Republicans are ignoring the public and elections—making deals with Biden now Malpass 11(David, chief economist at Bear Stearns, New York Sun, 6/7, http://www.growpac.com/2011/06/republicans-could-lose-the-house-if-they-get-boxed-in-on-debt-limit/, accessed 6-30-11, CH)
Republicans may lose the House in 2012 because they are boxed in on the debt limit, which, as currently written, forces a choice between default and more debt. It’s a lose-lose proposition for fiscal conservatives. The current debt limit always goes up, doesn’t control spending or debt and yet has to pass the House to avoid a default. The Republican Plan to get out of the bind? Cut a deal withVice President Biden for reductions in future spending growth. But that’s not a way to win elections. The road forward for Republicans is to work toward a permanent new debt-to-GDP cap with teeth that makes the president responsible for any over-spending and gives him the power to cut spending.The public would understand this type of deal and support it. Instead, Republicans are fighting with the Administration over what to cut even though they can’t force the issue or get broad public support. To avoid a default in August, the White House will threaten a rolling shutdown of government and brand Republicans as irresponsible extremists. High unemployment adds to the risk of being called hard-hearted as critical services are cut.
No Link – No Outer NASA T/Off
No inter-agency trade-offs – each agency is funded separately Kenen 11 (Joanne, veteran journalist, senior writer @ New America Foundation, 2/25/11,
This year, of course, each party controls one chamber, and ideological differences run deep. As a result, many observers deem it likely that the two houses of Congress will fail to agree on a single budget resolution, which would mean that none will be adopted. Appropriations: With or without a final budget resolution, House and Senate appropriations committees will eventually have to draw up spending bills to fund specific federal departments, agencies, and programs. Critics of the Affordable Care Act are likely to use the appropriations process to slash funds needed to administer and implement the law. Again, any bills targeting health reform in the Republican-controlled House would have to overcome opposition from Senate Democrats.
Plan is off the table spending – wont trade-off Riedl 5 (Brian, Grover M. Hermann fellow in federal budgetary affairs @ Heritage, 1/25/5, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2005/01/whats-wrong-with-the-federal-budget-process) JPG
The budget process fails to provide a clearinghouse for all spending. The federal budget is supposed to provide an opportunity for Congress and the President to step back and decide how much the federal government should tax and spend during the following year. In reality, only the one-third of spending that is classified as discretionary is subject to the appropriations process every year. Almost all other programs (classified as mandatory) are left without regular oversight to grow uncontrollably from year to year. Thus, the budget process denies the nation's policymakers an opportunity to set annual spending and tax prioritieswith all programs on the table. Furthermore, the mandatory programs that are "off the table" represent the largest long-term threat to the nation's fiscal health. In 2008, the first Baby Boomers will begin collecting Social Security and Medicare benefits, with costs expected to increase enough to raise federal spending by 5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2030 (the current equivalent of $5,200 per household annually) and 13 percent of GDP by 2050 (the current equivalent of $13,500 per household annually).This would result in either substantial tax increases or elimination of most other federal programs. A rational budget process cannot simply ignore this issue by taking these problems off the table. Mandatory programs are not the only ones excluded from the budget process. Although natural disasters and other emergencies occur nearly every year, they are not anticipated in the budget process. Congress regularly allocates all available budgetary resources to non-emergency expenses. When the inevitable $5 billion to $15 billion disaster relief tab reaches Congress each year, it has no choice but to exceed the spending levels of the original cap. Although some catastrophic emergencies may be too large to budget for, there is no reason why Congress cannot set aside funds within each budget for non-catastrophic emergency expenses.
No Link—NASA T/Off
No intra-NASA trade-off—innovation creates new funding McLane 10(James, Associate Fellow in the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics , Space Review, 7/1, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1635/1, accessed 7-1-11, CH)
Naysayers claim the country can’t afford to send a person to Mars, but they forget we’ve successfully funded expensive space programs before and in tough economic times. Our space agency has relatively few direct government employees and distributes most of its money into the private sector all over the country. Some incorrectly believe that spending on NASA might divert funds from other needy government programs. One thing that keeps wealth in the US from being a “zero sum game” (where for some to win, others must lose) are those scientific developments that enable us to produce more output with less input. NASA is on the tip of this technology spear. Spending on the scientific segment of America is what keeps our standard of living moving ahead in a world of ever-diminishing natural assets.
Politicians will defend NASA Smith 11 (Josh, technology reporter, National Journal, 2/14, http://www.nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/nasa-largely-spared-big-cuts-in-obama-budget-20110214, accessed 7-1-11, CH)
Funding for NASA’s Exploration directorate got a bump, funneling dollars to the programs developing the next generation of space vehicles and technology. Last year, Obama scuttled a Bush-era plan to return to the moon and called for more privatization, as well as missions to an asteroid and Mars. To meet those goals, however, the president proposed a $6 billion surge in funding over the next five years. Without any of that money, analysts say the current plan amounts to a budget cut. The question now is how Obama’s NASA plan will fare in the budget-slashing frenzy in Congress, where House Republicans have called for a $379 million cut for the space agency’s budget. However, politicians traditionally have been loathe to cut the jobs the space program provides, a concern that crosses party lines.