Politics DA

2010 Argument & Research Kit Update 1
p. Politics Disadvantage – Argument Summary
ARGUMENT SUMMARY: DEBT CEILING POLITICS DISADVANTAGES
Now that the midterm elections are over, politics disadvantages will focus on the
government’s current agenda and the legislation that may or may not pass. Instead of
arguing about the way the American voter perceives the plan, and how that will affect
the election, the argument will be about how members of Congress perceive the plan
and how that will affect President Obama’s ability to pass items in his agenda.
SUMMARY OF THE DEBT CEILING DISADVANTAGE: In the status quo, the President will be seeking
approval of the extension of the debt ceiling sometime in the spring. He will need to
have Republican support for that because now they control the House of
Representatives. Currently, there is enough bipartisanship on budget issues, as
demonstrated by the recent tax cut compromise, to pass the debt ceiling extension. But
the affirmative plan would be very controversial with the Republicans, who generally
favor military presence, and this would poison the relationship between the President
and the GOP, resulting in the defeat of the debt ceiling extension. Failure to approve the
debt ceiling increase would cause global financial panic and undermine the world
economy.
UNIQUENESS: The uniqueness debate will center on the likelihood that the President will be
able to get the debt ceiling extension passed in the status quo. There is excellent
evidence that this will be difficult to accomplish, as no politician wants to be seen as
approving more deficit spending by the government. On the other hand, most members
of Congress know, deep down, that failing to extend the debt ceiling would be disastrous
economically.
LINK: The affirmative plans (Afghanistan, Japan, South Korea) would all be seen as
withdrawal from the world. President Obama would look weak in the eyes of
conservative Republicans, who tend to support military deployments. Further, the
military leadership would be opposed to withdrawing troop presence and this would
generate more controversy around the plan. If the negative can win the argument that
the plan creates controversy they would then say that this weakens the President, either
by upsetting bipartisan cooperation or by draining the President’s store of political
strength (political “capital”).
You can use some of the link evidence in the previous Politics DA file from August – the
evidence that talks about what the public/Congress supports and doesn’t support
regarding military presence.
One interesting issue related to the link debate is the influence of the new Tea Party
wing of the Republican Party. There is a good debate about whether or not these
members of Congress are different from traditional conservative Republicans in that they
are more isolationist – meaning they don’t want to pay for American troops to be in other
countries.
2010 Argument & Research Kit

IMPACT: The debt ceiling extension is a complicated economic issue, but learning about it
will make you very knowledgeable about the way the government works and important
current events you hear about in the news.
In the United States, the Federal Government in Washington D.C. spends money in many
ways. For example, they write Social Security and Medicare checks, they buy tanks and
airplanes for the military, they pay salaries to government workers, and they fund social
service programs like college scholarships. All of these programs are paid for out of a
large checking account.
Where does the money come from for that checking account? It comes from tax
revenues of all kinds but mostly federal income taxes and payroll taxes. When the
government doesn’t collect enough taxes to cover all their obligations to write checks, it
creates what is called a “budget deficit.” Our current budget deficit for this year is
roughly $1 trillion.
So how does the Federal Government cover their budget deficit? Just like any individual,
the government can’t write checks that bounce. They have to find another way to raise
some cash in the short term until more tax revenues come in. So what they do is sell
“bonds” – specifically, the Treasury Department sells government bonds. Anyone can
buy a government bond – individuals, banks, the Federal Reserve Board, foreign
governments like China. The cash the Treasury Department takes in when they sell a
bond goes to cover the annual budget deficit.
Those bonds aren’t free money to the government, however. If the government sells
you a bond, they promise to pay you back the dollar amount of the bond at a certain
time. That promise to pay back is “debt.” When you add up the dollar value of all the
government bonds that haven’t been cashed in yet, you have the “national debt.” So
when you see references to “the national debt is $13.5 trillion dollars” what that means
is there are $13.5 trillion dollars worth of bonds out there that can be cashed in.
The bonds also pay an interest rate, which is how the government convinces someone to
buy the bond. For example, to buy a $100 bond, it might cost you $85 today. When you
cash the bond in three years later, you receive $100, which means you earned $15 in
interest. That’s known as “interest on the national debt.”
Here’s the catch. The Treasury Department can’t sell bonds any time they want to.
There is a limit set by Congress to the total dollar value of bonds that can be created and
sold. That’s referred to as the “debt limit” or the “debt ceiling.” Congress has to pass a
law that increases the debt limit for the Treasury to sell more bonds, pretty much each
year.
That’s what the fuss will be about this spring. The Federal Government will run out of
money in its checking account sometime in March or April, as tax revenues fail to cover
the new expenses. The government will run out of money for things like Social Security
checks, defense spending, salaries for federal workers and paying back people who are

cashing in previous bonds. The Treasury Department would normally just sell more
bonds to raise the money, but they are now up against the debt ceiling.
The Congress will have to raise the debt ceiling to allow the Treasury Department to sell
more bonds to cover the deficit otherwise the Federal Government will default on its
commitments. If the U.S. government defaults on a promise, which they have never
done in the past, it would destabilize the world economy.
AFFIRMATIVE STRATEGIES: The affirmative can answer the Uniqueness argument in one of two
ways. They can say that the debt ceiling will not pass in the status quo, and they can
point out other areas of controversy or partisanship that will disrupt the smooth working
relationship between the President and Congress. Or the affirmative can say that the
debt ceiling will inevitably be raised because the Congress knows how serious it would
be if it wasn’t.
On the link arguments, the affirmative can say their plan isn’t that unpopular with
Republicans, especially Tea Party members who were just elected. Those members of
Congress are mainly trying to shrink the budget deficit and bringing our troops home
would save money.
On the impact arguments, the affirmative can say that shutting down the government
operation would be healthy for our economy in the long term by showing the importance
of not running a budget deficit. The budget crisis might lead to desirable cuts in
government spending in order to eliminate the deficit.

p. Politics Disadvantage
DEBT CEILING SHELL
A. UNIQUENESS. OBAMA AND GOP LEADERS WILL REACH

COMPROMISES
Boston Globe 11.3.10
[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/11/04/with_clashes_likely_o
bama_gop _talk_of_cooperation]
Obama and GOP leaders — sensitive to voter frustration about partisan gridlock — tried
to project a new resolve to join forces and work together. The president said he is ready
to negotiate on bills to improve education and encourage alternative energy. He
suggested he is open to compromise on extending Bush-era tax cuts, which are set to
expire Jan. 1, while warning against brinksmanship.
B. LINK. THE PLAN CAUSES REPUBLICANS TO REFUSE TO RAISE

THE DEBT CEILING
1. REPUBLICANS OPPOSE THE PLAN (INSERT SPECIFIC LINK)
2. OBAMA’S EARLY ACTIONS WILL DETERMINE WHETHER OR

NOT HE CAN WIN COOPERATION ON THE DEBT CEILING
Mara Liasson, National Public Radio, October 22, 2010

[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130754063]
For instance, if Republicans do control the House next year, will they be able to round up
the votes to raise the debt limit in order to avoid a government default and shutdown?
That's hard to imagine, since so many of their Tea Party-backed candidates campaigned
against doing that. Gingrich says that's just one of the challenges Republicans will face.
"They have two oddly opposite risks. They have a risk that they will be so chaotic and so
unable to govern that they discredit the brand before the presidential election. And they
have the risk that they will sell out in such a way that they will infuriate the base and end
up with a genuine third-party Tea movement in 2012," Gingrich says. "And so they've got
to somehow balance those two." Gingrich says the Republicans will have to try to repeal
health care, and that the party's base will go crazy if they don't. But it's still possible that
the two ends of Pennsylvania Avenue will find a way to work together, says Bill Galston,
if the president is able to set the stage for a new dynamic.

DEBT CEILING SHELL
C. IMPACT. FAILURE TO INCREASE THE DEBT CEILING WILL CAUSE

A GLOBAL DEPRESSION
David Min, Associate Director, Financial Markets Policy, Center for American
Progress, 10.28.10
[http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/10/big_freeze.html]
In short, a freeze on the debt ceiling would cause our interest payments to spike, making
our budget situation even more problematic, while potentially triggering greater global
instability—perhaps even a global economic depression. The very idea of a federal debt
freeze among the radical right in our country, while they continue to ignore responsible
deficit reduction measures and continue to focus on the wrong policy solutions,
exemplifies their obstinacy as much as their short-sightedness. A freeze on the debt
ceiling, or shutting down the federal government will not reduce the federal budget
deficit and will in fact increase it over the long run by tipping the global economy into
depression.
DEPRESSION INCREASES THE RISK OF NUCLEAR WAR
James Cusick, Sunday Herald (Scotland) March 18, 2009

http://www.sundayherald.com/oped/opinion/display.var.2495478.0.dont_bank
_on_financial_trouble_being_resolved_without_conflict.php
I'm not saying that America is about to declare war on China, or that Germany is going to
invade France. But there are profound economic stresses in central Europe that could
rapidly turn into conflict in the bankrupt Baltic states, Hungary, Ukraine. And if the Great
Recession, as the IMF's Dominique Strauss-Kahn called it last week, turns into a Great
Depression, with a prolonged collapse in international trade and financial flows, then we
could see countries like Pakistan disintegrate into nuclear anarchy and war with
neighbouring India, which will itself be experiencing widespread social unrest. Collapsing
China could see civil war too; Japan will likely re-arm; Russia will seek to expand its
sphere of economic interests. Need I to go on?

DEBT CEILING CARDS
OBAMA WILL PURSUE A BIPARTISAN AGENDA OF COMPROMISE
Politico 11.4.10
[http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44657.html]
Obama suggested a possible path for compromise on several key issues, including
preventing the expiration of Bush-era tax cuts for middle-income Americans, saying that
needed to be passed during the lame-duck session scheduled for later this month. He
also suggested he’d be open to repealing the so-called “1099” provision of his health
reform bill, which has been criticized as a burden on small business, and hinted at
seeking energy legislation far less ambitious than his politically toxic cap-and-trade bill.
And he said a moratorium on earmarks is something “we can work on together.”
THE DEBT CEILING WILL LIKELY PASS
Raven Clabough, New American, 11.4.10

[http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/5087-will-
gop-oppose- increase-of-debt-ceiling]
Nearly 15 years later, the debate over increasing the debt ceiling is being revisited, and
the possibility of another shutdown remains. The Atlantic, however, believes it to be
unlikely for the Republicans to freeze the debt ceiling: They’re too scalded from the last
government shutdown [in 1995]. So they’ll get the House to pass a lot of small things.
You can repeal Obamacare with a sentence, and let it sit in the Senate. You can stop all
funding for NPR, and then it goes to the Senate. You do this every day, get a bevy of
proposals limiting government action. Or you say, we have to pass a debt ceiling
increase, but we’re attaching $100 billion in spending cuts to the bill. The Atlantic may
be on to something. On Wednesday, Senator Mitch McConnell said raising the debt
ceiling “will not be without some strings attached if it happens.”
PRESIDENT AND GOP OFF TO A BIPARTISAN SUPPORT – MAY OR

MAY NOT LAST
Jonathan Berr, Daily Finance 11.4.10

[http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/2010-elections/the-new-spirit-of-
cooperation-in- washington-may-not-last/19701403/]
Less than 24 hours after their resounding victory in the midterm elections, Republicans
vowed to join forces with President Obama to jumpstart the moribund U.S. economy.
Speaking at a press conference, Obama called the results "humbling" and repeatedly
promised to work with newly empowered members of the GOP. Whether pledges of
bipartisan cooperation translate into deeds remains to be seen. One of the key tests for
the new Congress next year will be whether the federal government will be able to raise
the debt ceiling, the maximum amount that Washington can borrow to fund its
operations.

DEBT CEILING CARDS
THE DEBT CEILING WILL BE A BATTLE BUT HISTORY SHOWS IT WILL

LIKELY BE RAISED
iMarket News.Com 11.4.10

[http://imarketnews.com/node/21894]
The fiscal battle is likely to extend to an effort later in 2011 to pass legislation increasing
the statutory debt ceiling. If the past is a prologue, Republican leaders are likely to put
major chunks of their fiscal agenda in legislation raising the debt limit, pressuring Obama
to either accept their plans or veto the debt ceiling hike bill. Debt ceiling brinksmanship
was a central feature of the 1995 budget battle between President Bill Clinton and a
Republican Congress. After months of threats and temporary extensions, the GOP
eventually relented and passed the debt hike bill that Clinton wanted.
POLITICAL JOCKEYING MAY ENCOURAGE RESISTANCE
OMB Watch 11.3.10

[http://www.ombwatch.org/node/11356]
Tim Rutten, writing in the Los Angeles Times, picks up Collender's theme, and argues
that while tea party types and the Republican establishment will be eyeing different
agendas in Congress, both groups seem to have a new respect for intransigence toward
compromise over important policy issues. Indeed, "Many of the new senators and House
members have pledged to vote against an increase in the debt." Some conservatives,
such as likely Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) and Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), have said
they would be willing to vote for an increase in the federal debt limit for tradeoffs in
lower government spending. Unreasonable demands on lower spending that the Obama
administration would likely reject, though, might only encourage obstinate tea party
types to continue to hold out against raising the debt ceiling.
RAISING THE DEBT CEILING WILL BE A KEY POLITICAL TEST WHERE

COMPROMISE WILL BE DIFFICULT
Tim Rutten, Los Angeles Times Correspondent, 11.3.10

[http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rutten-column-
election- 20101103,0,193190.column]
One of the first tests of his ability to discipline populist revolutionaries fresh from the
electoral barricades will come when the new Congress is asked to raise the federal debt
limit from $12.4 trillion to $14.3 trillion. No Congress has ever refused to approve such
an increase and, if such a refusal were to occur, the consequences for the global
financial system would be apocalyptic. Many of the new senators and House members
have pledged to vote against an increase in the debt. Tim Phillips, president of
Americans for Prosperity — one of the more active national tea party groups — told
Politico this week that the Republicans' new House majority "cannot fold on the debt."

DEBT CEILING CARDS
PASSING THE DEBT CEILING INCREASE WILL BE A HUGE FIGHT
OMB Watch 11.3.10

[http://www.ombwatch.org/node/11356]
In February, Congress was barely able to raise the federal government's debt ceiling to
allow Uncle Sam to continue borrowing. The votes, which occurred along strict partisan
lines, only provided the government with one year's worth of additional borrowing
capacity. With a new wave of conservative lawmakers on the way to Capitol Hill in
January, will commitments to dogmatic principles by a majority of new members prevent
the government from meeting its debt obligations? Stan Collender over at Capital Gains
and Games has been warning for months about the potential for fiscal gridlock in
Washington should Republicans take over one or both houses of Congress in the
midterm elections. Now that Republicans have taken the House by a healthy margin,
Collender reassures us, "The biggest fights in Washington over the next two years will be
over anything having budget implications." Conservatives, he predicts, will fight "epic
battles with religious fervor the likes of which haven't been seen in Washington since
prohibition." One of those battles will be over raising the debt ceiling.
IT WILL BE UP TO THE GOP TO PASS THE DEBT CEILING INCREASE
Dow Jones Newswire 10.29.10

[http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx]
Next year, if the polls are correct and the Republicans take back control of the House,
the shoe will be on the other foot and it will be up to them to lift the debt ceiling. This
could be an especially tough vote for Republicans who have attempted to make the
midterm elections a referendum on Democratic spending in many parts of the country. In
the extreme unlikelihood that Congress failed to increase the debt ceiling, the U.S. could
be forced to default on its debt obligations. In that extreme scenario, global markets
would be roiled, the value of the dollar could plummet and the U.S. economy abruptly
pushed back into recession.
OBAMA’S NEXT STEPS ARE CRUCIAL FOR HIS AGENDA
Washington Post 11.4.10

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2010/11/02/AR2010110206840.html]
At the end of the night, one unanswered question remained: How Obama will respond to
Tuesday's losses. The path he chooses - whether to seek a meaningful truce with newly

emboldened Republicans, or stand firm in his policies and hope the other side
overreaches - will set the course for the remainder of his term.

DEBT CEILING CARDS
OBAMA MUST FOLLOW A BIPARTISAN, CENTRIST PATH TO MAINTAIN

POLITICAL EFFECTIVENESS
Doug Schoen, political strategist, Wall Street Journal 11.4.10
[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703506904575592192122802
022.html]
Overall, the president should make it clear that his administration has gotten the
message of this election by demonstrating a commitment to economic revitalization, job
creation, fiscal discipline and broad-based engagement economically and politically with
our allies overseas. Mr. Obama faces a historic choice. He can become marginalized and
largely irrelevant—as was Jimmy Carter in much of his last two years in office. Or he can
return to the promise of his campaign when he offered to eschew partisanship and
pursue the centrist agenda that the American people elected him to advance.
REPUBLICANS OPPOSE REDUCING PRESENCE IN AFGHANISTAN
Jill Lawrence, Senior Correspondent, Politics Daily November 1, 2010

[http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/10/31/top-10-issues-at-stake-in-the-
midterm- elections/?icid=maing|main5|1|link2|22595]
Clashes are inevitable with the approach of July and Obama's stated intention to start
drawing down U.S. troops in Afghanistan at that point. Most Republicans have been
highly critical of that deadline and are likely to challenge whether conditions are right for
us to start reducing our presence.
OBAMA OPPOSITION TO MILITARY RECOMMENDATIONS WOULD BE

CONTROVERSIAL
Kevin Whitelaw, National Public Radio, September 30, 2009

[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113339833&ft=1&f=1001]
"If he really concludes that it's the wrong thing to do to escalate, it would be incredibly
politically courageous for him to decide to say no to the generals," says Matthew Baum,
a professor of global communications at Harvard University's Kennedy School of
Government. "It could be his political undoing." The political reaction would be fierce and
swift, with Republicans already salivating at the prospect of attacking Obama as being
weak on defense. "They've been waiting for a security kind of issue," Harvey Sapolsky, a
professor of public policy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, says of Obama's
Republican critics. "That's been their strength, and he'd be giving them one."


DEBT CEILING CARDS
SHUTTING DOWN THE GOVERNMENT WOULD CAUSE THE ECONOMY

TO CRASH
Progress, 10.28.10
The budgetary consequences of this conservative pledge would be catastrophic and far-
reaching, forcing the immediate cessation of more than 40 percent of all federal
government activities (excluding only interest payments on the national debt), including
Social Security, military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, homeland security, Medicare,
and unemployment insurance. This would not only threaten the safety and economic
security of all Americans, but also have dire impacts for the economy and job growth. In
short, the economic consequences of such a large and precipitous drop in spending
would be crushing, and almost certainly result in a severe drop in economic growth and
employment at a time when we can least afford it.
SHUTTING DOWN THE GOVERNMENT WOULD CAUSE A GLOBAL

ECONOMIC PANIC
Progress, 10.28.10
Moreover, such a move could lead to a panic in the international financial markets.
Following the 2008 financial crisis, we have seen debt crises hit Ireland, Greece, and
Italy, with fears that this could spread further and cause a global economic downturn.
The financial markets are on edge today, with U.S. Treasury bonds being the safe haven
for most investment capital. Refusing to raise the debt ceiling would recklessly disrupt
the sale and purchase of new Treasury bonds, and could potentially cause a run on
outstanding Treasurys as well, as investors sought other investments. This could have
catastrophic consequences for our economy as well as the economic stability of the rest
of the world.

DEBT CEILING CARDS
GOVERNMENT SPENDING CUTS WOULD CAUSE A HUGE DIP IN THE

ECONOMY
Progress, 10.28.10
Second, these large spending cuts would increase unemployment and severely dampen
economic growth, destroying any prospects of a sustained economic recovery. The
resulting job loses and the steep cuts to unemployment insurance, food stamps, and
other federal safety net expenditures would create a reverse “multiplier effect” that
would cause a large dip in economic growth.
REFUSING TO RAISE THE DEBT CEILING WOULD MAKE THE BUDGET

SITUATION WORSE
Progress, 10.28.10
Refusing to raise the debt ceiling would also exacerbate the problems with our long-term
budget outlook. The budget deficit right now is the result of two distinct sets of changes
since 2001, when we last had a budget surplus. First, a series of long-term policies
enacted by the Bush administration—most notably the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003,
the decision to fight two major wars without raising taxes, and the passage of an
unfunded Medicare Part D prescription drug program—created permanent structural
budget deficits that will remain with us over the long term unless they are addressed.
Second, the poor economy caused a drop in tax receipts alongside higher
“countercyclical” spending, such as for unemployment insurance and food stamps.
RAISING THE DEBT CEILING IS NECESSARY TO AVOID A SECOND

GREAT DEPRESSION
Progress, 10.28.10
Implementing a debt ceiling freeze ignores the first set of issues and makes the second
set of issues worse by forcing a massive multitrillion dollar hit to an already struggling
economy and threatening to take us into a second Great Depression.


DEBT CEILING CARDS
WE WOULDN’T BE ABLE TO AVOID THE CONSEQUENCES OF A

GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN LIKE WE DID IN 1995
Progress, 10.28.10
Indeed, it was only through the use of some fairly extraordinary measures by President
Clinton’s Treasury Department, including a temporary use of retirement funds for former
government employees, that the United States managed to avoid defaulting on its
national debt during this period. Unfortunately, such measures would not be as effective
today, as analysts at Deutsche Bank found. They worry that if it happened today the
federal government would “not be able to stave off a government shutdown (or possible
suspension of bond payments) for long.”
GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN WOULD THREATEN AMERICANS

SECURITY
Progress, 10.28.10
Such severe expenditure cuts would be devastating in two ways. First, they would
eviscerate the basic services and protections offered by our federal government, leaving
our country in perilous danger from a myriad of threats and many of its most vulnerable
citizens without a safety net. Americans would be vulnerable to increased crime, drugs,
terrorism, food safety, and air traffic safety, to name just a few.
FREEZING THE DEBT CEILING WOULD CAUSE A CRASH OF

INTERNATIONAL MARKETS
Progress, 10.28.10
The conservative pledge to freeze the debt ceiling would also lead to some fairly
momentous problems in the world’s financial markets. Following the financial crisis of
2008-2009, which exposed problems with many private financial instruments that were
previously thought to be safe, such as money market funds and AAA-rated asset-backed
securities, investors sought safe haven by investing in sovereign debt. Unfortunately,
sovereign debt crises in Greece and Ireland have caused significant uncertainty in
European financial markets, and as a result, investors have flocked to the perceived
safety of sovereign debt issued by the United States, which has never defaulted in its
history. A freeze on the debt ceiling could erode confidence in U.S. Treasury bonds in a
number of ways, creating further and wider panic in financial markets. First, by causing a
disruption in the issuance of Treasury debt, as happened in 1995-96, a freeze would
cause investors to seek alternative financial investments, even perhaps causing a run on
Treasurys. Such a run would cause the cost of U.S. debt to soar, putting even more
stress on our budget, and the resulting enormous capital flows would likely be highly
destabilizing to global financial markets, potentially creating more asset bubbles and
busts throughout the world.

DEBT CEILING CARDS
THE TEA PARTY IS DIVIDED ON FOREIGN POLICY
Peter Baker, Foreign Policy Magazine 8.16.10

[http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/08/16/strange_brew]
It was a revealing moment for a movement born at a time of two overseas wars, a
continuing terrorist threat, and a looming confrontation with Iran. For though the Tea
Party may have captured the energy and imagination of this American political season, it
very decidedly owes its campaign appeal to domestic politics, tapping into economic
anxiety and visceral antipathy to what it considers President Barack Obama's big-
government program. When it comes to foreign policy, the unity of the Tea Party stops
at the water's edge. Its leaders are hopelessly divided over everything from the war in
Afghanistan and counterterrorism policies to free trade and the promotion of democracy
abroad. And with the Tea Party increasingly serving as the Republican Party's driving
force, the schism underscores the emerging foreign-policy debate on the American right.
So recently united behind President George W. Bush's war on terror, Republicans now
find themselves splintering into familiar interventionist and isolationist factions, the Dick
Cheney side of the party eager to reshape the world versus the economic populists more
concerned about cutting taxes at home than spending them on adventures abroad.
THE TEA PARTY DOES NOT SUPPORT RON PAUL’S ISOLATIONIST

FOREIGN POLICY
Peter Baker, Foreign Policy Magazine 8.16.10

[http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/08/16/strange_brew]
When tens of thousands of Tea Party activists gathered for a rally on the National Mall in
Washington this spring, they loudly cheered the economic populism of their hero, Ron
Paul, the Texas congressman who fell short in his quixotic 2008 presidential bid while
inspiring a movement that outlived his candidacy. But then he shifted to international
affairs, speaking against foreign aid and policies that make America the world's
policeman. By the time he began complaining about the many U.S. military bases
overseas and arguing for bringing the troops home from places such as Japan and South
Korea, some in the crowd were growing agitated. As journalist Kate Zernike recounts in
her forthcoming book, Boiling Mad: Inside Tea Party America, people toward the back
objected. "God bless the military!" some hollered. Paul quickly moved on to a pitch for
keeping the U.S. military strong -- and the hecklers began cheering again.

DEBT CEILING CARDS
THE TEA PARTY IS HARD LINE ON FOREIGN POLICY, NOT

ISOLATIONIST
James Carafano, Assistant Director, Davis Institute for International Studies,

9.20.10
[http://security.nationaljournal.com/2010/09/a-tea-party-foreign-
policy.php]
First, a lot of Tea Party partiers would feel comfortable reciting the old Reagan mantra
“peace through strength.” Defense spending is not what has troubled the U.S. economy.
They know that in reality, defense spending is near historic lows. All defense spending
(military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq included) is about half what the U.S. spent
on average each year (as a percentage of GDP) throughout the Cold War. Defense
spending is less than one-fifth of the federal budget. Even huge cuts in the defense
budget would not reign in federal spending or reduce the federal deficit. Entitlement
spending and the sum of all other discretionary spending account for most of the budget.
They are the last ones that will want to take axe to the defense budget or hunker down
here at home and wait for the next 9/11. I spoke at a Tea Party event with the good folks
of the First Coast Tea Party in Jacksonville, Florida a few weeks ago; they were more
solid on these issues than most in Washington.
THE ISOLATIONIST ELEMENTS OF THE TEA PARTY WON’T PUSH

THAT ISSUE
James Carafano, Assistant Director, Davis Institute for International Studies,

9.20.10
[http://security.nationaljournal.com/2010/09/a-tea-party-foreign-
policy.php]
Second, while there are also tea totelers who would be happy to gut defense, kill
overseas bases, and the like, they are not likely to use the Tea Party as the place to push
that platform. The Tea Party, contrary to what the White House would have you believe,
is a “big tent” for all kinds of conservatives. Tea Parties focus laser-like on two issues—
limited government and fiscal responsibility—and that is what keeps folks with disparate
agendas united. The Tea Parties are unlikely to splinter over national security and
foreign policy issues.
REPUBLICANS DON’T FAVOR ISOLATIONISM – GENERALLY SUPPORT

MILITARY ADVICE
Nikolas Gvosdev, faculty, US Naval War College, World Politics Review,

11.05.10
[http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/6947/the-realist-prism-after-
midterms-finding-elusive- common-ground]
Moreover, while a neo-isolationist tendency may animate some of the rank-and-file of the
Tea Party movement, most of the politicians most associated with it do not advocate
scaling back the U.S. global presence to a modern-day "Fortress America." Indeed, the
new members of the House of Representatives are more likely to advocate for heeding
the professional military advice of Afghanistan war commander Gen. David Petraeus to
determine whether conditions have sufficiently improved on the ground to permit the
withdrawal of any U.S. combat forces next July.

DEBT CEILING CARDS
REPUBLICANS IN POWER HAVE A HARD-LINE FOREIGN POLICY

11.05.10
With Republican realists and isolationists largely sidelined in terms of internal party
influence, that leaves the hawks and nationalists. This group, of course, has criticized
Obama's conduct of foreign affairs ever since he took office in January 2009, accusing
him of kowtowing to foreign despots and abandoning U.S. allies in his efforts to open
dialogues with Iran, China and Russia, while not doing enough to assert American
primacy in the global order. Indeed, the likely new chair of the House Committee on
Foreign Relations, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen is expected to "focus on ways to strengthen
anti-WMD proliferation policies, increase pressure on rogue regimes such as Iran, Syria,
and Sudan, and elevate democracy promotion efforts." And Rep. Howard P. "Buck"
McKeon, who is expected to head up the House Armed Services Committee, was quite
critical of the Obama administration for rejecting "notions of American exceptionalism"
and its reluctance to "assume the role of the world's lone democratic superpower."
OBAMA IS SHIFTING TO THE RIGHT ON FOREIGN POLICY TO CREATE

BIPARTISANSHIP WITH THE GOP

11.05.10
So will Obama and his team begin to shift U.S. foreign policy in a more "hawkish"
direction as the vaunted "common ground" for a possible bipartisan consensus? Last
month, Robert Kagan indicated that he thought this shift was already under way It bears
remembering that key members of the Obama national security team -- among them the
vice president and the secretary of state -- were not so much opponents of the Bush
administration's policy initiatives as critics of what they viewed as the administration's
inept execution of those policies. And if groups like "Third Way” which seeks a
"framework for how Democrats could reach common ground with Republicans," gain in
influence in Democratic circles, we might see renewed emphasis on the common links
between Republican hawks and nationalists and Democratic liberal internationalists.
BIPARTISAN COMPROMISE IS NECESSARY TO RESOLVE THE DEBT

CEILING
Blue Mountain Eagle (Oregon) MyEagleNews.Com 11.10.10

[http://www.bluemountaineagle.com/opinion/article_c7e96ff6-ed05-11df-a9bf-
001cc4c03286.html]
Some newly elected Republicans vow to prevent an increase in the federal debt ceiling.
That ultimately will shut down government, unless the deficit is eliminated fast. Will we
default on the federal debt? The questions proliferate. This is the hard stuff of running
the government. We hope that both parties will cool the rhetoric now and start
compromising and working together. That has happened in the past when the House and
Senate were controlled by different parties. Maybe that is what it takes.

DEBT CEILING CARDS
THE TEA PARTY WOULD SUPPORT REPLACING

COUNTERINSURGENCY WITH COUNTERTERRORISM
Nikolas Gvosdev, faculty, U.S. Naval War College, World Politics Review
9.17.10
[http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/6433/the-realist-prism-the-tea-partys-
jacksonian-instincts]
Particularly interesting to consider is the Tea Party's potential impact on the debate over
the current American military effort in Afghanistan. The movement's sentiment
precludes a traditional "end the war" stance, given that this would be interpreted as
accepting defeat and possibly opening up the United States to new attacks. On the other
hand, those of the Jacksonian temperament have typically eschewed complicated nation-
building operations, questioning U.S. efforts to build schools and fire stations in far-off
countries while these services are being cut back at home. Rather than investing large
sums of the national blood and treasure to prop up the regime of Afghan President
Hamid Karzai, the Tea Party might embrace the "stripped down" approach that some in
the Obama administration were advocating during last year's policy review: maintaining
enough force in the region to prevent al-Qaida cells from taking root but substituting
drone strikes and special operations in place of the current COIN approach, especially if
there is no "light at the end of the tunnel."
BIPARTISAN COOPERATION VERY UNLIKELY
Wall Street Journal 11.11.10
[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704805204575594813983711490.html
?mo d=googlenews_wsj]
If there is a relationship that matters most in Washington in coming months, it may be

the frosty one between President Barack Obama and Ohio Rep. John Boehner, the
Republican poised to become the next speaker of the House of Representatives. They
have known each other as partisan foes, not personal friends, and have regularly traded
rhetorical body blows. The congressman has accused the president of advancing a "job-
killing agenda." Mr. Obama has said the lawmaker is "scaring the hell out of business,"
and even publicly ridiculed Mr. Boehner's appearance. Their history, in short, suggests
dim prospects for bipartisan compromise in Washington's soon-to-be divided
government. To be sure, the two men have some things in common. Both rose from
working-class backgrounds, and both like golf. But in the schmooze-happy capital,
Messrs. Obama and Boehner have never played a round together, nor extended an
invitation to do so. Aides to Mr. Boehner, who is currently the House minority leader, are
miffed, and consider it a snub by the White House.

BIPARTISANSHIP NECESSARY TO END GRIDLOCK
Matt Mackowiak, founder, Potomac Study Group, Philadelphia Inquirer

11.09.10
[http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20101109_How_bipartisanship_could_really_hap
pen.html]
The 112th Congress will begin in January with at least 61 more Republican House
members - the greatest such shift in more than 60 years. In the new, divided
government, only bipartisanship will head off gridlock.

DEBT CEILING CARDS
RAISING THE DEBT CEILING WILL BE A CLOSE VOTE

[http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/11/18/boehner-warns-gop-on-debt-ceiling/]
Raising the debt ceiling is shaping up as a difficult early vote for the new House GOP
majority. Many of the new Republican lawmakers harshly criticized their Democratic
opponents during the campaign for voting to raise the limit in the past, citing it as an
example of the Democrats’ recklessness with federal tax dollars.
RAISING THE DEBT CEILING WILL DEPEND ON GOP VOTES

[http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/11/18/boehner-warns-gop-on-debt-ceiling/]
If an increase in the current debt limit of $14.3 trillion does not pass, it would suggest
the country may not meet its obligations and would shake the financial system. It could
rock the bond market, rattle the dollar and scare away foreign buyers of U.S. debt. That
puts the Republicans in a tough spot. The GOP will have a House majority of just over 50,
and Democrats presumably wouldn’t vote to raise the debt limit, given the tenor of the
recent campaign. With about 88 Republican newcomers, GOP leaders might have to
persuade many of them to vote for the debt limit.
RAISING THE DEBT CEILING WILL BE A BIG POLITICAL CHALLENGE

FOR PRESIDENT OBAMA
Agence France Presse 11.7.10
[http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ipWPdjTFzazLloVxpmrzOA7OKOu
Q?docId=CNG.d04e0fe6c1cf2cf2a4da82dbc1a5208b.d81]
Fresh from US election victory, Republicans face a rapid test of their debt-slashing
resolve, one that could spark a government shutdown and, some fear, undermine efforts
to aid the recovery. Contrary to popular belief, the US government cannot spend at will.
Like anyone with a bank account, Washington has a limited overdraft. Instead of asking
the bank for an extension, presidents have to get permission from Congress, and
frequently do. But that might now be tricky for President Barack Obama. Around a year
after the last raise, Obama's administration is expected to run up against the current
debt ceiling some time early next year. Obama will then have to go cap in hand to a
Congress that now includes many ultra-conservative Republicans and Tea Party
candidates who think the current level of 14.3 trillion dollars is quite enough, thank you
very much.

DEBT CEILING CARDS
THE NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF SHUTTING THE GOVERNMENT DOWN

ARE ENORMOUS AND COULD NOT BE OFFSET BY ACTIONS OF THE
FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD
Agence France Presse 11.7.10
[http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ipWPdjTFzazLloVxpmrzOA7OKOu
Q?docId=CNG.d04e0fe6c1cf2cf2a4da82dbc1a5208b.d81]
Whatever the outcome of the political tussle within the Republican party, financial
experts are warning that another government shutdown would be an unmitigated
economic disaster. "It would be a huge negative hit for the economy," according to David
Min, a former Congressional staffer who now works for the left-leaning Center for
American Progress. According to Min, shutting down the government would even
neutralize the Federal Reserve's recent 600 billion dollar punt to prime the economy, a
policy dubbed quantitative easing two, or QE2. "If the Republicans shut down the
government, any impact of QE2... will be dwarfed by the huge negative fiscal impact of
shutting down the government." "If you cut down the government, even for a week or
two, you furlough workers, you shut down services, that is going to be a huge fiscal hit,
the fact that money is a little bit easier to acquire through credit is not going to offset
that," he said.
TEA PARTY LEADERS FAVOR LIMITS TO U.S. PRESENCE ABROAD
Robert Farley, asst prof, Patterson School of Diplomacy, Univ. of Kentucky,

11.10.10
[http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/6991/over-the-horizon-defense-and-
security-in-the-tea- party-congress]
Some Tea Party candidates have extended their critique of government spending to the
foreign policy interventions of the Bush administration, and have even suggested that
the defense budget may be too high. Senator-elect Rand Paul, for example, has
suggested that Congress should cut the defense budget as part of a general reduction in
governmental spending. Paul's voice carries weight in part because his father, Rep. Ron
Paul, has long argued for a less-interventionist U.S. foreign policy and ran for the GOP
presidential nomination in 2008 on a strictly non-interventionist platform.
REPUBLICANS WILL CONTINUE TO SUPPORT EXPANDED MILITARY

ROLE

11.10.10

However, hopes for a less-hawkish Republican congressional caucus probably won't

come to fruition, for two reasons. First, budgetary concerns almost always fall victim to
parochial interest. New GOP representatives will likely defend Defense Department and
military industrial investment in their own districts at the expense of larger concerns
about the budget deficit. The U.S. defense industry has carefully configured itself in
order to maximize its congressional influence, by spreading contracts, facilities, and
programs across as many states and districts as possible in order to vest interests for
senators and representatives. Legislators rarely vote to kill projects that bring jobs and
money to their districts, and Tea Party Republicans will feel this pressure just as much as
any other elected official.

DEBT CEILING CARDS
CONSERVATIVE THINK TANKS ASSURE GOP OPPOSITION TO

REDUCTIONS IN MILITARY PRESENCE

11.10.10
Second, the increasing prominence of a network of conservative think tanks, such as the
Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute, has restructured Republican
politics. Since the 1970s, these institutions, which lean very heavily in favor of an
interventionist posture, have effectively sidelined the "realist" and "isolationist" factions
of the Republican Party. With impressive media operations and tight connections with
the GOP congressional caucus, they can provide ready-made talking points for newly
elected officials, while helping to rein in wayward politicians by restricting media
attention and campaign funding. This framework provides crucial socialization for
representatives who have not previously thought very long or very hard about foreign
policy issues. It also provides a rote party line for those with little interest in establishing
foreign policy expertise, or assembling a good foreign policy staff team. If newly elected
officials rely on the expertise that these institutions can provide, they will likely begin to
view the world in similarly hawkish terms, regardless of their positions on domestic
issues.
TEA PARTY OPPOSITION TO DEFENSE SPENDING WON’T HELP

OBAMA

11.10.10
The Tea Party represents a genuinely distinct faction of the Republican Party, and its
foreign policy predilections stand against the Republican norm. However the structure of
American politics and the institutional framework of the modern GOP make a non-
interventionist revolt less likely than Tea Party rhetoric suggests. Tea Party affiliates will
in all likelihood come to see the benefits of defense dollars in their districts, and will be
co-opted by the Republican institutional machinery. As a result, if Obama does decide to
de-escalate in Afghanistan or to pursue significant defense cuts, he is unlikely to find
partners in the Tea Party.
TEA PARTY WON’T CHANGE GOP STANCE ON MILITARY POLICY


11.10.10
The Tea Party caucus may marginally reduce the volume of Republican criticism of a
more restrained approach to U.S. foreign policy. But it is unlikely to shift established GOP
positions on defense and national security. Not only will any Obama administration
efforts to cut defense spending continue to meet considerable opposition in Congress,
Congressional Republicans may also push for additional funding for missile defense and
nuclear modernization. Obama may manage to arrest the growth of defense spending,
but he is unlikely to find allies in the Tea Party to do so.

DEBT CEILING CARDS
MILITARY IS CONSERVATIVE, WOULD OPPOSE WITHDRAWAL
Institute for Social Economic Research and Policy, Columbia Univ., 2010
[http://iserp.columbia.edu/news/articles/citizenship-and-service]
Our second focus with our survey data was to assess the political and social attitudes of
American soldiers and future officers and compare them with those of the American
public. In terms of ideology, we found that the army largely mirrors the public in terms of
self-placement on a liberal/conservative scale. However, a full 63% of army officers self-
identify as conservative. Furthermore, we find that as rank increases, officers are more
likely to align themselves ideologically with the Republican Party. This partisan
alignment correlates with attitudes on social and political issues to the same degree that
partisan identification correlates with attitudes in the civilian population.
MILITARY IDENTIFIES WITH REPUBLICANS
Institute for Social Economic Research and Policy, Columbia Univ., 2010
[http://iserp.columbia.edu/news/articles/citizenship-and-service]
The West Point study offers clues as to what may be causing this overwhelming
Republican identification among army officers, but raises more questions in the process.
In our study, we found that 61% of the cadets surveyed identified with the Republican
Party and another 14% said they did not affiliate with a party but leaned Republican.
Furthermore, Republican Party identification is implicitly perceived as a norm at West
Point. However, we cannot conclusively determine whether this is the result of self-
selection to the Academy or if cadets adopt their partisan affiliations at West Point. The
bulk of evidence points towards self-selection in that the majority of cadets report that
their parents identify with the Republican Party. The larger implication of this finding is
that the decision to enlist in today's army, at least among college-bound youth, may be
heavily influenced by partisan identification.

DEBT CEILING CARDS
AMERICAN PUBLIC WANTS A REDUCED ROLE IN THE WORLD
Steven Kull, Program on International Policy Attitudes, June 2, 2010

[http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brunitedstatescanadara/662.php?
lb=brusc &pnt=662&nid=&id=]
Stated briefly I think there are some signs that the public is feeling overextended and
would like to lighten the burden of America's role in the world. This has actually been
true for sometime, but it has been significantly exacerbated by the economic crisis and
the effect of conducting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They feel the pressure of the
budget deficit--something that concerns them.
AMERICAN ATTITUDES ARE GROWING INCREASINGLY AGAINST

INTERNATIONAL INVOLVEMENT
Steven Kull, Program on International Policy Attitudes, June 2, 2010

[http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brunitedstatescanadara/662.php?
lb=brusc &pnt=662&nid=&id=]
Asked by Pew whether they agreed or disagreed that "The U.S. should mind its own
business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their
own," for the first time in more than 40 years of polling, a plurality of 49% agreed with
this position. Questions that ask people to prioritize problems at home over problems
abroad have always found majorities putting a higher priority on problems at home. But
this majority has become larger. A new high of 76% agreed that "We should not think so
much in international terms but concentrate more on our own national problems and
building up our strength and prosperity here at home." Seventy-three percent want the
president to focus on domestic policy more than on foreign policy. Again, this is
commonly a majority preference, but 73% is the largest such majority since 1997. At this
point there are no data showing a desire to cut US defense spending. However there are
reasons to believe that as the problem of the deficit gains greater prominence over the
next few years, that we will see greater pressure to reduce defense spending.

DEBT CEILING CARDS
REPUBLICANS OPPOSE AFGHANISTAN WITHDRAWAL
Alan Greenblat, National Public Radio 11.29.10

[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=131158080]
And GOP members of Congress, by and large, remain committed to a strong military
effort in Afghanistan and oppose what they regard as Obama administration efforts to
establish a date for U.S. troops to end their mission there. John McCain of Arizona, the
top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, last week restated his
opposition to any withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan.
REPUBLICANS SUPPORT RELOCATION OF BASE TO OKINAWA
Nikkei.Com 11.4.10
[http://e.nikkei.com/e/fr/tnks/Nni20101103D03JFN01.htm]
But improving ties with Japan is unlikely to be a priority for Washington. The Obama
administration has too much on its plate domestically, with the Republicans capturing
the House of Representatives and the president's own re-election at stake in 2012. The
U.S. may further pressure Japan on the base relocation issue just to placate the
Republicans. Japanese Foreign Minister Seiji Maehara was quick to assert Wednesday
that Japan-U.S. ties would not change regardless of the outcome of the U.S. midterm
election. "We will continue to work with the Obama administration to strengthen bilateral
ties and to build cooperation on global issues," he told reporters.
GOP OPPOSITION TO THE START TREATY PROVES THEY WILL

OPPOSE ANY OBAMA FOREIGN POLICY
New York Times 11.17.10

[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/18/opinion/18thu1.html ]
The world’s nuclear wannabes, starting with Iran, should send a thank you note to
Senator Jon Kyl. After months of negotiations with the White House, he has decided to try
to block the lame-duck Senate from ratifying the New Start arms control treaty. The
treaty is so central to this country’s national security, and the objections from Mr. Kyl —
and apparently the whole Republican leadership — are so absurd that the only
explanation is their limitless desire to deny President Obama any legislative success.

DEBT CEILING CARDS
THE DEBT CEILING VOTE WILL BE CLOSE
Washington Times 11.19.10

[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/nov/19/debt-commission-co-
chairman- predicts- bloodbath/]
A leader of President Obama's bipartisan deficit-reduction commission on Friday

predicted that there will be a "bloodbath" on Capitol Hill next year when lawmakers
consider increasing the nation's debt ceiling, which could force both parties to take their
recommendations seriously. With the federal debt hovering around $13.7 trillion and the
debt limit at $14.3 trillion, Congress is expected to increase the country's credit line next
spring. But with Sen-elect Rand Paul of Kentucky, Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, and
others leading the charge against an increase, the proposal's success could hinge on
leaders trading promises of future cuts in exchange for votes. "When debt limit times
comes, they are going to look around and say, 'What in the hell do we do now? We’ve
got guys who will not approve the debt-limit extension unless we give them a piece of
meat,' " Alan Simpson, a former Republican senator and co-chairman of the president's
commission, told reporters gathered for a breakfast discussion hosted by the Christian
Science Monitor. "The bloodbath will be extraordinary."
THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES TO RAISING THE DEBT CEILING
Representative Ron Paul, 11.29.10

[http://mensnewsdaily.com/2010/11/29/dont-raise-the-debt-ceiling/]
I have two simple proposals when the new Congress convenes in January. First, refuse to
raise the debt ceiling. Find a way, month by month, for Congress to spend only what the
Treasury raises in revenue. Second, start over from scratch with the 13 appropriations
bills that fund the federal government. Reject any talk of baseline budgets or
discretionary spending. It is all discretionary, and members of both parties should vote
against any 2012 appropriation bill that is not at least 10% smaller– in nominal dollars–
than its 2011 counterpart. A motivated Congress could begin to slow the tide of debt by
taking the simple step of cutting federal spending by 10% across the board for the next
few years. Let’s hope it does not take the complete collapse of the U.S. dollar to provide
this motivation.
REPUBLICAN LEADERS NOT FINDING IT EASY TO PASS DEBT

INCREASE
Tim Fernholz, The American Prospect, 11.22.10

[http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?
month=11&year=2010&base_name=de bt_vote_catalyzes_gop_infigh]

Looking down the legislative schedule, nearly everyone recognizes that a vote expected
this spring to raise the country's debt ceiling will be an opportunity for posturing from
critics of government debt and a test of the GOP's ability to govern responsibly. Raising
the debt limit will allow the government to borrow enough money to fund its operations.
Putative Speaker John Boehner is already encountering problems as he maneuvers his
caucus toward the vote. A decision not to raise the limit, supported by some
conservative Republicans, including many associated with the Tea Party, would raise
serious concerns about America's willingness to pay its debts but would do little to
control spending.

DEBT CEILING CARDS
RAISING THE DEBT CEILING WILL REQUIRE BIPARTISAN

COOPERATION
Mike Lux, The Huffington Post, 11.17.10

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-lux/for-everything-there-is-a_b_784878.html]
Let me start by saying something perhaps surprising for an old school populist
progressive like myself: compromise is not a dirty word. It is essential and inevitable in
actually making a democratic (note the small d in democratic) government run. Passing
budgets, continuing resolutions, debt ceiling increases, and all those basic things that
keeps a government functioning will require some compromise and give and take. When
politicians choose to make a great symbolic show of intentionally not compromising, all
they have to do is look at how nicely that worked out for Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole in
1995.
CONGRESS WILL EVENTUALLY RAISE THE DEBT CEILING – IT ALWAYS

DOES
Damian Paletta, Wall Street Journal, 11.6.10
[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704405704575596781566162158.html
]
The U.S. has come close to defaulting at least three times in the past 20 years, forcing
the Treasury to invent ways to temporarily borrow money to cover funding needs. During
the Clinton administration, the government actually hit the debt ceiling during a standoff
between Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Mr.
Rubin successfully avoided default by borrowing money from at least two federal pension
funds. Eventually, the debt ceiling was raised, but only after a brief government
shutdown and warnings from the Clinton administration that the government might
temporarily stop mailing Social Security checks. On separate occasions in 2002 and
2003, the Bush administration avoided hitting the debt ceiling by suspending
investments in a pension plan for federal employees, among other things. Both times,
Congress later raised the debt ceiling.
PASSAGE OF THE DEBT CEILING IS A TEST OF BIPARTISANSHIP
24/7 Wall Street, 11.3.10

[http://247wallst.com/2010/11/03/why-not-to-expect-too-much-from-the-gop/]
Getting things done in Washington requires the tenacity of a prize-fighter and the
patience of a saint. The newly elected Tea Partiers are great at fighting but are showing
little interest in wanting to forge alliances with Democrats, a necessity to get anything
done. It will be interesting to see if the presumptive Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and
expected Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell can strike bipartisan agreements for
the good of the country. If they don’t, the House can pass all the grand economic plans
that it wants but they will wind up languishing in the Democratic-controlled Senate.
Moreover, the Senate moves at glacial pace even during the best of times because of the
need for 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. A crucial test for bipartisanship will come
from the upcoming vote on raising the debt ceiling. Financial markets will be thrown into
chaos if that doesn’t happen. Republicans, though, may be reluctant to vote for it given
voters’ heightened concern about the issue.

DEBT CEILING CARDS
ADVOCATES OF DEFAULT UNDERSTATE THE RISKS
Bruce Bartlett, The Fiscal Times 6.11.10

[http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Issues/Budget- Impact/2010/11/15/~/link.aspx?
_id=74D52AA4315E430A973B3867DC314179&_z=z]
The recent financial crisis in Greece has led to a lot of discussion about whether the
United States might one day have a public debt so large that default becomes a real
possibility. While the sort of problem Greece is experiencing is impossible here, we have
another problem that, to my knowledge, no other nation on Earth has: a legal limit on
government debt that Congress must raise periodically. This peculiarity of our fiscal
system could indeed lead to a default on the debt, with repercussions that advocates of
default — yes, they exist — have absolutely no clue about.
DEFAULT IS DEFINITELY POSSIBLE

_id=74D52AA4315E430A973B3867DC314179&_z=z]
This does not mean that default is impossible, however, because there is always a
danger that Congress will not raise the debt ceiling in a timely manner, meaning that the
Treasury may not have sufficient cash to make interest payments or redeem maturing
securities. If that happens, there would be a technical default. As of right now,
outstanding debt subject to limit is a little over $13 trillion and the debt limit is $14.3
trillion. At the rate the Treasury is borrowing, it can continue for about 10 months before
the debt limit must be raised again. It has been difficult enough, politically, to raise the
debt limit when Democrats control both houses of Congress. But next year there is
almost certain to be a very substantial increase in the number of Republicans in both the
House and Senate, with Republican control of the House being well within the realm of
possibility. The party opposite the White House always demagogues increases in the
debt limit to score cheap political points.
THE FACT WE HAVE ALWAYS RAISED THE CEILING IN THE PAST

DOESN’T MEAN WE WILL THIS TIME, THE POLITICS HAVE CHANGED

_id=74D52AA4315E430A973B3867DC314179&_z=z]
To be sure, the debt limit has always been raised in time to prevent a default, although
Treasury sometimes had to push the limits of the law to move money around to pay the
government’s bills. However, I believe the game has changed because Republicans have
become extremely bold in using the filibuster to make it extraordinarily difficult to pass
any major legislation without at least 60 votes in the Senate. Furthermore, a growing
number of conservatives have suggested that default on the debt wouldn’t be such a
bad thing. It is often said that default would lead to an instantaneous balanced budget
because no one would lend to the U.S. government ever again. Therefore, spending
would have to be cut to the level of current revenues.

DEBT CEILING CARDS
DEFAULT IS NO LONGER UNTHINKABLE

_id=74D52AA4315E430A973B3867DC314179&_z=z]
Consequently, it is becoming increasingly common for the idea of default to be discussed

as a realistic possibility even by responsible analysts. Last year, The Economist’s Greg Ip
wrote an article in The Washington Post saying that financial markets were placing the
risk of default at 6 percent over the next 10 years. “Default is unlikely,” he said. “But it is
no longer unthinkable.” My purpose today is not to make the case against default or
explain all of its ramifications — that would require a separate column. Rather, my
purpose is simply to alert readers to the consequences of increased Republican
membership in the next Congress, a Democratic administration, the need for 60 votes in
the Senate on major bills, and a debt limit that will run out early next year. I believe we
could be in for the biggest debt crisis we have seen since Alexander Hamilton was
Treasury secretary.
DEFAULT WOULD CURE GOVERNMENT SPENDING WHICH IS THE

GREATEST EVIL
John Tamny, Forbes Magazine, 5.24.10

[http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/22/default-united-states-economy-opinions-columnists-
john-tamny.html]
To believe the experts, the U.S. is Greece, only larger, and the Titanic is nearing the
iceberg. Let’s hope. Indeed, rather than fear what some say is inevitable anyway, it’s
time we learn to love the idea of a U.S. default. Contrary to conventional wisdom,
government spending itself is our economy’s crisis, while a default would be its cure. For
Americans to worry about a debt default is like the parent of a heroin addict fearing that
his dealers will cease feeding the addiction. In truth, just as the much-needed heroin
withdrawals would mark the beginning of the addict’s recovery, so would a cessation on
the part of investors when it comes to funding federal waste signal a United States on
the mend.
GOVERNMENT SPENDING HURTS THE ECONOMY

[http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/22/default-united-states-economy-opinions-columnists-
john-tamny.html]

The reason is basic. Government spending is the great, economy-sapping tax on the
American people. Lacking any resources of its own, when our federal government
spends, every dollar it consumes represents money that would have remained in the
private sector were Washington more circumspect with the money of others. Simply put,
those dollars spent by Washington represent a near commensurate reduction of U.S.
wages in the for-profit sector of our economy. Governments by definition cannot be
generous, because the money is not theirs. Instead they’re spending our money, and
that’s hardly compassionate. Government waste has for too long served as the
awesomely heavy anchor on U.S. economic growth. Government spending is our
economy’s unspoken ill, and the day a default leads to the starvation of this economy-
retarding beast is the day the U.S. economy really starts to boom.

DEBT CEILING CARDS
A GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN WOULD INCREASE THE EFFICIENCY OF

THE ECONOMY

[http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/22/default-united-states-economy-opinions-
columnists- john- tamny.html]
At present our economy suffers the “seen” of the proverbial Bridges to Nowhere,
earmarks for “essentials” including a “Totally Teen Zone” in Georgia, and hundreds of
billions to prop up the Fannie Maes and Freddie Macs of the world so that those who
can’t afford homes can have them. Of course the tragic “unseen” here is how many
Googles, Microsofts and Ciscos never saw the light of day thanks to our allegedly
benevolent overseers redistributing what is limited capital. Federal pay presently
trumps private pay by 30%, according to some estimates; this despite the job security
offered by federal work, not to mention the “Cadillac” benefits that are part and parcel of
working for Uncle Sam. A default would mean that many government workers would
have to join us in the productive sector of the economy, and their wages would match
their output. Instead of harassing the productive, as so many government workers are
presently paid to do, they’d soon enough be helping the enterprising in our midst create
real wealth.
THE GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN WOULD CAUSE US TO WITHDRAW

FROM OVERSEAS BASES

Though military spending is increasingly dwarfed by other federal programs, the
austerity foisted on Washington might well lead to the closing of U.S. military bases
globally so that other countries might start paying for their own defense. For the
libertarians and liberals alike who desire a less interventionist military, spending limits
wrought by a default may well lead our politicians in a more cautious direction when it
comes to foreign invasion.
DEFAULT WOULD CAUSE A RETHINK OF INVESTMENT INTO MORE

PRODUCTIVE AREAS

What about investors--won’t they get burned? Yes they will, and this will be a good thing.
Much as the alcoholic needs to be weaned off the Scotch, so do investors need the rough
discipline of the markets to force them to cease doing what’s easy, as their safety is the
taxpayer’s burden. With the world’s alleged safe havens gone, a great deal of capital
would then be reoriented away from wasteful governments globally, and into the hands
of the responsible. The only closed economy is the world economy, and if a U.S. default
drives a rethink of all investment in government debt around the world, the “closed
economy” will thrive as limited capital flows to the enterprising instead of the profligate.

DEBT CEILING CARDS
DEFAULT WOULD CAUSE A SHORT TERM INCREASE IN INTEREST

RATES BUT THEY WOULD DECLINE IN THE LONG TERM

Interest rates may rise, but this will serve as a long-term positive for true market forces
setting the cost of newly free capital. Interest rates are the intersection of demand for
and supply of money. The sooner market forces set these rates, the better, and with
governments no longer seen as credible stewards of that which isn’t finite, it’s a fair bet
that capital will soon be plentiful at low rates for those possessing ideas actually meant
to create wealth. Somewhere in the not too distant past our leaders on the left and right
became entranced by the false notion that pain, be it from bank failures, unemployment
or government default, should be avoided at all costs. Nothing could be further from the
truth. Pain, whether it’s the result of too much drinking, faulty lending, lax work habits or
overspending, is the positive signal that healing is on the way.
PAST TRACK RECORD OF STATE DEFAULTS IS POSITIVE
Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, History News Network, 8.20.08

[http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/53544.html]
The political consequences are the trickiest to analyze. A government default is certainly
a balanced-budget amendment with real teeth. Moreover, government defaults in the
past, when not obviated by bailouts from other governments, seem to have had positive
political consequences. Compare the widespread defaults of American state
governments in the 1830s, with their cascading benefits--reluctance of states to set up
government-owned railroads the way they had government-owned canals, balanced-
budget constitutional amendments at the state level which even today impose lingering
constraints, a general state retrenchment in a period of increasing laissez faire, among
others--with the baleful consequences of the failure to repudiate the Revolutionary War
debt, the most notorious of which was replacement of the Articles of the Confederation
with the U.S. Constitution. During the late 1830s, President Martin Van Buren blocked
any national bailout of the states, and yet the world did not end, and indeed the U.S.
continued on the path of sustained growth that it had only recently started down.
Unfortunately nowadays, with the U.S. and assorted international agencies stepping in to
stave off sovereign defaults, we don't have good recent comparisons.

DEBT CEILING CARDS
POPULIST RAGE OVER FEDERAL SPENDING WILL BRING THE DEBT

CRISIS VOTE TO A BRINK
Edmund Andrews, The Fiscal Times, 10.18.10

[http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Issues/Budget-Impact/2010/10/18/Some-Experts-
Are-Bracing-for-a-Default-on-US-Debt.aspx]
If Tea Party-powered Republicans take control of the House, would the United States
government be at greater risk of defaulting on its debt? Some analysts are starting to
think so. The concerns don’t center on any kind of cash crunch. Global appetite for U.S.
Treasury bonds is still so strong that the government can refinance and borrow more at
spectacular low interest rates. Indeed, rates on 10-year Treasury bonds are just 2.4
percent. The worry is political: that populist rage over federal spending and debt will
push Republicans closer than ever before to blocking an increase in the Federal debt
ceiling. If that were to actually happen, the government would be out of money by next
summer and unable to make interest payments on its debt. Because a default would
unleash panic in global financial markets and put the domestic economy into cardiac
arrest, the chances of default are still very low. But even a brief scare of default could
send shockwaves through the economy.
TEA PARTY VICTORIES RAISE THE RISK OF A DEFAULT
Edmund Andrews, The Fiscal Times, 10.18.10

[http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Issues/Budget-Impact/2010/10/18/Some-Experts-
Are-Bracing-for-a-Default-on-US-Debt.aspx]
That opposition was mostly grandstanding, because Republicans knew they didn’t have
enough votes to actually risk a default. But Republicans may well win a majority of seats
in the House, and possibly also the Senate, in the midterm elections on November 2. And
with growing numbers of Republicans aligned with the Tea Party movement, the chances
of gridlock with Democrats over taxes and spending will be higher than ever. The
political rumblings have begun. Republican candidates routinely attack Democratic
opponents for supporting the last increase in the debt ceiling.
THE IMPACT OF THE DEFAULT WILL HAPPEN SO QUICKLY NO ONE

WOULD BE ABLE TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT
Neal Harl, professor economics, Iowa State Univ. 11.20.10

[http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20101120/OPINION01/11200313/-
1/SPORTS12/Guest- column-A-perfect-fiscal-storm-may-be-brewing]

Another way to begin is to refuse to raise the federal debt limit, as some key Republicans
propose. The consequences of that could be breathtakingly tragic. If the government is
unable to pay interest on the debt and to refinance expiring issues, the obvious result is
default. The consequences of a default would do untold damage to the standing of the
United States as a debtor nation and would raise the specter of another Greece. But the
impact would be several times greater, with any meaningful rescue beyond the financial
ability of any nation - or group of nations. And it could happen fast.

DEBT CEILING CARDS
DEFAULT IS A GROWING POSSIBILITY – RESULTING IN A DOUBLE DIP

RECESSION
Derek Thompson, staff editor, The Atlantic, 11.5.10

[http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/11/doomsday-prophesy-2011-
will-be- even-worse- than-2010/66161/]
In the first few months of the 2011, the federal government will run out of cash. We will
max out the federal credit card, and Congress will refuse to open another line of credit.
Treasury won't have enough money to both run the government and pay back our
lenders. The implications will be dramatic, and possibly cataclysmic. We will stop funding
up to 40 percent of all federal government activities. While the Treasury will feel
required to pay back international investors to calm fears of a historic default, we won't
have enough money to pay for Social Security, Medicare, homeland security, and the
keep the federal government running. Workers will lose jobs. Companies would lose
contracts. Businesses will lose confidence. Both inside and outside the United States,
panic will proliferate. Global markets will roil and the US economy will tip from slow
growth back into negative growth, double dipping into recession. It sounds like a
doomsday scenario. It's closer to reality than you might think.
REPUBLICANS WHO CARE ABOUT FOREIGN POLICY SUPPORT

AMERICAN MILITARY PRESENCE ABROAD
Leon Hadar, research fellow, CATO Institute, 11.5.10

[http://www.amconmag.com/blog/brewing-a-tea-party-foreign-policy/]
The focus of many of these and other Tea Party candidates that were elected (or not) to
Congress has been almost entirely on the economy. They are either uninterested in–or
not knowledgeable enough about–Afghanistan, Iraq and the other U.S. military
interventions that are consuming such a huge part of the federal budget. Under these
circumstances, the foreign policy agenda of the Congressional Republicans could end up
being dominated by those Republicans who are very interested in the issues, and who
receive their talking points on Iraq, Afghanistan, and Russia from interest groups, think
tanks and media organizations that support costly military interventionist policies around
the world–and who are inclined to exploit Palin’s jingoistic rhetoric to rally the Republican
troops. The danger is that those Republican Tea Party members of Congress who are less
inclined to focus on foreign policy issues will yield to the guidance and pressure coming
from the leading Republican foreign-policy activists.

DEBT CEILING CARDS
OBAMA FOLLOWING BIPARTISAN PATH NOW
Bloomberg News 11.25.10

[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-25/obama-says-bipartisanship-is-
needed-to-boost- economic-recovery.html]
President Barack Obama said next week’s White House meeting with congressional
leaders may provide an opening for Democrats and Republicans to find a common
approach to boosting the economy. “In the coming weeks and months, I hope that we
can work together,” Obama said in a Thanksgiving holiday address on the radio and
Internet. Obama has invited Senate and House leaders from both parties to the White
House Nov. 30 for what he said should be a “real and honest” discussion about the
legislative agenda. “We’ve got to do everything we can to accelerate this recovery and
keep our economy moving forward,” Obama said in his address. “I believe that if we stop
talking at one another, and start talking with one another, we can get a lot done.”
OBAMA WILL CONTINUE ON BIPARTISAN PATH
The Washington Examiner 11.28.10

[washingtonexaminer.com/politics/white-house/2010/11/obama-returns-hope-
2012-race]
Heading into a tough new political season, President Obama is striking positive new
tones that contrast with the introspective self-doubt that followed his midterm election
drubbing. By adding a renewed appeal for bipartisanship to his daily messaging, Obama
also is hoping to establish a contrast with the more truculent Republican leadership,
potentially creating a good cop-bad cop political dynamic the White House hopes will
work to his advantage.

Politics DA

Cargado por

Información del documento

Descripción original:

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Politics DA

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

2010 Argument & Research Kit Update 1

p. Politics Disadvantage – Argument Summary

ARGUMENT SUMMARY: DEBT CEILING POLITICS DISADVANTAGES

2010 Argument & Research Kit

2010 Argument & Research Kit

2010 Argument & Research Kit

DEBT CEILING SHELL

A. UNIQUENESS. OBAMA AND GOP LEADERS WILL REACH

Boston Globe 11.3.10

B. LINK. THE PLAN CAUSES REPUBLICANS TO REFUSE TO RAISE

1. REPUBLICANS OPPOSE THE PLAN (INSERT SPECIFIC LINK)

2. OBAMA’S EARLY ACTIONS WILL DETERMINE WHETHER OR

Mara Liasson, National Public Radio, October 22, 2010

2010 Argument & Research Kit

DEBT CEILING SHELL

C. IMPACT. FAILURE TO INCREASE THE DEBT CEILING WILL CAUSE

DEPRESSION INCREASES THE RISK OF NUCLEAR WAR

James Cusick, Sunday Herald (Scotland) March 18, 2009

2010 Argument & Research Kit

DEBT CEILING CARDS

OBAMA WILL PURSUE A BIPARTISAN AGENDA OF COMPROMISE

THE DEBT CEILING WILL LIKELY PASS

Raven Clabough, New American, 11.4.10

PRESIDENT AND GOP OFF TO A BIPARTISAN SUPPORT – MAY OR

Jonathan Berr, Daily Finance 11.4.10

2010 Argument & Research Kit

DEBT CEILING CARDS

THE DEBT CEILING WILL BE A BATTLE BUT HISTORY SHOWS IT WILL

iMarket News.Com 11.4.10

POLITICAL JOCKEYING MAY ENCOURAGE RESISTANCE

OMB Watch 11.3.10

RAISING THE DEBT CEILING WILL BE A KEY POLITICAL TEST WHERE

Tim Rutten, Los Angeles Times Correspondent, 11.3.10

2010 Argument & Research Kit

DEBT CEILING CARDS

PASSING THE DEBT CEILING INCREASE WILL BE A HUGE FIGHT

OMB Watch 11.3.10

IT WILL BE UP TO THE GOP TO PASS THE DEBT CEILING INCREASE

Dow Jones Newswire 10.29.10

OBAMA’S NEXT STEPS ARE CRUCIAL FOR HIS AGENDA

Washington Post 11.4.10

2010 Argument & Research Kit

2010 Argument & Research Kit

DEBT CEILING CARDS

OBAMA MUST FOLLOW A BIPARTISAN, CENTRIST PATH TO MAINTAIN

Doug Schoen, political strategist, Wall Street Journal 11.4.10

REPUBLICANS OPPOSE REDUCING PRESENCE IN AFGHANISTAN

Jill Lawrence, Senior Correspondent, Politics Daily November 1, 2010

OBAMA OPPOSITION TO MILITARY RECOMMENDATIONS WOULD BE

Kevin Whitelaw, National Public Radio, September 30, 2009

2010 Argument & Research Kit

2010 Argument & Research Kit

DEBT CEILING CARDS

SHUTTING DOWN THE GOVERNMENT WOULD CAUSE THE ECONOMY

SHUTTING DOWN THE GOVERNMENT WOULD CAUSE A GLOBAL

2010 Argument & Research Kit

DEBT CEILING CARDS

GOVERNMENT SPENDING CUTS WOULD CAUSE A HUGE DIP IN THE

REFUSING TO RAISE THE DEBT CEILING WOULD MAKE THE BUDGET

RAISING THE DEBT CEILING IS NECESSARY TO AVOID A SECOND

2010 Argument & Research Kit

2010 Argument & Research Kit

DEBT CEILING CARDS