracies are more likely to align with the United States and be sympathetic to the American worldview. (3) So, spreading democracy helps maintain U.S. primacy. In addition, once states are governed democratically, the likelihood of any type of conflict is significantly reduced. This is not because democracies do not have clashing interests. Indeed they do. Rather, it is because they are more open, more transparent and more likely to want to resolve things amicably in concurrence with U.S. leadership. And so, in general, democratic states are good for their citizens as well as for advancing the interests of the United States. 26 Spending Trade Off DDW 2009

Ike, Lisa, Ed

Critics have faulted the Bush Administration for attempting to spread democracy in the Middle East, labeling such an effort a modern form of tilting at windmills. It is the obligation of Bush's critics to explain why democracy is good enough for Western states but not for the rest, Impact Wall (3/3) and, one gathers from the argument, should not even be attempted. Of course, whether democracy in the Middle East will have a peaceful or stabilizing influence on America's interests in the short run is open to question. Perhaps democratic Arab states would be more opposed to Israel, but nonetheless, their people would be better off. The United States has brought democracy to Afghanistan, where 8.5 million Afghans, 40 percent of them women, voted in a critical October 2004 election, even though remnant Taliban forces threatened them. The first free elections were held in Iraq in January 2005. It was the military power of the United States that put Iraq on the path to democracy. Washington fostered democratic governments in Europe, Latin America, Asia and the Caucasus. Now even the Middle East is increasingly democratic. They may not yet look like Western-style democracies, but democratic progress has been made in Algeria, Morocco, Lebanon, Iraq, Kuwait, the Palestinian Authority and Egypt. By all accounts, the march of democracy has been impressive. Third, along with the growth in the number of democratic states around the world has been the growth of the global economy. With its allies, the United States has labored to create an economically liberal worldwide network characterized by free trade and commerce, respect for international property rights, and mobility of capital and labor markets. The economic stability and prosperity that stems from this economic order is a global public good from which all states benefit, particularly the poorest states in the Third World. The United States created this network not out of altruism but for the benefit and the economic well-being of America. This economic order forces American industries to be competitive, maximizes efficiencies and growth, and benefits defense as well because the size of the economy makes the defense burden manageable. Economic spin-offs foster the development of military technology, helping to ensure military prowess. Perhaps the greatest testament to the benefits of the economic network comes from Deepak Lal, a former Indian foreign service diplomat and researcher at the World Bank, who started his career confident in the socialist ideology of post-independence India. Abandoning the positions of his youth, Lal now recognizes that the only way to bring relief to desperately poor countries of the Third World is through the adoption of free market economic policies and globalization, which are facilitated through American primacy. (4) As a witness to the failed alternative economic systems, Lal is one of the strongest academic proponents of American primacy due to the economic prosperity it provides. Fourth and finally, the United States, in seeking primacy, has been willing to use its power not only to advance its interests but to promote the welfare of people all over the globe. The United States is the earth's leading source of positive externalities for the world. The U.S. military has participated in over fifty operations since the end of the Cold War--and most of those missions have been humanitarian in nature. Indeed, the U.S. military is the earth's "911 force"--it serves, de facto, as the world's police, the global paramedic and the planet's fire department. Whenever there is a natural disaster, earthquake, flood, drought, volcanic eruption, typhoon or tsunami, the United States assists the countries in need. On the day after Christmas in 2004, a tremendous earthquake and tsunami occurred in the Indian Ocean near Sumatra, killing some 300,000 people. The United States was the first to respond with aid. Washington followed up with a large contribution of aid and deployed the U.S. military to South and Southeast Asia for many months to help with the aftermath of the disaster. About 20,000 U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines responded by providing water, food, medical aid, disease treatment and prevention as well as forensic assistance to help identify the bodies of those killed. Only the U.S. military could have accomplished this Herculean effort. No other force possesses the communications capabilities or global logistical reach of the U.S. military. In fact, UN peacekeeping operations depend on the United States to supply UN forces. American generosity has done more to help the United States fight the War on Terror than almost any other measure. Before the tsunami, 80 percent of Indonesian public opinion was opposed to the United States; after it, 80 percent had a favorable opinion of America. Two years after the disaster, and in poll after poll, Indonesians still have overwhelmingly positive views of the United States. In October 2005, an enormous earthquake struck Kashmir, killing about 74,000 people and leaving three million homeless. The U.S. military responded immediately, diverting helicopters fighting the War on Terror in nearby Afghanistan to bring relief as soon as possible. To help those in need, the United States also provided financial aid to Pakistan; and, as one might expect from those witnessing the munificence of the United States, it left a lasting impression about America. For the first time since 9/11, polls of Pakistani opinion have found that more people are favorable toward the United States than unfavorable, while support for Al-Qaeda dropped to its lowest level. Whether in Indonesia or Kashmir, the money was well-spent because it helped people in the wake of disasters, but it also had a real impact on the War on Terror. When people in the Muslim world witness the U.S. military conducting a humanitarian mission, there is a clearly positive impact on Muslim opinion of the United States. As the War on Terror is a war of ideas and opinion as much as military action, for the United States humanitarian missions are the equivalent of a blitzkrieg. THERE IS no other state, group of states or international organization that can provide these global benefits. None even comes close. The United Nations cannot because it is riven with conflicts and major cleavages that divide the international body time and again on matters great and trivial. Thus it lacks the ability to speak with one voice on salient issues and to act as a unified force once a decision is reached. The EU has similar problems. Does anyone expect Russia or China to take up these 27 responsibilities? They may have the desire, but they do not have the capabilities. Let's face it: for the time being, American primacy remains humanity's only practical hope of solving the world's ills. While the benefits of American primacy are considerable, no country can ever escape from the iron law of Economics 101--there is no free lunch. American

Ike, Lisa, Ed Taiwan strike add-on

Only the F-22 can prevent a Chinese strike on Taiwan David Lague October 11 2007 (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/11/world/asia/11china.html?pagewanted=print) NY Times reporter in Beijing

The blanket of China’s air defense radar now almost matches similar networks in developed countries, state media reported today, in an announcement that coincided with Taiwan’s first National Day military parade in 16 years. A senior officer from Chinese Air Force headquarters, Fang Lei, said a seamless network of all-weather air defense radars had been installed to cover all Chinese airspace, according to a report on the Web site of the official military newspaper, the Liberation Army Daily. The network’s detection and surveillance capability was “very close” to those deployed in developed countries and could also assist Chinese forces in offensive operations, the report quoted Mr. Fang as saying. The development of a high-performance air defense system to complement China’s increasingly potent surface- to-air missiles and jet fighter interceptors has been a top priority for the People’s Liberation Army, military experts say. Senior Taiwanese and American military officers have acknowledged the improvement in Chinese air defenses as a significant indication of the country’s rapid modernization of its military. This system is a direct challenge for self-governing Taiwan as it seeks to counter the mainland’s growing military power. China regards the democratic island as part of its territory and has threatened to use force under a range of circumstances, including in the case of a formal declaration of independence by the government in Taipei. In a televised National Day speech today, Taiwan’s pro-independence president, Chen Shui-bian, called on the international community to demand that China withdraw its missiles aimed at the island and halt threatening military exercises. *** the card continues*** In addition to sophisticated surface-to-air missiles, the Chinese Air Force now has hundreds of advanced Russian-designed fighters. And earlier this year, China unveiled a locally developed fighter that compares favorably with its current Western counterparts, according to military specialists. As the military balance shifted in China’s favor, it was difficult for people in Taiwan to accept the Bush administration’s opposition to the new missile, Mr. Lai said. Senior defense officials in Taiwan have argued for decades that the island needs to have the capability to strike targets in China. China’s arms buildup could also pose challenges to the United States if it is drawn into a conflict with Beijing over Taiwan. The commander of American forces in Japan, Lt. Gen. Bruce Wright, told The Associated Press earlier this month that China’s air defenses were now almost impenetrable to the American F-15 and F-16 aircraft stationed in Asia. Only the stealthy F-22 or the Joint Strike Fighter still under development could carry out missions over China, he said. “ Our planes are much older than the planes they would be matched against,” Mr. Wright said, the Associated Press reported. “ For the first time in history, we are seeing another nation, in this case China, with newer fighters than we have.”

Taiwan pulls the US into a war with China which goes nuclear- Taiwan is the only internal link Chalmers Johnson, author of Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire, 5-14-2001, The Nation, Pg. 20

China is another matter. No sane figure in the Pentagon wants a war with China, and all serious US militarists know that China’s minuscule nuclear capacity is not offensive but a deterrent against the overwhelming US power arrayed against it (twenty archaic Chinese warheads versus more than 7,000 US warheads). Taiwan, whose status constitutes the still incomplete last act of the Chinese civil war, remains the most dangerous place on earth. Much as the 1914 assassination of the Austrian crown prince in Sarajevo led to a war that no 29 wanted, a misstep in Taiwan by any side could bring the United States and China into a conflict that neither wants. Such a war would bankrupt the United States, deeply divide Japan and probably end in a Chinese victory, given that China is the world’s most populous country and would be defending itself against a foreign aggressor. More seriously, it could easily escalate into a nuclear holocaust. However, given the nationalistic challenge to China’s sovereignty of any Taiwanese attempt to declare its independence formally, forward-deployed US forces on China’s borders have virtually no deterrent effect.

***AFF answers***

Ike, Lisa, Ed Aff answers: F-22

Obama does not support the production of more F-22s JASON CLAFFEY, 7/5/09, Fosters.com, http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article? AID=/20090705/GJNEWS_01/707059841/-1/FOSNEWS

After a House committee recently passed a fiscal year 2010 military spending bill that included a down payment for 12 more F-22s — good news for hundreds of workers who build the jet's supersonic engine at the North Berwick Pratt and Whitney plant — President Obama promised to veto any bill that includes such funding. It was his first veto threat since taking office.

The F-22 Raptor is outdated and will serve little purpose in the U.S. Military.

JASON CLAFFEY, 7/5/09, fosters.com (http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article? AID=/20090705/GJNEWS_01/707059841/-1/FOSNEWS)

The Obama administration and Pentagon argue that the F-22 is a Cold War relic that has no use in the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The jet has a $140 million-per-plane price tag and has yet to fly an actual combat mission. Indeed, its most visible use may be in movies. It was featured in this year's "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" as well as 2008's "Iron Man." Halting production would make good on Obama's promise to "reform our defense budget so that we're not paying for Cold War-era weapons systems we don't use," remarks he made during his first address to Congress in February. The White House Office of Budget and Management has echoed the point. "The collective judgment of the Service Chiefs and Secretaries of the military departments suggests that a final program of record of 187 F-22s is sufficient to meet operational requirements," the office said. The office also has said the president's senior advisers would recommend a veto if a final defense bill was presented to fund more than 187 F-22s. F-22 opponent Winslow Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project for the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Defense Information, has said neither the F-22 nor the F-35 will have any practical use in counterinsurgency warfare because they fly too fast to support ground troops. He called the jets "outrageously expensive."

F-22s are unnecessary in the current wars.

6/18/09, AFP (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h9BEZgGkDOCGxJKov1oNG2zIuH 4A)

But critics say a larger fleet of F-22s is unnecessary at a time when funds are needed for weapons more suited to counter-insurgency campaigns like those in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Raptor has not been deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan. Gates has instead proposed a major investment in F-35 Joint Strike Fighters.

31 Aff answers: F-22

F-22s’ superiority is false and is a waste of money.

WINSLOW T. WHEELER, director of the Straus Military Reform Project of the Center for Defense Information, 7/6/09, www.politico.com (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/24538.html)

Also, the F-22 is outrageously expensive. The 187 now authorized are costing the nation more than $65 billion, almost $350 million for each one. More important, but so far unaddressed, is whether the F-22 is even a good fighter. Actually, it is a gigantic disappointment. Its boosters advertise the F-22 as a technological wonder — which it isn’t. Its “stealth” characteristic is greatly exaggerated. And, while the F-22 is less detectable by some radar at certain angles, it is easily detectable to many types of radar in the world, including early Russian and Chinese models. Just ask the pilots of the two stealthy F-117 bombers that were put out of action by Serbs in the 1999 Kosovo air war using antiquated radar systems. Worse, the F-22 depends on its radar and long-range, radar-guided missiles. Such “beyond visual range” radar- based air warfare has failed time and time again in war. There are two problems. First, even the low probability of intercept radar in the F-22 is vulnerable to detection by enemies, especially with the proliferation of spread-spectrum technology in cell phones and laptops. The radar not only signals the F-22’s presence to enemies but also acts as a beacon for their radar-homing missiles. While both the Russians and the Chinese specialize in such missiles, our Air Force, in its exercises, insists that such capabilities do not exist. Second, its aerodynamic performance, short-range missiles and guns are nothing special, which I observed at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada when an F-16 “shot down” an F-22 in exercises. A vote in Congress for more F-22s is a vote to decay our pilots’ skills, shrink our Air Force at increasing cost and reward Congress’s lust for pork. Congress’s new defense bill should, indeed, be vetoed if a single F- 22 is added. Pro-defense members of Congress will support that move.

US Hegemony encourages nuclear proliferation

Dong-Joon Jo, E Gartzke, Department of International Relations, University of Seoul, Korea, 07 Journal of Conflict Resolution (http://jcr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/51/1/167)

Ironically, our research implies that United States hegemony has the potential to encourage nuclear proliferation. The United States appears much more willing to intervene in contests that previously would have invited opposition from the Soviet Union. States in the developing world can no longer look to the nuclear umbrella of the Soviet Union to protect them. The lack of a nuclear defender increases the will- ingness to proliferate,provided that a state possesses a nuclear program.