Politics – 2011 Michigan Debate Institutes – gls lab



Download 0.58 Mb.
Page4/34
Date29.07.2017
Size0.58 Mb.
#24434
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   34

AT: Compartmentalization


Capital determines agenda above all else

Light 99 – Senior Fellow at the Center for Public Service (Paul, the President’s Agenda, p. 34)
In chapter 2, I will consider just how capital affects the basic parameters of the domestic agenda. Though the internal resources are important contributors to timing and size, capital remains the cirtical factor. That conclusion will become essential in understanding the domestic agenda. Whatever the President’s personal expertise, character, or skills, capital is the most important resource. In the past, presidential scholars have focused on individual factors in discussing White House decisions, personality being the dominant factor. Yet, given low levels in presidential capital, even the most positive and most active executive could make little impact. A president can be skilled, charming, charismatic, a veritable legislative wizard, but if he does not have the basic congressional strength, his domestic agenda will be severely restricted – capital affects both the number and the content of the President’s priorities. Thus, it is capital that determines whether the President will have the opportunity to offer a detailed domestic program, whether he will be restricted to a series of limited initiatives and vetoes. Capital sets the basic parameters of the agenda, determining the size of the agenda and guiding the criteria for choice. Regardless of the President’s personality, capital is the central force behind the domestic agenda.
Capital is key – it outweigh ideology, party support, or concessions

Light 99 – Senior Fellow at the Center for Public Service (Paul, the President’s Agenda, p. 24-25)
Call it push, pull, punch, juice, power, or clout – they all mean the same thing. The most basic and most important of all presidential resources is capital. Though the internal resources time, information, expertise, and energy all have an impact on the domestic agenda, the President is severely limited without capital. And capital is directly linked to the congressional parties. While there is little question that bargaining skills can affect both the composition and the success of the domestic agenda, without the necessary party support, no amount of expertise or charm can make a difference. Though bargaining is an important tool of presidential power, it does not take place in a neutral environment. Presidents bring certain advantages and disadvantages to the table.

1nc Link – Generic Space



Space policy not popular

Rand Simberg, aerospace engineer and consultant in space commercialization, Summer 2009, “A Space Program for the Rest of Us”, http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/a-space-program-for-the-rest-of-us



In the blink of an eye, a subject purely in the realm of science fiction became science fact — and a major cultural phenomenon, not to mention a huge government program. At its funding peak during the Apollo years, NASA consumed over four percent of the entire federal budget. The funding would not have flowed so freely if not for the urgency of the race with the Soviets. Had the Soviets been rushing not up to space but down to the bottom of the Marianas Trench (which had in fact just been reached in 1960), the United States would have spent lavishly to get there first. Had Kennedy not been assassinated and had he won a second term, he might well have ended the Apollo program himself as it became clear that we were winning the space race and as the race became less urgent in the face of other national priorities. A couple of months before his death, Kennedy even told NASA Administrator James Webb that he “wasn’t that interested in space.” And that has been NASA’s fundamental problem ever since. The American people and their representatives in Congress are just not that interested in space, and never have been, going all the way back to Apollo. And it shows in our space policy, which has from the start been confused and contradictory.

2NC Link wall - Generic



Space operations unpopular- debt, budget and focus

Schmitt 11 (Harrison, Harrison H. Schmitt is a former United States Senator from New Mexico as well as a geologist and former Apollo Astronaut. He currently is an aerospace and private enterprise consultant and a member of the new Committee of Correspondence, Former Senator Schmitt Proposes Dismantling of NASA and Creation of a New, Deep Space Exploration Agency, http://aerospaceblog.wordpress.com/2011/05/24/former-senator-schmitt-proposes-dismantling-of-nasa-and-creation-of-a-new-deep-space-exploration-agency/, 5/24/11, MM)
How notions of leadership have changed since Eisenhower and Kennedy! Immense difficulties now have been imposed on the Nation and NASA by the budgetary actions and inactions of the Bush and Obama Administrations between 2004 and 2012. Space policy gains relevance today comparable to 50 years ago as the dangers created by the absence of a coherent national space policy have been exacerbated by subsequent adverse events. Foremost among these events have been the Obama Administration’s and the Congress’s spending and debt spree, the continued aggressive rise of China, and, with the exception of operations of the Space Shuttle and International Space Station, the loss of focus and leadership within NASA headquarters.
Any forms of space activities are unpopular

Anderson 11 (Gregory, a member of both The Planetary Society and the National Space Society, Scrap NASA?, http://thewayoutspace.blogspot.com/2011/05/scrap-nasa.html, 5/28/11, MM)
Former Apollo astronaut and Moonwalker and former U. S. Senator from New Mexico Harrison Schmitt says NASA should be dismantled and replaced by a new agency focused on space exploration. Schmitt acknowledges NASA has some remarkable achievements to its credit, but argues that after fifty years a new start for a new era would be best. NASA should be reformed and refocused, but replacing it and starting from scratch would probably waste money. It's not obvious, after all, why Congress would give more money to a new space exploration agency than it gives NASA. The problem isn't NASA. The problem is that Congress doesn't give space exploration a high priority. There is also the matter of staffing a new agency. Because of the specialized skills and knowledge required for space exploration, a new agency would probably be peopled by many ex-NASA hands. It's not clear, therefore, what advantage a new agency would have over a rejuvenated NASA.
Federal space programs have no supporters- strictly private operations generates popularity

Roop 11 (Lee, analyst who covers NASA and the HudsonAlpha Institute for Biotechnology, NASA supporters find no white knight in GOP presidential field, http://blog.al.com/breaking/2011/06/nasa_supporters_find_no_white.html, 6/19/11, MM)
NASA supporters have strongly criticized President Barack Obama for killing the agency's manned space program after taking office in 2009, but no Republican challenger seems ready to ride to the rescue in 2012. To the contrary, space enthusiasts in Huntsville and other NASA cities were swapping emails last week about the cold shoulder shown the space program by the GOP presidential candidates in a debate in New Hampshire last Monday night. A collective newspaper headline might have read: "NASA, they're just not that into you." For example, reporter Richard Dunham of the Houston Chronicle opened his report by writing, "The Republican presidential field sent a clear message to NASA workers in Texas and Florida: They don't see a federal role in funding human space flight." The critical moment came when CNN moderator John King asked if any GOP candidate would raise a hand to show support for continued federal funding for NASA. On the stage were Texas Rep. Ron Paul, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Godfather's Pizza CEO Herman Cain. "Nobody," King commented as the field stood silently with hands down. Pawlenty did step to the microphone after King's "nobody" remark to say NASA had "played a vital role" in American history. "I don't think we should be eliminating the space program," Pawlenty said. But Pawlenty followed up with his idea of a space program, and the word NASA wasn't in it. "We can partner with private providers to get more economies of scale," Pawlenty said, "and scale it back, but I don't think we should eliminate the space program." Gingrich started the discussion when he responded to a debate question by calling NASA a "case study in why a bureaucracy can't innovate." But Gingrich said later that moderator King was mischaracterizing his position. "I didn't say end the space program," Gingrich said. "We built the transcontinental railroads without a National Department of Railroads. You could get into space faster, better, more effectively, more creatively if you decentralized it, got it out of Washington and cut out the bureaucracy." So, for those keeping score, the only Republican candidates talking about space Monday night did so while using phrases such as "scale it back," "get it out of Washington" and "cut out the bureaucracy." Dr. Jess Brown, a political science professor at Athens State University, said he watched the debate and saw little indication of support for NASA. "The best you can say is we're going to do more with the private sector, and the public sector - NASA - is going to have a shrinking role and shrinking scope of responsibilities," Brown said Friday. "And in general policy terms, that's exactly what people here locally criticized Obama for." Reaction by Alabama Republican leaders last week focused on the more-positive comments by Pawlenty, the nature of TV debates, and the hope that GOP candidates will "get it" about NASA before the election. "Anyone who wants to lead this nation needs to understand and embrace the things that have made America great," U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Tuscaloosa, said in a Thursday statement. "I hope that our Republican presidential candidates understand that balancing the budget does not require abandoning our historic role as space pioneers." U.S. Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Huntsville, blamed the debate format. The future of the space program is more complicated "than you can get to in 30 seconds," he said Thursday. "That results in some of the ambiguity you see on the screen." Brooks said he had not watched the debate footage, but has "not heard anything yet that suggests to me that NASA would be worse off with any of these Republican candidates than we are with Barack Obama." Brown agreed there might be good reasons NASA wasn't high on the priority list of a Midwestern governor (Pawlenty), a Northeastern governor (Romney) and a CEO (Cain) in a high-pressure national TV debate. But if NASA still had its special aura in Washington, Brown asked, why didn't one of the four members or former members of Congress on the stage defend it when given a chance? "Instead, my memory is three of them were silent and one of them called it a deadwood bureaucracy," Brown said. "Is that a fair reading of that debate? That's the way I read that segment. Because if you're a politician in that kind of setting and you're really for something, really committed to it, and you're offered an opportunity to speak for it, you do."
NASA not popular with Congress and president

Rand Simberg, aerospace engineer and consultant in space commercialization, Summer 2009, “A Space Program for the Rest of Us”, http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/a-space-program-for-the-rest-of-us



You may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one: Apollo left many orphans. But it’s not a dream shared by NASA, successive presidents, or members of Congress, at least to judge by their plans over the past four decades. We have had a monolithic government space agency for half a century at a cumulative cost of roughly half a trillion dollars (in current-year dollars). If we are going to continue to spend that order of magnitude of money — as, for political reasons, it seems we are going to do indefinitely — we should at least have something more to show for it than just a couple hundred brief trips to orbit for elite civil servants at an average cost over that period of about a couple billion dollars per flight. NASA needn’t do all the work of making space affordable and sustainable, but it ought to do something. To put it another way, it isn’t NASA’s job to put humans on Mars; it’s NASA’s job to make it possible for the National Geographic Society, or an offshoot of the Latter-Day Saints, or an adventure tourism company, to put humans on Mars.




Download 0.58 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   34



The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message
    Main page
fact that
democratic party
golf course