NDI 2014 – Elections Disadvantage
1NC Shells
1NC—GOP Good DA—Development
The GOP will earn a Senate majority in November midterms—a weak economy is the most important issue for voters, but there’s still time to gain momentum for Democrats
Dorning 6/26/14
Mike, reporter for Bloomberg News, "Obama’s Economic Rebound Doesn’t Boost Democratic Allies", June 26 2014,
Sluggish improvement in living standards among Democrats’ core voters threatens to hurt the party’s candidates in this year’s congressional elections. Median household income among all Americans is still lower than before the recession, which ended five years ago, according to economic consultant Sentier Research. Key Democratic constituents -- blacks, Hispanics, single women and young people -- have been especially hard-hit, and analysts say that could make them less energized about going to the polls. The economic reality is “dampening enthusiasm among some of the voter groups Democrats need most,” said Charlie Cook, publisher of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. “To create the kind of oomph Democrats need, you’d want back-to-back gains of 400,000 jobs a month.” Companies aren’t coming close to that figure, adding an average of 231,000 jobs the last four months. And the economy’s lingering weakness was underlined yesterday when the government said the gross domestic product contracted at a 2.9 percent rate in the first three months of the year, its worst performance since the lowest point of the recession. Even though forecasters project growth of better than 3 percent for the rest of the year, some political damage has already been done. Dissatisfaction with President Barack Obama, the economy and the direction of the country is burdening Democrats as control of the U.S. Senate is at stake in the November elections, when Republicans would win the majority if they gain six seats. ‘Folks Struggling’ Obama touched on the discontent at a town meeting today in Minneapolis, saying “there’s still a lot of folks struggling out there,” and “we’ve seen wages and incomes sort of flatline.” Still, he said, “on just about every economic measure, we are significantly better off than we were when I came into office.” Though the economy isn’t as much the centerpiece of this campaign as it was in 2012 and 2010, Americans still consider it the most important issue confronting the nation. Forty-four percent said so in a Gallup poll taken June 5-8, compared with 68 percent in June 2012 and 57 percent the same month in 2010. Should growth strengthen over the coming months, it will give Democrats “a little momentum going into September, November,” said Peter Hart, a Democratic pollster. Echoing 2010 Yet disapproval of Obama’s handling of the economy is running higher than on the eve of the 2010 midterm elections, which the president called a “shellacking” that cost his party control of the House. Fifty-seven percent of Americans said they’re unhappy with Obama’s economic stewardship in a June 6-9 Bloomberg National Poll compared with 51 percent in October 2010. Almost two-thirds think the country is on the wrong track. Public malaise driven by the economy works “as an anchor to presidential approval,” said Republican pollster Bill McInturff. Other issues such as Obama’s health-care law are more visible in the campaign. Health care has been mentioned in 41 percent of television commercials this election cycle while 24 percent have mentioned unemployment or jobs, according to data compiled by New York-based Kantar Media’s CMAG. Negative Stories Still, the economy’s impact on the election is contributing to an environment that makes it harder for the president to move beyond negative stories such as the scandal over veterans’ hospitals, the backlash over the Taliban prisoner exchange, and the crises in Ukraine, Iraq and Syria, McInturff said. “If the economy is booming, it can cover a lot of sins,” he said. “When you’re in this sort of economy, you get bogged down in every story.” History is already working against the Democrats. The president’s party typically loses seats in midterm elections, and more of the Senate seats being contested this year are held by Democrats than Republicans, making the party vulnerable. Many of those Democratic seats are in unfriendly territory: Six are in states that 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney won by 14 percentage points or more. Only one Republican senator, Maine’s Susan Collins, is running in a state Obama won.
Increasing ocean development is popular with the public—the plan highlights the interconnection between a “blue economy” and wellbeing
Bugel 12
Jamie, Annual Plant Specialist at Merrifield Garden Center, "What is the Blue Economy?: Healthy Oceans as an Economic Driver", June 29 2012, publictrustproject.org/blog/environment/2012/what-is-the-blue-economy-healthy-oceans-as-an-economic-driver/
The Center for American Progress (CAP) has introduced a new project, The Foundations of a Blue Economy, to promote strong and sustainable ocean industries. Led by Michael Conathan, Director of Ocean Policy, the project will focus on sustainable fisheries, renewable energy, tourism and recreation, and coastal restoration. A blue economy, as conceived by CAP, centers on the value that healthy oceans provide to the welfare of all Americans. This value is difficult to quantify, because it encapsulates not only the financial impact of marine jobs, but also the biological, cultural, and spiritual importance of oceans and coastal areas. “From an employment perspective we have good salary data, but in other areas the results are more environmentally sensitive and harder to quantify. For example, what are our fisheries capable of producing if they are rebuilt to sustainable levels?” Michael Conathan asked earlier this week at the project’s launch event in Washington D.C. At the event, a panel of distinguished guests discussed the strengths and challenges of building a blue economy. Panelists included Jane Lubchenco, Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans, Miranda Ballentine, director of sustainability for Wal-Mart, and Jim Moriarty, CEO of Surfrider Foundation. The panel was moderated by Eric Roston, sustainability editor at Bloomberg News. The panelists agreed that the intangible impacts of the oceans are often hard for the public to understand. It can take a crisis like the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster for people to realize how relevant the ocean is to their lives. “One of the things that became strikingly obvious during Deepwater Horizon was just how dependent communities were on the health of the Gulf. Those were striking lessons,” Dr. Lubchenco said. The disaster drove home the “how interconnected coastal communities and their economies, and psychological health and wellbeing are to a healthy ocean,”she continued. Those connections, she argued, are critical when engaging people on the importance of healthy, sustainable marine environments. “People love the coast, people love seafood,” she said. It’s the job of ocean advocates and communicators “to provide information that helps them make smart decisions.” That information must be based on sound science, the panelists stressed. Miranda Ballentine told the audience that Wal-Mart relies on sound science to instruct its buyers and make decisions about suppliers. But she added that sound science doesn’t always exist, and that Wal-Mart is committed to working with scientists to develop better, clearer information that looks at the “life cycle of the product.” Wal-Mart has a goal of 100 percent sustainably certified seafood; Ballentine says the company is now at 76 percent. A whopping 85 percent of all seafood consumed in the U.S. is imported. “There is not enough seafood caught or farmed in the U.S. to supply all the demand,” Dr. Lubchenco noted. NOAA has a strong focus on developing sustainable aquaculture. “We have strongly regulated fisheries, and that’s not true of many other parts of the world. We don’t always know the social or economic or environmental conditions under which [foreign] fish were caught,” she added. Three billion people around the world depend on seafood as their primary source of protein. In 2008, Americans consumed 16 pounds of fish per person. Even more significant, more than half of all Americans now live in coastal watershed counties. The complex impacts of the oceans on their lives are difficult to quantify. Jim Moriarty, of the Surfrider Foundation, works with surfers and beach-combers who are impassioned by ocean issues. “Something in their life shifts,” he says. “They go down to the beach and it’s different. They’ve noticed a slow motion decline. They realize that there’s a problem here and they need to engage.” Personally, Moriarty said, “I’m sick of surfing in trash. The farther you go away from the civilized world, the worse it is.” Perhaps it’s those passionate people, together with sound science, that will change minds. As hard as it is to put a price tag on the oceans and their impacts, CAP’s Blue Economy project aims to do just that. At the Public Trust Project, we’re eager to see what they come up with. It’s an innovative approach: a focus on the value that healthy oceans provide to society, not just the combined worth of resources extracted from them.
A Republican majority in the Senate would overturn Obama’s EPA regulations
Wallbank 6/5/14
Derek, Bloomberg, "Republicans Can’t Block EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Rules, Says Hoyer", June 5 2014,
Democrats in Congress will be able to keep Republicans from overturning the Obama administration’s rules to lower greenhouse-gas emissions, said second-ranking House Democrat Steny Hoyer.¶ “The overwhelming majority of our party is going to support it and the Senate’s not going to pass a repeal,” Hoyer of Maryland said in an interview yesterday with Bloomberg News reporters and editors in New York. Democrats control the Senate 55-45.¶ “Nor will the president sign it,” Hoyer said. “And if it got to him, we’d sustain his veto.”¶ The Environmental Protection Agency’s rule, proposed June 2, seeks to reduce carbon emissions from power plants by an average of 30 percent from 2005 levels. The reduction would be equal to eliminating carbon pollution from two-thirds of all cars and trucks in the U.S.¶Republicans in Congress oppose the plan, saying it would cost jobs and raise electricity prices. A number of Democrats from energy-producing states have expressed concern about the proposed rules or said they want to see changes.¶ House Republican leaders are considering whether to push legislation to reject the emissions rules or try to block the EPA from spending money to implement them.¶ The House voted in August 2013 to allow either chamber of Congress to veto major U.S. rulemaking, including emissions rules. Democrats held their defections to just six lawmakers who voted with Republicans to pass the bill.¶ Energy Dollars¶ Hoyer knows Democrats may have to contend with one of their own -- Nick Rahall ofWest Virginia -- proposing legislation to block the rules.¶ “We may lose some; the coal states are very concerned about coal,” he said, though he predicted losses of Democratic votes would be limited.¶U.S. energy companies have increased giving to Republicans over Democrats ahead of the November election, betting that a Republican-led Senate would be more resistant to regulations that may harm energy producers. Republicans need to gain a net six seats to take majority control of the Senate.¶ Coal-industry political action committees have given 93 percent of contributions to Republicans in the 2013-2014 election cycle so far, compared with 68 percent in 2010. Oil and gas company PACs gave 83 percent of donations to Republicans, while electric utilities gave 63 percent to members of the party.¶ Blocking Standards¶Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentuckysaid he plans to introduce legislation to block the EPA standards.
EPA regulations would collapse the economy
-jobs
-electricity costs
-lowering incomes
-threatened power grid
Inhofe5/31/14
Jim, former chairman and ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Sen. R-Okla, USA Today, "Inhofe: President plays politics with climate change",
Cap-and-trade proposals have been explicitly rejected in Congress no fewer than four times over the last 15 years, but President Obama and his administration will be announcing Monday his plans to charge full steam ahead, leaving the American majority behind.¶ President Obama's announcement will likely rehash the normal fear-tactic talking points about the theory of man-made climate change. Then he will shift his tone and use rosy words to share about his aggressive new Environmental Protection Agency proposal that will force existing power plants to regulate carbon emissions and will set the stage for states to create cap-and-trade systems in order to regulate these plants.¶What's not so rosy are the numbers. Each past cap-and-trade plan rejected by Congress was estimated to cost Americans roughly $400 billion a year in de facto tax hikes. Now the president is once again looking to do through regulation what he couldn't accomplish through legislation. But myself and others are sounding the real alarm of how the president's plan will be dangerous for our economy and future job opportunities.¶ On May 27, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce released a report saying that climate change regulations for new and existing power plants would result in an average loss of 224,000 American jobs each year and an increase in electricity costs of $289 billion while lowering overall household incomes by more than $500 billion.¶These numbers are just the tip of the iceberg. More EPA regulations like the one that will be proposed Monday threaten the reliability and affordability of our power grid, will weaken our economy, and drive more people into the unemployment lines. In a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing on May 14, committee witness, Marvin Fertel, president and chief executive officer of the Nuclear Energy Institute, testified that EPA regulations are "shutting down the backbone of our electricity system."¶Other inexpensive domestic energy producers, many of whom had to fill the gap in electricity demand during this year's polar vortex, have also warned that these regulations will force them to close their operations in the next few years. What happens for areas of our nation who face a long heat wave or cold snap in future years?¶ It is no wonder recent polls, such as Gallup's on March 12, show that the majority of Americans are least interested in climate change policy issues when compared to other, more important issues like the economy, job creation and even available and affordable energy.¶That the president is willing to follow through on climate change policies, despite the widespread unpopularity, underscores the real motivation behind his actions: pleasing a donor base. Billionaire Tom Steyer joined the likes of Al Gore, Michael Moore and others, earlier this year when he hosted high-profile Democrats at a fundraiser and promised a $100 million war chest if they keep climate change a priority. With each speech, media interview, and EPA regulation, President Obama and others are making good on their promises.¶The Obama administration's proposal must be seen for what it is: a move motivated solely by politics with little regard for the American consumer or the economy. The president will boast of the flexibility his proposal will provide, but there is no way around the fact that it could amount to the largest tax increase in American history. The big question is how the American people will respond and that decision can only be made by them at the polls this November.
History proves that a volatile economic environment risks conflict—radical terrorist groups and tension over shared energy resources could unintentionally result in a pre-emptive nuclear strike
Mathew Harris and Jennifer Burrows, National Intelligence Council, in 2009 [Mathew, PhD European History at Cambridge, counselor in the National Intelligence Council (NIC) and Jennifer, member of the NIC’s Long Range Analysis Unit “Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the Financial Crisis”
Increased Potential for Global Conflict Of course, the report encompasses more than economics and indeed believes the future is likely to be the result of a number of intersecting and interlocking forces. With so many possible permutations of outcomes, each with ample Revisiting the Future opportunity for unintended consequences, there is a growing sense of insecurity. Even so, history may be more instructive than ever. While we continue to believe that the Great Depression is not likely to be repeated, the lessons to be drawn from that period include the harmful effects on fledgling democracies and multiethnicsocieties (think Central Europe in 1920s and 1930s) and on the sustainability of multilateral institutions (think League of Nations in the same period). There is no reason to think that this would not be true in the twenty-first as much as in the twentieth century. For that reason, the ways in which the potential for greater conflict could grow would seem to be even more apt in aconstantly volatile economic environment as they would be if change would be steadier. In surveying those risks, the report stressed the likelihood that terrorism and nonproliferation will remain priorities even as resource issues move up on the international agenda. Terrorism’s appeal will decline if economic growth continues in the Middle East and youth unemployment is reduced. For those terrorist groups that remain active in 2025, however, the diffusion of technologies and scientific knowledge will place some of the world’s most dangerous capabilities within their reach. Terrorist groups in 2025 will likely be a combination of descendants of long established groups_inheriting organizational structures, command and control processes, and training procedures necessary to conduct sophisticated attacks_and newly emergent collections of the angry and disenfranchised that becomeself-radicalized, particularly in the absence of economic outlets that would become narrower in an economic downturn. The most dangerous casualty of any economically-induced drawdown of U.S. military presence would almost certainly be the Middle East. Although Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is not inevitable, worries about a nuclear-armed Iran could lead statesin the region to develop new security arrangements with external powers, acquire additional weapons, and consider pursuing their own nuclear ambitions. It is not clear that the type of stable deterrent relationship that existed between the great powers for most of the Cold War would emerge naturally in the Middle East with a nuclear Iran. Episodes of low intensity conflict and terrorism taking place under a nuclear umbrella could lead to an unintended escalation and broader conflict if clear red lines between those states involved are not well established. The close proximity ofpotential nuclear rivals combined with underdeveloped surveillance capabilities and mobile dual-capable Iranian missile systems also will produceinherent difficulties in achieving reliable indications and warning of an impending nuclear attack. The lack of strategic depth in neighboring states like Israel, short warning and missile flight times, anduncertaintyof Iranian intentions may placemore focus on preemption rather than defense, potentiallyleading to escalating crises. 36 Types of conflict that the world continues to experience, such as over resources, could reemerge,particularly if protectionism grows and there is a resort to neo-mercantilist practices.Perceptions of renewed energy scarcity will drive countries to take actions to assure their future access to energy supplies. In the worst case, this could result in interstate conflicts if government leaders deem assured access to energy resources, for example, to be essential for maintaining domestic stability and the survival of their regime. Even actions short of war, however, will have important geopolitical implications. Maritime security concerns are providing a rationale for naval buildups and modernization efforts, such as China’s and India’s development of blue water naval capabilities. If the fiscal stimulus focus for these countries indeed turns inward, one of the most obvious funding targets may be military.Buildup of regional naval capabilities could lead to increased tensions, rivalries, and counterbalancingmoves, but it also will create opportunities for multinational cooperation in protecting critical sea lanes. With water also becoming scarcer in Asia and the Middle East, cooperation to manage changing water resources is likely to beincreasingly difficultboth within and between states in a more dog-eat-dog world.