Politics Links

Politics Links	1

*****Agenda Links*****	4

Plan Unpopular – Generic (1/2)	5

Plan Unpopular – Generic (2/2)	6

Plan Unpopular – Republicans (1/2)	7

Plan Unpopular – Republicans (2/2)	8

Plan Unpopular – Congress	9

Plan Unpopular – Tea Party in Space	10

Plan Popular – Generic	11

***Space Militarization***	12

Plan Unpopular – Congress (1/2)	13

Plan Unpopular – Congress (2/2)	14

Plan Popular – Republicans (1/2)	15

Plan Popular – Republicans (2/2)	16

Plan Popular – Democrats	17

Internals – Plan=Flip-Flop	18

Internals – Plan =/= Flip-Flop	19

Internals – Obama Supports	20

***SPS***	21

Plan Unpopular – Generic (1/4)	22

Plan Unpopular – Generic (2/4)	23

Plan Unpopular – Generic (3/4)	24

Plan Unpopular – Generic (4/4)	25

Plan Unpopular – Republicans (1/2)	26

Plan Unpopular – Republicans (2/2)	27

Plan Unpopular – Congress	28

Plan Unpopular – House	29

Plan Unpopular – Drains Political Capital (1/2)	30

Plan Unpopular – Drains Political Capital (2/2)	31

Plan Unpopular – Infighting	32

Plan Unpopular – Fossil Fuel Lobby	33

Plan Unpopular – A2 Symbolic (1/2)	34

Plan Unpopular – A2 Symbolic (1/2)	35

Plan Unpopular – Pawlenty	36

Plan Unpopular – Shelby	37

Plan Unpopular – McClintock	38

Plan Popular – Generic	39

Plan Popular – Increases Political Capital	40

Plan Popular – Senate	41

Plan Popular – Senate Small Majority	42

Plan Popular – Pelosi	43

Plan Popular – Pickens	44

Plan Popular – Castor	45

Plan Popular – Schumer	46

Plan Popular – Lieberman	47

Plan Popular – Nelson	48

Plan Popular – Chu	49

Plan Popular – Reid	50

Internals – Obama Support	51

Internals – Slim Democrat Majority	52

Internals – Hastert=Influential	53

***Mars Colonization***	54

Plan Unpopular – Generic	55

Plan Unpopular – Funding (1/2)	56

Plan Unpopular – Public	57

Plan Popular – Generic	58

Plan Popular – Public	59

***Moon Mining***	60

Plan Unpopular – Generic (1/2)	61

Plan Unpopular – Generic (2/2)	62

Plan Unpopular – Congress	63

***Asteroid Mining***	64

Plan Unpopular – Generic	65

Plan Popular – Helium-3	66

***Constellation***	67

Plan Unpopular – Generic	68

Plan Unpopular – Obama	69

Plan Popular – GOP	70

***China Cooperation***	71

Plan Unpopular – Congress (1/4)	72

Plan Unpopular – Congress (2/4)	73

Plan Unpopular – Congress (3/4)	74

Plan Unpopular – Congress (4/4)	75

Plan Unpopular – Republicans (1/4)	76

Plan Unpopular – Republicans (2/4)	77

Plan Unpopular – Republicans (3/4)	78

Plan Unpopular – Republicans (4/4)	79

Plan Unpopular – Wolf	80

Plan Popular – Political Capital	81

Plan Popular – Republicans	82

*****Election Politics*****	83

***Space – Generic***	84

Election Issue – NASA	85

Hurts Obama	86

Popular-Public(1/2)	87

Popular-Public(2/2)	88

Popular- Florida	89

Unpop- Public (1/2)	90

Unpop- Public (2/2)	91

Unpopular- Public Opinion- Spending	92

Public k2 agenda	93

Media	94

Nasa- Unpopular (1/2)	95

Nasa- Unpopular (2/2)	96

Nasa-Popular	97

Nasa popular- public	98

**SPS**	99

Energy=election issue	100

Energy=not election issue	101

Hurts Obama	102

Helps Obama (1/2)	103

Helps Obama (2/2)	104

Helps Obama-Liberal Vote	105

Popular-Public	106

Popular Florida- swing state	107

**Space Mil**	108

Public-support	109

Unpopular-public	110

**constellation**	111

Hurts Obama	112

Unpopular-Public	113

Popular- Florida	114

**Asteroid **	115

Unpopular-public	116

Popular-Public	117

Helium 3- popular- public	118

****Internals****	119

Modern dems k2 debt ceiling	120

PC k2 debt ceiling	121

Compromises k2 debt ceiling	122

Coal lobbies=powerful (1/2)	123

Coal lobbies=powerful (2/2)	124

Solar lobbying powerful	125

Fossil Fuel lobby= no power	126

Reid- no clout	127

Reid- yes clout	128

Jack Gerard Powerful (1/2)	129

Jack Gerard Powerful (2/2)	130

Pelosi pushing partisanship	131

Chu k2 agenda	132

Florida k2 election (1/4)	133

Florida k2 election (2/4)	134

Florida k2 election (4/4)	135

AT: Already losing Florida	136

Flip Flops drains pol cap	137

Winners Lose (1/3)	138

Winners Lose (2/3)	139

Winners Lose (3/3)	140

Republicans K2 Agenda	141

Democrats K2 Agenda	142

Republicans not k2 agenda	143

Emanuel K2 Agenda	144

**Affirmative**	145

SPS- Link Non U	146

Constellation- Link Non U	147

China co-op Not an election issue	148

Republicans support squo	149

Not Election issue	150

*****Agenda Links*****

Plan Unpopular – Generic (1/2)

Space policy creates senate infighting- Obamas unpopular politics, California and Utah senators and NASA administration

Washington Examiner, By: Rand Simberg, a recovering aerospace engineer and a consultant in space commercialization, space tourism and Internet security. He offers occasionally biting commentary about infinity and beyond at his weblog, Transterrestrial Musings. He is an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, 06/08/11,“Space politics makes strange bedfellows”, http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/opinion-zone/2011/06/space-politics-makes-strange-bedfellows //ZY

Staffers for California's Democratic Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein were no doubt nonplussed to discover that their bosses had been praised by the Tea Party on Monday. It's all of a piece of the political bizarro world in which space policy has been immersed for the last year and a half, ever since the Obama administration canceled the disastrous Constellation program in favor of a more commercial approach, and the response of many supposed conservatives in Congress was to demand a "public option." So, how did the two senators earn the support of the Florida Tea Partiers? As part of the final Continuing Resolution to fund the government through the end of the fiscal year, Congress, at the behest of space state Senators (Utah, Florida, Texas and Alabama), included an earmark of almost $2 billion dollars for a new heavy lift vehicle, which was supposed to use existing Shuttle and Constellation contracts and contractors. Specifically (among other features, or bugs, depending on one's point of view), it was intended to use Shuttle solid rocket motors, manufactured in Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch's Utah by ATK. But a fly entered the senatorial ointment. Late last year, Aerojet General, the smallest of the big three propulsion companies, declared its intention to pursue the first-stage engine business, and threatened to sue NASA to force it to open the planned sole-source contract to ATK to competition. Now enter the California senators. It is actually unusual for the California congressional delegation to pay much attention to space policy, despite the large amount of space industry in the state; traditionally, they have either taken it for granted, or ignored it entirely (for instance, there were few complaints back in the nineties when NASA moved a lot of Shuttle-related work from southern California to Texas and Florida). But Aerojet is based in Sacramento, the capital of the state, and apparently the company persuaded its senators, Boxer and Feinstein, to weigh in on its behalf. Late last month, they sent a letter to NASA administrator Charles Bolden, asking him to open up the propulsion contract to competition: In this time of constrained budgets, it would be inexcusable to funnel billions of taxpayer dollars into a non-competitive sole-source contract for the new Space Launch System. By allowing a competitive process, NASA could realize hundreds of millions of dollars in annual savings, and billions in savings over the life of the program. Furthermore, a competitive process will build capacity and enhance the critical skills and capabilities at a wide range of aerospace technology companies. We believe a competitive process is consistent with the NASA Reauthorization Act of 2010. As you know, this legislation directed the agency to construct a new human rated spacecraft by 2016 while utilizing existing contracts where "practicable." However, NASA itself has already concluded that such a plan is not practicable. The January 2011 report issued by your agency entitled the "Preliminary Report Regarding NASA's Space Launch System and Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle" concluded that "NASA does not believe this goal is achievable based on a combination of the current funding profile estimate, traditional approaches to acquisition, and currently considered vehicle architectures." Based on this conclusion, we believe that it is not "practicable" to continue the existing contracts. Instead, we believe that NASA should open a competitive bidding process for the SLS to ensure that the agency obtains the best technology at the lowest possible cost. These words were music to the ears of both the Competitive Space Task Force (full disclosure: of which I am chairman) and Tea Party in Space, a Florida-based group that promotes a vigorous but fiscally responsible space program (something exactly the opposite of what those who make space policy on the Hill seem to want). Hence, Monday's press release lauding the two senators' action. Interestingly and ironically, it sets up a potential battle in the upper chamber over space policy, in which the Democratic senators from California are fighting for a competitive approach (in the interest, of course, of their own home state contractor), against a "conservative" Republican senator from Utah who insists on a wasteful, sole-source pork-based one in the interest of his state. Which all goes to show (as we've seen for the last year and a half) that space policy is truly non-partisan, and non-ideological, and it is driven primarily by rent seeking, not a desire to open up space to humanity. As long as space policy remains unimportant, it will continue to be subject to the petty politics of those whose states and districts benefit from the jobs created, even as wealth is destroyed. But the good news is that this may delay things sufficiently long that an expensive, unnecessary rocket never gets built at all.

Plan Unpopular – Generic (2/2)

Congress does not support NASA- budget cuts prove

Michael D. Lemonick, is the senior writer at Climate Central, a nonprofit organization dedicated to presenting nonpartisan science-based information about climate change to policymakers and the general public, June 29, 2011, He holds an A.B. in Economics from Harvard College and an M.S. in Journalism from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, Headin' Out: NASA Aims for Jupiter, Mars and the Moon, http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2080388,00.html

Like pretty much every other agency in the government, NASA is likely to be hurting for money over the next few years. The end of the Space Shuttle program, which comes with Atlantis' final flight next month, will free up some cash. But at best, NASA's budget will be flat in 2012, and given the mood in Congress, "at best" isn't something to count on. And thanks to the cost overruns plaguing the yet-to-be-launched James Webb Space Telescope, the agency's science programs are especially vulnerable to cuts.

Congress does not support NASA- budget cuts prove

STEWART M. POWELL, Stewart M. Powell is a writer for Hearst Newspapers in Washington, D.C., Sept. 13, 2009, Potential uphill battle for NASA, http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/6615751.html,

WASHINGTON — NASA supporters are bracing for an uphill battle to get the extra funding needed to take on missions more ambitious than visits to the international space station. A high-level panel told President Barack Obama last week that the space program needs an infusion of about $3 billion more a year by 2014. That may be a tough sell, even though the amount could be considered spare change in a fast-spending capital where the White House and Congress are on track to dole out nearly $4 trillion this year to finance federal operations, including bailouts for Wall Street firms, banks and automakers. “The congressional agenda over the next year is going to be focused on cutting programs, not adding to them,” said Scott Lilly, a scholar at the Center for American Progress. Adding resources to the nation's $18.7 billion-a-year space program would require cuts in other areas, said Lilly, who doesn't think lawmakers are willing to make those trades.

Nobody likes Nasa

Timmer 2011 (John Editor et Observatory moderator, Ph.D. in Molecular and Cell Biology from UC, Berkeley, , “Bill introduced directing NASA to establish a moon base” http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/04/bill-introduced-directing-nasa-to-establish-a-moon-base.ars)

Overall, the bill is roughly in keeping with Obama's priorities, which involve developing the ability to construct and fuel a long-distance mission in orbit; those abilities could apply equally to sending construction materials to the Moon. It would also avoid one of the problems with the lack of an obvious focus in Obama's plan, which could be viewed as "maybe an asteroid, some day." Even assuming that the bill could clear the full House and Senate (and survive an Obama veto), the impact may be much less than its supporters hope. As its text notes, a return to the Moon has been a Congressional priority several times before; that didn't stop Obama from dismissing it with "We've been there." And, more significantly, it clearly didn't ensure that the NASA budget was sufficient to actually accomplish that goal. Simply stating that NASA's budget will be "consistent" with achieving it by 2020 leaves open a lot of room for different definitions of consistent, and allows the current Congress to shift the burden of finding money onto future ones, which may not be inclined to do so. Thus, on its own, the bill would accomplish nearly nothing and is sufficiently vague that it probably won't even be viewed as providing direction to NASA, at least within NASA. And, given how contentious budget issues have been in the current Congress, any attempt to turn it into something concrete would probably make it a non-starter.

Budget concerns means partisanship

CSM 2011 (Pete Spotts, writer 5/6/11 <http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2011/0516/After-the-space-shuttle-astronaut-corps-awaits-a-new-mission>)

The current debates in Washington over the future of NASA's human-spaceflight enterprise and the increasingly loud cries for deep budget cuts from deficit hawks in Congress have left NASA and the corps "without a clear definition of what we should be doing," says Whitson. "We're an action-oriented group. We like to take something and pound the details out to make it work. The times when we don't have a clear direction are the most difficult times. And it's an unclear time right now." NASA has been preparing for the end of the shuttle program and a downsized astronaut corps since January 2004, nearly a year after the Columbia disaster, when the orbiter broke up on reentry, killing its seven-member crew. At the time, President George W. Bush unveiled his vision for space exploration. It called for terminating the shuttle program in 2010, an end to US involvement in the ISS in 2015, and the development of two rockets, one of which could deliver a crew of four to low-Earth orbit by 2014.

Plan Unpopular – Republicans (1/2)

Republicans don’t like NASA- Gingrinch proves

Gabriel Perna, is a Tech Reporter for the IBTimes, June 14, 2011, Top Stories 1 of 3, Gingrich Rips NASA, http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/162962/20110614/nasa-newt-gingrich-science-innovate-presidential-candidacy.htm

In a debate of possible Republican candidates for presidency, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrinch tore into NASA. The debate was the first for the 2012 Presidential Election and featured seven Republican candidates, some unofficial and some official. Gingrinch, who has formerly made a bid for Presidency, was asked a question about the role government should play in future space exploration. Gingrich made it clear he wasn't a fan of the space agency.	"Well, sadly - and I say this sadly, because I'm a big fan of going into space and I actually worked to get the shuttle program to survive at one point - NASA has become an absolute case study in why bureaucracy can't innovate," Gingrich said.

Republicans don’t like NASA- love private sector

Gabriel Perna, is a Tech Reporter for the IBTimes, June 14, 2011, Top Stories 1 of 3, Gingrich Rips NASA, http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/162962/20110614/nasa-newt-gingrich-science-innovate-presidential-candidacy.htm

"If you take all the money we've spent at NASA since we landed on the moon and you had applied that money for incentives to the private sector, we would today probably have a permanent station on the moon, three or four permanent stations in space, a new generation of lift vehicles. And instead what we've had is bureaucracy after bureaucracy after bureaucracy, and failure after failure." Gingrich went onto say NASA has stood in the way of scientific opportunities. He said NASA should be getting out of the way and encouraging the private sector. Interestingly enough, NASA is doing just that when it launches the next generation of space exploration in a few years. After the space shuttle program ends in July, NASA will use Russian Soyuz spacecraft for future years until it facilitates a program with private sector partners for space exploration. The agency has a goal of getting a manned spacecraft to Mars by the 2030s and to an asteroid by the 2020s. NASA has already invested millions into companies like Space Exploration Technologies, which have created their own space shuttles and have plans to launch private sector space missions. Two other Republican candidates, former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney also suggested NASA may be better off under the private sector.

Republicans hate the NASA program

Mike Hollis 6/22 (Mike Hollis, 6/22/11, " Editorial: NASA struggling for support ", http://blog.al.com/times-views/2011/06/editorial_nasa_struggling_for.html)

Perhaps Texas Gov. Rick Perry, whose state is home to Johnson Space Center, will ride to NASA's rescue if he declares a campaign for the presidency. Otherwise, there doesn't seem to be much, if any, support among Republican presidential primary candidates for the space agency as we have known it for 50-odd years. This isn't to argue that NASA cannot be improved; no company, no organization and no agency is ever as good as it could be. But the Republican candidates' lack of support for the nation's space program is stunning to many of its supporters. This didn't become apparent until John King, the moderator of CNN's GOP primary debate the other night in New Hampshire, asked the candidates if they would raise their hand if they support continued federal funding for NASA. King's next word was two chilling syllables: Nobody. Then Tim Pawlenty, the former Minnesota governor, did speak up, saying the space program shouldn't be eliminated and that "We can partner with private providers to get more economies of scale."

Republicans hate NASA- want to save money

Mike Hollis 6/22 (Mike Hollis, 6/22/11, " Editorial: NASA struggling for support ", http://blog.al.com/times-views/2011/06/editorial_nasa_struggling_for.html)

Perhaps the candidates see the space program as an easy place to save a lot of money, either by cutting it outright or farming out its role to (federally subsidized) private enterprise. U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Tuscaloosa, in a statement Thursday reminded the candidates that they need to understand and "embrace the things that have made America great." He said he hopes they realize "that balancing the budget does not require abandoning our historic role as space pioneers." U.S. Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Rocket City, said he hadn't heard anything from the debate that suggests that NASA would be "worse off with any of these Republican candidates than we are with Barack Obama." Well, that isn't the point. It's a lot easier to get the space policy you want if you and the president agree on what that ought to be.

Plan Unpopular – Republicans (2/2)

Republicans hate the plan

Klamper 2010 (Amy Klamper, Space News Staff WriterDate: 03 November 2010 After Elections, Critics of Obama's NASA Plan Likely to Take Over 2 Key Committees http://www.space.com/9462-elections-critics-obama-nasa-plan-2-key-committees.html)

Although lawmakers are expected to reconvene for a lame-duck session Nov. 15, it remains unclear whether new spending legislation will be approved before a stopgap measure intended to keep the government running into the current budget year expires Dec. 3. That stopgap measure, called a continuing resolution, funds the federal government at 2010 levels. In the meantime, with incoming Republican leaders threatening to dial back discretionary spending across the federal government next year, the $19 billion Congress authorized for NASA in 2011 could be in jeopardy. House Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio), who is expected to become speaker of the House in January, voted against the recently enacted NASA legislation and more broadly has pledged to roll back spending in an effort to reduce the federal deficit. In a weekly Republican address Oct. 30, Boehner criticized spending under Democratic leadership and outlined reforms in the governing agenda Republicans expect to implement in the 112th Congress. "We're ready to cut spending to pre-'stimulus,' pre-bailout levels, saving taxpayers $100 billion almost immediately," Boehner said. "And we're ready to put in place strict budget caps that limit spending from here on out, to ensure that Washington is no longer on this spending binge."

Plan Unpopular – Congress

Congress hate NASA- budget cuts prove

Cunningham 10 (Walter, Former Apollo Astronaut, “Slashed NASA Budget Would Leave the U.S. No Longer a Space Leader”, Houston Chronicle, 2-6, http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/6854790.html)

NASA has always been a political football. The agency's lifeblood is federal funding, and it has been losing blood for several decades. The only hope now for a lifesaving transfusion to stop the hemorrhaging is Congress.

It is hard to be optimistic. President Obama has apparently decided the United States should not be in the human spaceflight business. He obviously thinks NASA's historic mission is a waste of time and money. Until just two months before his election, he was proposing to use the $18 billion NASA budget as a piggybank to fund his favored education programs. With this budget proposal, he is taking a step in that direction.

NASA is not just a place to spend money, or to count jobs. It is the agency that has given us a better understanding of our present and hope for our future; an agency that gives us something to inspire us, especially young people.

NASA's Constellation program was not “over budget, behind schedule, and lacking in innovation due to a failure to invest in critical new technologies,” as stated in the White House budget plan. The program's problems were due to perennial budget deficiencies. It would have been sustainable for an annual increase equal to the amount thrown away on the “cash for clunkers” program, or just a fraction of the tens of billions of dollars expended annually on congressional earmarks.

It's debatable whether Constellation was the best solution to President George W. Bush's vision of “Moon, Mars and Beyond,” but it was far better than the vacuum in which we now find ourselves, and without a viable alternative in sight.

Yes, jobs will be lost and the local economy will suffer. This will hurt and be readily measured. In the long run, intangible losses (those on which we cannot put a price tag) will be far more devastating.

Plan Unpopular – Tea Party in Space

Tea Party In Space hates government subsidies- wants private innovation

NASA Watch 23 Jun 2011, 14:44 UTCTEA Party Releases Space Platform, http://www.portaltotheuniverse.org/blogs/posts/view/124446//ZY

TEA Party Space Platform "TEA Party in Space (TPIS), a non-partisan organization, today publicly released the TEA Party Space Platform "This is our response to the vacuum of leadership in Washington, D.C., for America's national space enterprise," said Andrew Gasser,... TEA Party Space Platform "TEA Party in Space (TPIS), a non-partisan organization, today publicly released the TEA Party Space Platform "This is our response to the vacuum of leadership in Washington, D.C., for America's national space enterprise," said Andrew Gasser, President of TPIS. "Whether it's timidity from the White House or Congress' earmark-laden 'compromises', our space dreams will be stuck on this planet unless someone articulates a vision based on economic and technical reality, so that's what we've done." This platform, and its specific planks, are grounded in sound science, technology, and the TEA Party's core values. The TEA Party in Space Platform promotes fiscal responsibility, limited government, and stimulation of the free market."

Tea Party wants fixed price contracts- vagueness of the plan would be massively unpopular

Doug Mohne, y is a contributing editor for TMCnet and a 20-year veteran of the ICT space,2011, Tea Party in Space Supports Democratic Senators on Heavy Lift Rocket Competition, http://satellite.tmcnet.com/topics/satellite/articles/183216-tea-party-space-supports-democratic-senators-heavy-lift.htm//ZY

Politics makes for strange bedfellows, especially when it comes to anything having to do with money these days. So it shouldn't be a total surprise that the TEA Party in Space has issued a statement supporting the efforts of California Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer to get NASA to competitively bid the development of its heavy lift rocket for deep space exploration. Senators Feinstein and Boxer sent the letter over to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden on May 27, calling for NASA to “quickly” open up a competitive bidding process for the propulsion component (i.e. the rocket engines) for the Space Launch System (SLS). “A competitive process will allow NASA to procure better technology at lower initial and lifecycle costs,” the letter states. “In this time of constrained budgets, it would be inexcusable to funnel billions of taxpayer dollars into a non-competitive sole-source contract for the new Space Launch System.” The two Senators believe a competitive process is consistent with the NASA Reauthorization Act of 2010 and that NASA could save hundreds of millions of dollars annual with billions of savings over the life of the program. TEA Party in Space (TPIS), based out of Florida, issued its statement today on June 6 saying it is “happy” to join with the two Senators who “wisely recognize” that NASA must compete its contracts “to be fair to the tax payers in this time of budgetary crisis.” It goes on to note that use of NASA's existing “sole source cost plus” awards can't fit into NASA's existing budget projections. “The contract to award the solid rocket motor contract was a carefully disguised earmark that virtually guaranteed the work to Alliant Techsystems (ATK (News - Alert)) of Utah,” Everett Wilkinson, spokesperson for TPIS said in the statement. ”Basically, Congress tried to earmark $12 billion for existing Shuttle and Constellation contractors.” TPIS wants Congress to tell NASA to dump the traditional cost plus procurement model and bid out SLS in an open competition, awarding only fixed price contracts with specific milestones that must be met before payment. Aerojet has been the primary force pushing for a competitive bid process for SES, but if NASA opens up the competition to be more like the COTS and CCDev programs,SpaceX ( News - Alert) is likely to throw its hat into the ring as well. Aerojet plans to offer its Russian-derived engine while SpaceX has discussed building a Merlin 2 engine to power a family of Falcon X heavy-lift vehicles.

TP hates the plan-wasteful spending

Nelson 2011 (Stephen. “Tea Party group launches into space policy debate”, June 24, http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/24/tea-party-group-launches-into-space-policy-debate/)

Some members of the Tea Party movement have zeroed in on a multi-billion dollar area of government spending. This time, it isn’t health care or the public debt -– but outer space. On Thursday, TEA Party in Space (TPIS) unveiled its “TEA Party Space Platform.” The group, which is affiliated with the Tea Party Patriots, hopes NASA will return “to its roots as [a research and development] agency instead of serving as a slush fund for a few influential members of Congress,” TPIS President Andrew Gasser said in a Thursday press release. Just like a political party’s platform, this agenda is made up of specific issues. Among the fourteen calls to action is for Congress to pass legislation to cap liability for commercial human spaceflight. Another of the tenets calls for a “Zero-G means Zero-Tax” arrangement, which would establish tax exemptions for business activities related to human spaceflight. Additionally, the group wants for Congress to allow NASA to cancel all existing Shuttle, Ares and Space Launch System contracts in order to force the termination of an $11 billion earmark included in the 2010 NASA Authorization Law and for NASA to “competitively bid the development of human exploration transportation capabilities.”

Plan Popular – Generic

Massive political support for space exploration – backlash to recent cuts prove

Ken Kramer (reporter for Universe Today) 3/20/10 “Obama made mistake cancelling NASA’s Constellation; Sen. Bill Nelson” http://www.universetoday.com/60294/obama-made-mistake-cancelling-nasas-constellation-sen-bill-nelson/ RM

“The President made a mistake,” said Sen. Bill Nelson (D) of Florida in referring to President Barack Obama’s recent decision to completely terminate Project Constellation from the 2011 NASA Budget. “Because that is the perception. That he killed the space program.” “I know him [Obama] to be a vigorous supporter of the manned space program”, Nelson added. “But he certainly has not given that impression. The President is going to have to prove that when he comes here on April 15,” said Nelson. He was referring to the upcoming “Space Summit” scheduled to take place at or near the Kennedy Space Center on April 15 Constellation was the designated human spaceflight successor program to the Space Shuttle program which is currently planned to shut down by the end of 2010. Comprised of the Ares 1 and Ares 5 booster rockets and Orion manned capsules, Constellation would have sent humans flying to exciting destinations of exploration beyond low earth orbit for the first time since the Apollo lunar landings ended in 1972. The ambitious targets included the Moon, Mars, Asteroids and Beyond. Sen. Nelson made his remarks on March 19 at a public space forum co-hosted by Brevard Community College in Cocoa, Florida ,which is the local college located only a few miles distant from KSC and also by the local newspaper Florida Today. Nelson was joined by KSC Director Bob Cabana, a former astronaut who flew 4 space shuttle missions. Over 100 residents attended the space forum. Up to 9000 workers at the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) are fearful of swiftly losing their jobs and livelihoods in the aftermath of the imminent dual cancellation of the Shuttle and Constellation programs. Tens of thousands more jobs will be extinguished as well in other states across the US. “By saying they were cancelling the Constellation program, the perception is that the President is killing the manned space program”. “The President made a mistake. He made a mistake because he did not stand up and lay out his budget for the space program and outline what his goal is, which is Mars, and how we should go about getting there for the space program. The President should have used the word restructure not cancel with regard to Constellation”. President Obama’s cancellation of Project Constellation has been vigorously criticized by key members of both houses of the US Congress, including Democrats and Republicans, since the moment that word first leaked of the Presidents decision to kill the moon program announced by President George Bush in 2004. Many political and industry leaders have harshly labeled this decision as an “Abdication of US Leadership in Space”, which amounts to nothing less than a “US Space Surrender” that will begin the “Death March of US Human Spaceflight”. They also fear that the massive job cuts will result in catastrophic devastation to the local effected economies as well as a swift erosion of the science and technology base across America.

***Space Militarization***

Plan Unpopular – Congress (1/2)

Weaponization causes Congressional backlash --- there’s broad, bipartisan opposition

Moltz 2 (James Clay, Research Professor and Associate Director – Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies, “Breaking the Deadlock on Space Arms Control”, Arms Control Today, April, http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_04/moltzapril02)

Where Does Congress Stand? The same Congress that boosted funding for missile defenses by 57 percent to $8.3 billion last year also cut significant chunks out of Bush proposals for space-based elements of national missile defense. Indeed, the final House-Senate conference committee eliminated $120 million from the president’s proposed $170 million appropriation for the Space-Based Laser. It also eliminated funds entirely for the Space Based Infrared System-low (SBIRS-low), a satellite-based early-warning system. These actions suggest that space weapons are vulnerable to congressional challenges. Also, the full impact of the change in the Senate’s leadership has not yet been felt. Key Democrats have come out in strong opposition to space weapons, including Senators Tom Daschle (SD), Joseph Biden (DE), and Carl Levin (MI). Except for the unprecedented budget unity brought on by the September 11 events, cuts would likely have been made in the missile defense budget for fiscal year 2002,9 forcing even harder choices regarding space defenses. Such debates are beginning for fiscal year 2003. Conservative Democrat Robert Byrd (WV) warned on the Senate floor against “a headlong and fiscally spendthrift rush” to deploy space weapons, concluding, “That heavy foot on the accelerator is merely the stamp and roar of rhetoric.” In addition, a strong contingent within Congress still supports NASA and the International Space Station, which, despite problems, continues to resonate as a worthwhile endeavor with the American public. Introducing weapons into space is abhorrent to many Americans, raised to view space as the realm of the Apollo astronauts, the moon landing, and the shuttle missions. Even conservatives such as Representative Curt Weldon (R-PA) have emphasized the continued importance of manned space research to the nation’s economy and the development of spin-offs for furthering our technological base. Despite Weldon’s support for missile defense, he and other NASA supporters may modify their stances when they recognize that aggressive deployment of space weapons could jeopardize other U.S. space priorities. Tests of ASAT weapons, for example, could create debris that might threaten astronauts on the International Space Station. They might also cause costly litigation in which commercial providers seek restitution from the U.S. military for damage caused to their satellites. Foreign claims could create international incidents harmful to U.S. foreign and defense policies, as well as commercial interests. Ten to 20 years down the line, multiple states responding to U.S. weapons in orbit could create an unlimited test range in low-Earth orbit, to the great harm of U.S. space interests, including for military assets. It is not surprising, therefore, that risks associated with weaponizing low-Earth orbit do not sit well with many members of Congress, who want to see U.S. military, scientific, and commercial leadership in space protected. According to defense analyst Theresa Hitchens, U.S. satellite providers are already nervous about possible future U.S. government decisions to try to shut off foreign access to U.S. communications satellites in times of crisis and to shoot down U.S. and foreign satellites providing such access.10 They fear that this may lead foreign customers to develop their own satellite industries to ensure the availability of spares, thus stimulating competition and cutting into existing U.S. market share. A liberal House Democrat introduced H.R. 2977 in fall 2001 and a revised bill (H.R. 3616) in January entitled the “Space Preservation Act of 2002.” This legislation would prohibit U.S. funds from being spent on space-based weapons, terminate all research associated with such systems, and instruct the president to participate in international negotiations toward completion of a treaty banning such weapons worldwide. Although the bill is unlikely to pass in the Republican-controlled House, it does set down a marker of opposition to current administration policies. More indicative of chances for creating a bipartisan consensus on limiting space weapons was a speech in late September 2001 by Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN), a highly respected Republican foreign policy beacon. In an address to the National Press Club, Lugar rejected the idea of moving forward with a multitiered national missile defense and instead called upon the Bush administration to reorient missile defense programs to focus on the existing, short-range missile threat and to redouble efforts to fight terrorism and provide for homeland security. He argued that longer-range missile defenses and space systems should be put off indefinitely, suggesting a significant difference of opinion with the Bush administration. Other concerned Republicans are echoing such thoughts in this spring’s congressional budget debates, particularly as politically risky deficit spending looms. Thus, although arms controllers may despair about current plans, there are good reasons to think that cooler heads can still prevail in the space weapons debate. Although missile defense of some sort may be inevitable, those who doubt the utility of space weapons represent a majority in Congress. This middle constituency is the one with whom the arms control community must open a dialogue. The problem today in trying to identify a defensible middle ground for space arms control is the lack of a formula to draw in these moderates, who do not want to be painted as “anti-missile defense.” Thus, a search to create new alternatives to the existing options and arguments must be undertaken.

Plan Unpopular – Congress (2/2)

Plan unpopular with congress and the military

Canada Newswire 6 (“Liberal Commitment to Treaty Banning Space Weapons Welcomed” < http://www.halifaxlive.com/content/view/386/2/>)

The Polaris Institute welcomes the inclusion of a commitment to "lead an international campaign at the United Nations to establish a treaty banning all weapons in space" in the Liberal election platform, leaked today. "This is a realistic and timely proposal, as international conditions are ripe for negotiations to ban all weapons in space, and Canada is well- positioned to provide leadership for such negotiations," said Steven Staples of the Polaris Institute. There has been, and will continue to be, resistance to the initiation of such negotiations from the Bush administration, requiring strong resolve from Canada. However, opposition to the weaponization of space in the U.S. is widespread in Congress, parts of the U.S. military, security policy establishment.

Weaponization is politically controversial --- plan triggers partisan debates

McFaddin 98 (David W., Lieutenant Colonel – United States Air Force, “Can the Air Force Weaponize Space?”, Air War College Research Report, April, http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc/98-173.pdf)

In dealing with Congress on space programs, it became apparent to me that not everyone agreed on interpretation of laws and treaties, not to mention national intent/policy. Concurrent with partisan political debates over the legality of putting weapons in space was the Air Force’s movement toward the Nation’s Air and Space Force to be followed by a transition to a Space and Air Force. With this Revolution in Military Affairs type of move into space control, today’s Air Force finds itself working to fulfil a vague National Space Policy by developing programs for, and methods of, space control. The dilemma encountered is one of being told to accomplish this without being given the required tools and permission to accomplish the task – for political reasons. Therefore, the Air Force finds itself trying to please two masters, the Administration and Congress, who have opposing viewpoints.

Plan causes political backlash

Mitchell 1 (Gordon, Associate Professor and Director of Debate – University of Pittsburgh, et al., ISIS Briefing on Ballistic Missile Defense, July, http://www.isisuk.demon.co.uk/0811/isis/uk/bmd/no6.html)

Since any US attempt to overtly seize military control of outer space would likely stir up massive political opposition both home and abroad, defence analyst James Oberg anticipates that 'the means by which the placement of space-based weapons will likely occur is under a second US space policy directive — that of ballistic missile defense… This could preempt any political umbrage from most of the world's influential nations while positioning the US as a guarantor of defense from a universally acclaimed threat'. 32 In this scenario, ABM Treaty breakout, conducted under the guise of missile defence, functions as a tripwire for unilateral US military domination of the heavens .

Plan Popular – Republicans (1/2)

NMD Popular with key republicans and public-rogue states

Barnes 6 (fred. executive editor of The Weekly Standard, Washington Star, Baltimore Sun. Barnes graduated from the University of Virginia and was a Neiman Fellow at Harvard University. “Going on Offense for Missile Defense” < http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1675610/posts>)

SENATOR CARL LEVIN of Michigan had a grim and unhappy look on his face. For years, he had led Democrats in an effort to slash funding for missile defense. He had planned to seek a cut of $68 million. But with North Korea poised to launch missiles and Iran's relentless drive to go nuclear, the situation had changed. So much so that Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama proposed to boost spending on the missile defense program, now more than two decades old, by an extra $45 million. Even Levin voted yes as it passed 98-0 in late June. There are two lessons here. One is that Democrats, having kept spending for missile defense at anemic levels during the Clinton years, and having sought to block deployment of an effective system under President Bush, are vulnerable on the issue. And this is an election year in which Republicans, embattled and minimally popular, need every issue they can find. The other lesson is that an election campaign, with the American people paying attention, is the perfect time to debate missile defense and generate national support for a system on land, at sea, and in space. At the least, Democrats would be put on the defensive. There's no doubt about either the popularity of missile defense or the urgency in deploying a full-blown system to protect America. In a 2004 poll by Princeton Survey Research, 62 percent approved of President Bush's plan to build a missile defense system. A year earlier, in a Gallup Poll, 61 percent said they would be "upset" if money were not being spent on such a system. And in a survey last year sponsored by a pro-missile defense group, 79 percent voiced support for missile defense and 70 percent said it is an "important part" of homeland security. The need for an antimissile shield was underscored this summer not only by North Korea's missile tests and Iran's race to build nuclear weapons, but by the potential emergence of a worldwide threat. North Korea is believed to have a small nuclear arsenal and is an exporter of weapons. Iran, the world's leading sponsor of terrorists, is developing long-range missiles as well as nukes. If it produces a nuclear weapon, other Middle Eastern nations are likely to follow. Pakistan, an Islamic country with a fragile pro-West government, plans to build more nuclear weapons. And the United States would have no defense in the unlikely event that China or Russia, onetime enemies, unleashed a missile attack. Bush boldly cleared the way for deploying a missile defense system by withdrawing, in December 2001, from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia. A year later, he ordered Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld "to proceed with fielding an initial set of missile defense capabilities" by 2004 or 2005. These, the president said, "will include ground-based interceptors, sea-based interceptors, additional Patriot (PAC-3) units, and sensors based on land, at sea, and in space." In 2004, a handful of antimissile missiles were deployed in Alaska. And six Navy ships have been equipped to bring down missiles. The head of the missile defense program at the Pentagon, Lieutenant General Henry Obering, insists these systems would have been able to destroy the one long-range missile fired by the North Koreans on July 4. That missile failed and fell in to the Sea of Japan. But Obering is only guessing. And the widely held view in the defense community is that the deployment of anti-missile assets by the United States is not keeping pace with the growing missile threat. The war in Iraq, for one thing, has forced serious cuts in funding for missile defense. Planned deployments were delayed and the number of actual antimissile units was reduced. This year, House Republicans have sought to cut spending further. There's a compelling case for re-engaging missile defense as a top priority of the Bush administration. A comprehensive upgrading of the ship-based Aegis system, which has been successful in eight out of nine tests, makes enormous sense, as ships can be deployed off the Korean coast and near Iran. Expanding the number of antimissile ships would be the fastest way to get near-global coverage at the least cost. Destroyers could probably be equipped for $100 million or less. For many Americans, ground-based interceptors are the heart of missile defense. But these interceptors have not performed as well in tests as the ship-based ones. The next ground-based test will be crucial in gaining congressional support for missile defense in general.

Plan Popular – Republicans (2/2)

Specifically popularity for space based nmd is on the rise

Barnes 6 (fred. executive editor of The Weekly Standard, Washington Star, Baltimore Sun. Barnes graduated from the University of Virginia and was a Neiman Fellow at Harvard University. “Going on Offense for Missile Defense” < http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1675610/posts>)

But the future of missile defense is in space. And Senator John Kyl of Arizona, the savviest advocate of missile defense, is ready to lead an effort next year in Congress to add this strategic element. It would have global reach and not depend, for instance, on where a ship was deployed. Critics claim this would bring about the militarization of space, but their argument is specious. Space is already militarized. Intercontinental missiles, such as the one North Korea tested, travel through space. Military satellites are already in space. The midterm election on November 7 will play a critical role in the advancement of missile defense. If Democrats capture either the House or Senate, funding may be dangerously curtailed and deployments postponed. Kyl says Democrats favor a policy of "test forever, deploy never." Democrats have voted to cut spending nine times in the past five years. When they controlled Congress, they slashed billions from missile defense. To avert this, missile defense must become a major issue in the campaign, addressed by Republican candidates and, especially, the president. The issue can be laid out very simply: We need robust missile defense for the safety of America; Democrats are standing in the way; vote Republican. Under pressure, Democrats might cave and endorse a vigorous missile defense program. But, given their record, don't hold your breath.

Plan Popular – Democrats

Top democrats support space nmd

Clark 11 (Colin, “C. A. 'Dutch' Ruppersberger Pushes For Billion-Dollar Missile Defense Satellite”, writer for huffington post and aol defense, 5/4/11. < http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/04/dutch-ruppersberger-billion-dollar-missile-defense-satellite_n_857740.html>

WASHINGTON -- A powerful House Democrat announced Wednesday that he will fight for a billion dollar-plus space tracking system for missile defense, despite the fact that Republican lawmakers have dropped funding for the system from the defense policy bill. Rep. C. A. "Dutch" Ruppersberger (D-Md.), the top Democrat on the House Permanent Select Intelligence Committee who also sits on the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, said he will push for an additional $168 million in the defense policy bill to cover costs of the Precision Tracking and Surveillance Satellites (PTSS). During a House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee hearing today, Ruppersberger told his colleagues they were pursuing the "wrong course of action," pointing to China's strong support for space exploration and technologies as one reason to fund the satellite program. The other reason the U.S. needs the satellites, he argued, is that the country must improve its knowledge of space objects and their locations, or "space situational awareness." After the Chinese used a missile to destroy one of their satellites in January 2007, President Bush made space situational awareness a top administration space priority.

Internals – Plan=Flip-Flop

Plan not flip-flop Obama supports colonization

Libertarian International Organization, is a partisan transnational advisory network, September 10, 2010, Libertarian Ideas of Spacesteading Advance, http://www.libertarianinternational.org/apps/blog/show/4786553-libertarian-ideas-of-spacesteading-advance

US President Obama announced a seismic shift in US policy towards space colonization driven by private entities. Already private-public spaceports exist or are being planned in New Mexico and other states. The matter was first proposed in 1977 at a Libertarian-driven conference on Space Colonization by the American Astronautical Society and international divisions, organized by past LIO Honorary Chair G. Harry Stine, viewed as a father of the modern space effort. Observers feel that while this may slow return to the Moon and other projects initially, it will lead to vast projects on a firmer basis that will not call for taxation.

Plan is a flip-flop, Obama does not like colonization- ISS proves

Dan Vergano, Dan Vergano has been a science reporter at USA Today since 1999, and began writing a weekly online science story column in 2005. Before joining USA Today, Vergano was a medical reporter for the Medical Tribune; a researcher for PBS’ HealthWeek; a science writer intern for Science News and a space policy analyst for the Air Force, 1/18/2010, Has USA hit its final frontier in human space exploration?, http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2010-01-19-space19_CV_N.htm

"I do not see this president being the president who presides over the end of human spaceflight," said NASA chief Charles Bolden, a former space shuttle pilot, when he spoke Jan. 5 at the American Astronomical Society meeting here. In the speech, Bolden said his agency would stress missions — small ones — with other nations as partners and look to new technologies, not the big chemical rockets of the past, to propel missions. President Obama, an acknowledged "space buff," will address that mismatch soon. He will lay out his vision for the nation's future in space in coming weeks, in either the State of the Union address Jan. 27 or, at the latest, in the proposed 2011 federal budget due to be released early in February. So far, the administration has given only a few hints of what it intends for the $18.7 billion NASA budget. When experts try to read the tea leaves, they're not hopeful about human space exploration in the next decade. "There won't be any," says space policy expert John Logsdon of George Washington University. Instead, he and others suggest, the administration probably will continue support of the International Space Station, which hangs in low-Earth orbit and eats up money that otherwise could send astronauts to the moon, Mars or asteroids. "Clearly, NASA is at a crossroads," says science historian Michael Robinson of the University of Hartford (Conn.). "We are revisiting some questions of a century ago about what we want out of exploration as a nation as we look to space."

Internals – Plan =/= Flip-Flop

Plan is not a flip-flop, Obama likes space colonization- international cooperation

Dan Vergano, Dan Vergano has been a science reporter at USA Today since 1999, and began writing a weekly online science story column in 2005. Before joining USA Today, Vergano was a medical reporter for the Medical Tribune; a researcher for PBS’ HealthWeek; a science writer intern for Science News and a space policy analyst for the Air Force, 1/18/2010, Has USA hit its final frontier in human space exploration?, http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2010-01-19-space19_CV_N.htm

International cooperation is the last wild card in the debate. NASA's deputy director for strategic partnerships, Wayne Hale, recently called for all space-faring nations to join together to explore the solar system, including colonies on the moon and Mars. China, which makes no distinction between civilian and military spaceflight, has announced plans to send "Taikonauts" to the moon in 2024. Would the U.S. public accept plans to team up with China, now subject to a U.S. embargo on trading space technology, in human space exploration? "I guess we'll see," Logsdon says. Danger surrounds human space exploration, whatever decision is announced, says former astronaut John Grunsfeld of the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore, who led the spacewalking team that repaired the Hubble Space Telescope last year. "We estimated our odds (then) of not coming back at 1-in-70. Those are not very good odds," he says. "It only gets worse as you go further out."

Plan is not a flip-flop, Obama likes space colonization- several methods to get there

Dan Vergano, Dan Vergano has been a science reporter at USA Today since 1999, and began writing a weekly online science story column in 2005. Before joining USA Today, Vergano was a medical reporter for the Medical Tribune; a researcher for PBS’ HealthWeek; a science writer intern for Science News and a space policy analyst for the Air Force, 1/18/2010, Has USA hit its final frontier in human space exploration?, http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2010-01-19-space19_CV_N.htm

"Planning for a human spaceflight program should begin with a choice about its goals — rather than a destination," the Augustine report said, laying out five options for NASA and calling for international colonization of the solar system as an ultimate goal. The first two options keep space agency budgets flat and essentially remove NASA from the astronaut exploration business (aside from trips to the ISS) for decades, which Bolden says isn't going to happen. The others require adding $3 billion to NASA's budget in 2011 and increasing the budget 2.4% every year. These options vary in how long they would keep the ISS operational and what rocket NASA develops as an alternative to launch astronauts beyond Earth orbit. In some options, commercial rockets would carry astronauts to the station. Instead of landing on the moon or Mars, astronaut "flybys" would visit asteroids, the moon and Mars' tiny moons, Phobos and Deimos.

Internals – Obama Supports

Obama supports Buzz Aldrin’s dream of going to Mars

Kate James, chief communications officer at the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, Prior to joining the foundation, Kate worked in the financial services industry, where she most recently served as Senior Vice President, Global Corporate Communications for Citibank. She has held senior leadership roles at Standard Chartered Bank and GlaxoSmithKline in the areas of communications, international government relations, strategy and sustainability, October 20, 2010, Buzz Aldrin has Visions of Mars - Astronaut's Goal is Mars Colonization, http://news.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978619832

Famous U.S. astronaut Buzz Aldrin dreams of a NASA mission to Mars. This ambitious dream may just become a reality because President Obama signed the NASA Authorization Act of 2010. Buzz Aldrin Dreams big for NASA - Mars Only Part of Plan The Act has propelled NASA’s plans into the coming future, and the moon is not a major player in the plan. The reason is because we’ve been there before, and it’s time to explore new space. Aldrin, the second person on the moon, is in complete agreement. He doesn’t think that NASA’s aim should be the moon, but he does feel that the moon will be a major player in a manned mission to Mars. He told Fox News that the U.S. needs a unified space exploration policy. His dream for NASA is to eventually colonize Mars. To achieve this goal, Aldrin thinks that NASA will have to go in stages building outer space fuel stations while industrializing the moon. He wants the International Lunar Development Corporation to be created and for the moon to become commercialized. He has also launched the U.S.S. Enterprise – Unified, Strategic, Space Enterprise. He believes that NASA should use all the planets in an efficient approach to travel through the solar system. Aldrin’s dream of Mars makes sense. NASA needs a unified plan on how to explore space. The money being spent should work together as a means to an end. There are so many things we can do in space, and the plans need to be in place.

Obama likes colonizations- pushes science

Amanda Ruggeri, is a freelance journalist and travel writer living in Rome, Italy. Her articles, both travel and political, have been published in the Guardian, Global Post, Mother Jones, World Policy Journal, and Art Times, among other publications, Before moving to Rome, she studied history at Yale and completed a M.Phil in international relations at Cambridge. She went on to become a political reporter in Washington, D.C. for U.S. News & World Report, February 25, 2009, How the Obama Administration Is Giving a New Push to Science, http://www.usnews.com/news/national/articles/2009/02/25/how-the-obama-administration-is-giving-a-new-push-to-science?PageNr=1

When President Obama signed the $787 billion stimulus package this week at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science, the symbolism was clear as he stood in the building that houses a stegosaurus skeleton, a full-scale model of a Mars exploration rover, and a solar panel installation. So was his statement that he hoped the bill would spur "new discoveries and breakthroughs in science, in medicine, in energy." Click here to find out more! It remains to be seen how Obama will "restore science to its rightful place," as he promised at his inauguration. But some of his early moves are allowing the scientific community to cautiously sigh with relief after eight years of seeing science, at times, politicized, underfunded, or ignored. One early indicator of Obama's stance on science has been his stimulus bill, which underpinned his rhetoric with cash. The final version funnels $21.5 billion to research and development funds, according to estimates by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. That's welcome relief for the science community, which has seen federal funding slide in recent years. In the 2008 fiscal year, the government allocated $3.5 billion less to research and development than in 2007. "In a stimulus bill, which is so focused on short-term economic recovery, it's surprising and gratifying to see R&D investments, which are traditionally regarded as long-term investments, have such a prominent place," says Kei Koizumi, former director of AAAS's R&D Budget and Policy program.

***SPS***

Plan Unpopular – Generic (1/4)

Subsidizing solar would create a firestorm of controversy- powerful lobbies, industry leaders, environmentalists and conservative economists

NYT, By JOHN M. BRODER, Published: January 31, 2011, Obama’s Bid to End Oil Subsidies Revives

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/science/earth/01subsidy.html//ZY

Previous efforts have run up against bipartisan opposition in Congress and heavy lobbying from producers of oil, natural gas and coal. The head of the oil and gas lobby in Washington contends that the president has it backward — that the industry subsidizes the government, through billions of dollars in taxes and royalties, not the other way around. But even as the president says he wants to do away with incentives for fossil fuels, his policies continue to provide for substantial aid to oil and gas companies as well as billions of dollars in subsidies for coal, nuclear and other energy sources with large and long-lasting environmental impacts. Mr. Obama’s proposal rekindles a long-running debate over federal subsidies for energy of all kinds, including petroleum, coal, hydropower, wind, solar and biofuels. Opposition to such subsidies — often euphemistically referred to as incentives, tax credits, preferences or loan guarantees — spans the ideological spectrum, from conservative economists who believe such breaks distort the marketplace to environmentalists who believe that renewable energy sources will always lose out in subsidy fights because of the power of the entrenched fossil fuel industries. David W. Kreutzer, an energy economist at the conservative Heritage Foundation, argues that the federal government should take its thumb off the scale by eliminating subsidies for all forms of energy, even it if means slowing development of cleaner-burning fuel sources. “We would like to get rid of all subsidies,” Dr. Kreutzer said. “We know that petroleum and coal survive just fine in places where there are no subsidies. I don’t know if that’s true for wind and solar now, but someday it will be, when the price comes down.” H. Jeffrey Leonard, president of the Global Environment Fund, a private equity firm that invests in clean-technology ventures, said that the current subsidy structure was the legacy of 60 years of lobbying and political jockeying in Washington that largely benefits oil, coal, nuclear power and corn-based ethanol. He calls for scrapping all subsidies and letting fuel sources compete on equal ground. Mr. Obama is not willing to go that far. He has supported favored tax treatment for wind and solar power as well as a 50 percent increase in federal research spending on other alternative energy sources. He also has proposed as much as $50 billion in federal loan guarantees for nuclear power plant construction, money he believes is needed because the private market is unwilling to assume the potential costs of a catastrophic accident. Energy economists say that the president’s call in the State of the Union address for doubling the amount of electricity produced from cleaner technology by 2035 is designed to manipulate energy markets, forcing utilities to shift to the government’s preferred sources of energy on the government’s timetable, although leaving to them the choice of fuels. A White House spokesman put it a bit more benignly. “The plan the president outlined would establish a clear goal for clean energy and let utilities achieve that in the most cost-effective way possible,” the official said. Mr. Obama’s policies encourage utilities to switch from coal to cleaner-burning natural gas to generate electricity, which simply substitutes one fossil fuel for another and helps subsidize natural gas exploration and distribution. The president is also proposing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to develop technology to capture and store carbon dioxide emissions from coal plants and oil refineries, another hidden subsidy for fossil fuels. And, many environmentalists argue, every day that goes by without a policy to put a price on carbon emissions from all sources is a day in which the federal government subsidizes energy producers by socializing the long-term health and environmental costs of their products. “My view is the country is better off on having a neutral playing field for all forms of energy,” said Douglas Koplow, founder of Earth Track, a group in Cambridge, Mass., that studies global energy subsidies. “President Obama defines ‘clean fuels’ as natural gas, coal with carbon capture, nuclear,” Mr. Koplow said. “From my perspective, if you subsidize carbon capture and storage, that’s a big subsidy for coal. Nuclear is massively subsidized through a risk transfer from shareholders to ratepayers. It’s hard to justify these technologies that can’t make it on their own.” “If we’re really concerned about greenhouse gases, we should deal with the problem and cap them,” he added. “Instead, politicians and lobbyists want to carve out policies for their own industries.” Mr. Obama specifically proposes to eliminate roughly $4 billion a year in more than a half-dozen tax exemptions for oil and gas companies and an additional $200 million a year in preferences for coal. The tax breaks for oil have a long history — the so-called percentage depletion allowance for oil and natural gas wells dates to the 1920s — and have withstood repeated efforts to kill them. The president proposed a global end to such subsidies at the Group of 20 meeting in 2009, and while most nations endorsed the idea in theory, little has been done. And Mr. Obama will have a tough fight trying to get even these relatively modest proposals enacted over the objections of the oil and coal industries, who argue that such tax treatment is necessary to keep drillers drilling and miners mining. “This is a tired old argument we’ve been hearing for two years now,” said Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, the oil and gas industry’s main lobby in Washington. “If the president were serious about job creation, he would be working with us to develop American oil and gas by American workers for American consumers.” Mr. Gerard

[continued, no text deleted]

Plan Unpopular – Generic (2/4)

[continued, no text deleted]

noted that there was bipartisan opposition to lifting the tax breaks, adding: “The federal government by no stretch of the

imagination subsidizes the oil industry. The oil industry subsidizes the federal government at a rate of $95 million a day.” Michael Levi, an energy and climate change analyst at the Council on Foreign Relations, said calls for an end to energy subsidies missed a broader point: that embryonic energy technologies will need some government help to gain a foothold against the fossil fuel lobbies. “I’d love to find a quick fix for America’s energy problems just as much as the next guy,” Mr. Levi wrote last week on his blog. “I’d also be delighted to have a reason to cut subsidies, many of which are hugely wasteful,” he added. “But an effort to eliminate all energy subsidies without instituting better alternative policies should be understood for what it is: a recipe for cementing the dominance of traditional fossil fuels against their competitors.”

Clean Energy legislation is massively unpopular- recent controversy, self praising administration and unfair company advantages upset republicans

Jeff Foust, a senior analyst and project manager with the Futron Corporation of Bethesda, Maryland, where he has worked since late 200 edit and publisher of the space review, Monday, June 27, 2011. The national space policy, one year later, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1873/1//ZY

CHARLESTON, W.Va.-- With trips that began two months after he took office, President Obama has devoted more than half of his out-of-town private-business visits to promoting a single industry: clean technology, which the president says will lead the nation back to economic prosperity. His praise for renewable-energy projects has been effusive. A day after this year's State of the Union address, he stood among workers at a small Wisconsin lighting company and dubbed it a "model for the future," helped by government incentives offering a "leg up to renewable-energy companies." He praised workers for "helping to point the way" to a cleaner future while visiting a Charlotte company that makes an electric-car battery component. In Reno, Nev., in April, he lauded a start-up for "growing by leaps and bounds" as it markets a machine that converts waste heat into electricity. He used similar words a few weeks ago at a Durham, N.C., company that makes energy-efficient lighting, saying it is "helping to lead a clean-energy revolution." In all, Obama has visited 22 clean-tech projects on 19 separate trips, all emphasizing economic recovery and a $90 billion stimulus program to promote energy independence. The president has underscored his support by singling out specific companies in speeches and White House radio addresses. Obama's unwavering focus has helped him fulfill a campaign pledge to push clean tech, from solar energy and wind power to electric vehicles. But it also has come with political exposure: By emphasizing a sector in which the risks are high, the president has prompted questions on Capitol Hill and from industry about the wisdom of his singular strategy and his political ties to some of the companies chosen for federal attention. The oil and gas industry, for example, has invested billions in energy innovation and job creation and could benefit from similar presidential attention, said Martin J. Durbin, executive vice president of the American Petroleum Institute. "He's missing an incredible opportunity he has to join with us to make a difference in economic growth, job creation, national security and clean technology," Durbin said. "If you went and added up the number of jobs at these clean-tech companies he visited, in all honesty, I think you're going to find a very modest number of jobs." This month, a congressional energy subcommittee chairman accused the administration of picking clean-tech "winners and losers" by pouring government money into a sector best determined by free-market forces. Republicans and outside critics also have honed in on the political connections of some companies that have received federal help. The most attention has focused on Solyndra, a Silicon Valley solar company that ran into financial trouble after receiving a $535 million federal loan guarantee commitment. Last week, Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee pressed the Office of Management and Budget to account for its role in the selection. Obama visited Solyndra's factory in May 2010, only weeks after it became public that independent auditors had questioned whether it could remain a "going concern." Along with Capitol Hill fallout, the administration's attention to certain clean-tech companies has led to some industry concerns. Executives of some struggling start-ups ask whether the administration rigorously examines companies and their products before endorsing a favored few. "Generally, we're concerned with what kind of due diligence the administration did before throwing out that kind of money and attention," said Bryan Godber, vice president of Trojan Battery, which faced the prospect of higher prices for Polypore products. "They are giving some companies massive advantages over others."

Plan Unpopular – Generic (3/4)

Nobody supports SPS

Boswell 4 (David, Speaker – International Space Development Conference, “Whatever Happened to Solar Power Satellites?”, The Space Review, 8-30, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/214/1)

High cost of launching Another barrier is that launching anything into space costs a lot of money. A substantial investment would be needed to get a solar power satellite into orbit; then the launch costs would make the electricity that was produced more expensive than other alternatives. In the long term, launch costs will need to come down before generating solar power in space makes economic sense. But is the expense of launching enough to explain why so little progress has been made? There were over 60 launches in 2003, so last year there was enough money spent to put something into orbit about every week on average. Funding was found to launch science satellites to study gravity waves and to explore other planets. There are also dozens of GPS satellites in orbit that help people find out where they are on the ground. Is there enough money available for these purposes, but not enough to launch even one solar power satellite that would help the world develop a new source of energy? In the 2004 budget the Department of Energy has over $260 million allocated for fusion research. Obviously the government has some interest in funding renewable energy research and they realize that private companies would not be able to fund the development of a sustainable fusion industry on their own. From this perspective, the barrier holding back solar power satellites is not purely financial, but rather the problem is that there is not enough political will to make the money available for further development. There is a very interesting discussion on the economics of large space projects that makes the point that “the fundamental problem in opening any contemporary frontier, whether geographic or technological, is not lack of imagination or will, but lack of capital to finance initial construction which makes the subsequent and typically more profitable economic development possible. Solving this fundamental problem involves using one or more forms of direct or indirect government intervention in the capital market.”

No Support for space solar power

Mahan 7 (Rob, Founder – Citizens for Space Based Solar Power, “SBSP FAQ”, http://c-sbsp.org/sbsp-faq/)

What are the main hurdles to developing and deploying space-based solar power? Let me start by saying that I believe there are three solutions to every complex problem. First, the technical solution – how are we going to solve the problem (often the easiest). Second, the financial solution – who is going to pay for / profit from the solution. And third, the political solution – who is going to organize the solution … and take credit for it. The technical solution for space-based solar power is exciting because no scientific breakthroughs are needed. It is essentially a complex engineering project. The technical solution will initially be dependent on developing low cost and reliable access to space, but later we could use resources mined from Moon and near Earth objects like asteroids. The financial solution will admittedly be very expensive at first, so there must be an early adopter, like the Defense Department, to provide a market and rewards for those willing to invest in space based solar power and the supporting technologies. Engineering and scientific advancements and the commercialization of supporting technologies will soon lead to ubiquitous and low cost access to space and more widespread use of wireless power transmision. Economies of scale will eventually make space-based solar power affordable, but probably never cheap again, like energy was fifty years ago. Eventual Moon based operations will reduce costs significantly, since it takes twenty-two times less energy to launch from Moon than from Earth’s gravity well and the use of lunar materials will allow heavier, more robust structures. The political solution will most likely be the biggest hurdle to the development of space-based solar power because so many areas have to be negotiated and agreed upon, not only within the United States, but with our allies around the world, too. Strong energy independence legislation is the first step that needs to be taken immediately. Treaties and agreements for the military and commercial use of space must be negotiated and put into place. Universal safety measures must be agreed upon and integrated into related legislation and treaties. Getting widespread voter (i.e. tax-payer) support to prompt Congress to take action may be the highest hurdle of all

Plan Unpopular – Generic (4/4)

Nobody likes space solar power

Jones 1995 (Eric, “Epilogue: When might we go back to the Moon?”,http://www.solarviews.com/eng/apoepi.htm, ldg, Apollo Lunar Surface Journal DOA: 5-13-11)

The space program and its supporters have been on a financial and emotional roller coaster virtually from the beginning . The debate over funding is sure to continue until the time comes that most of our activities in space are self-supporting and public funding is no longer required. The issue at the center of the debate is, of course, the relative value of the space program and, as we have discussed, the perception of space as a technology driver - coupled with the fact that plenty of people still want to rub elbows with astronauts and plenty of kids still want to grow up to be one - generates funding at a level of about one quarter of one percent of the GDP. If the rules of the game were to change , of course, then increased levels of funding might well be in the cards . If , for example, people began to think that there was a real possibility of a substantial, near-term economic return, then new funding might become available . The space community talks hopefully about asteroid mining , about solar power satellites, and about Helium-3mining on the Moon but, unfortunately, they been unable to convince anyone but the faithful that the technological risks are low enough - and the potential payoffs large enough and soon enough - to warrant spending large sums of public or private money . Alternatively, the development of significantly cheaper transportation systems would make it possible to do more at the current levels of funding and, at the same time, would make a broader array of space activities attractive. However, technical innovation is only part of the answer to cheaper transportation. Of even great importance is the ability to build many copies of a new vehicle and to fly them frequently and efficiently. That is, economies of scale are crucial and, to achieve them, we will probably have to rely on increases in space activities to produce increases in demand and, therefore, decreases in unit costs

Plan Unpopular – Republicans (1/2)

Renewable energy is the litmus test of conservatives- Obama would have to push and fight

Reuters, May 3, 2011 03:45 EDT, The depressing politics of climate changehttp://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/05/03/the-depressing-politics-of-climate-change//ZY

Why has the Obama administration failed utterly to get anything at all done with respect to climate change? The issue was a major part of Obama’s 2008 platform, but it seemed to disappear as soon as he got elected, and the consensus on the climate change panel today was that there’s essentially zero chance that a cap-and-trade bill will become law in the foreseeable future. One of the reasons is party-political: “Republicans chose to equate climate change with taxation,” said Milken’s Peter Passell, “and a well-financed campaign made climate change denial almost a litmus test for conservative orthodoxy”. Obviously, if you don’t believe in climate change, or if you say you don’t believe in climate change, then you’re never going to be remotely helpful with respect to crafting any kind of bill designed to address it. But more profoundly — and the reason that the Democrats don’t seem particularly eager to get anything done on this front either — there’s the fact that climate-related legislation is one of those things which will create a large mass of winners with relatively little present-day political clout (us, our children, and our children’s children), alongside a small number of losers with extremely deep pockets and extensive lobbying arms. One of the best aspects of the great HuffPo investigation of the politics of swipe-fee reform was the way in which it detailed how the issue came to dominate Washington politics precisely because both sides are so well funded. (Essentially, it’s big retailers vs big banks, with the public in the middle.) As a general rule, it simply isn’t possible to pass legislation where the many benefit but a few entrenched special interests lose out. There are exceptions, of course, but they tend to be extremely hard-fought (think the healthcare and Wall Street reform bills) and unique in many ways. What you really need, when it comes to climate change, is a powerful constituency which would benefit from a bill. And since the largest beneficiaries haven’t even been born yet, let alone started making campaign donations, we’re not about to find one.

Plan Unpopular – Republicans (2/2)

Republicans are ideologically opposed- taxes

ERIN KELLY,reporter at Gannett's Washington Bureau Jun. 26, 2011 12:00 AM, Solar power funding threatened by Congress, Federal grants, loans in jeopardy, http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2011/06/26/20110626solar-power-congress-funding-cuts.html//ZY

WASHINGTON - Congress is threatening to turn off power to the solar-energy industry, sending companies scrambling to save federal programs that have helped finance the creation of a massive solar plant in Gila Bend and other projects throughout the nation. A conservative House bent on slashing federal spending and philosophically opposed to subsidizing solar power and clean energy is trying to reduce or eliminate federal programs that offer grants and loans to the solar industry. And the potential for a national clean-energy standard, advocated by President Barack Obama, that could boost the use of solar power also is fading in a Congress that takes a dim view of government mandates about what kind of energy Americans should use.
Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2011/06/26/20110626solar-power-congress-funding-cuts.html#ixzz1QX9IuHUo On the endangered list is a U.S. Treasury grant program, set to expire in December, that solar companies say has kept them alive through the economic downturn. Also threatened: an Energy Department loan-guarantee program that provided a $1.45billion guarantee for the Solana project in Gila Bend, which will be one of the world's largest solar plants, and a conditional guarantee of nearly $1 billion to build the Agua Caliente power plant in Yuma County, which has solar panels made from Tempe-based First Solar Inc. Part of that loan program is slated to end Oct. 1. If Congress does not renew the programs, all of the recent progress made by the solar industry could be derailed. The industry grew 67 percent last year - faster than any other U.S. industry - and employs about 100,000 people nationwide, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association, a national trade group with about 1,000 solar companies as members. "Is the solar industry going to die if we lose these programs? No, but we're going to stall," said Roger Efird, managing director of Suntech America Inc., which added 30 jobs in May at its manufacturing plant in Goodyear. "We'll certainly lose a lot of jobs, there's no doubt about that." Solana would not have been possible without the loan-guarantee program, said Fred Morse, senior adviser for U.S. operations for Abengoa Solar of Spain, which is building the plant and will operate it for APS. Since Solana is under way, it will not be affected if Congress ends or cuts the two sections of the Department of Energy's Loan Guarantee Program, but future Abengoa projects could be. "The commercial banks today cannot lend money long-term at acceptable rates," Morse said. "The loan has to be at a rate that will leave us with enough revenue to pay off the debt. The federal loan-guarantee program is essential. Without it, Solana would not be built." But critics say it's time for the solar industry to stand on its own and to compete in the free market without any help from struggling American taxpayers. "If you take a gun and force taxpayers to hand over their earnings to a solar company, that solar company is going to do very well, but the taxpayers end up getting screwed with nothing to show for it at the end of the day," said Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., who has led efforts by House conservatives to end loan guarantees and grants for the solar industry and other renewable-energy industries. "We've spent billions on technology and research and subsidies, and it's still the most expensive way of generating electricity." Solar costs dropping Solar power and offshore wind power are the most expensive ways to generate electricity, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. But the cost of solar energy is dropping as the technology becomes more efficient and the industry expands, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association. The average price of an installed solar system in a home, business or power plant fell more than 20 percent nationwide from the beginning of 2010 to the end of the year, the association said. And analysts say it's unfair to talk about solar standing on its own when the federal government has been subsidizing the oil, gas, coal and nuclear industries for decades. The history of subsidies includes tax incentives to drill for oil, federally financed dams to generate hydroelectric power and research funding for nuclear power and clean-coal technologies. "The government has been involved in energy from day one," said Richard Caperton, an energy analyst with the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. "The government has always played a role in the energy mix through providing incentives to certain technologies or making it easier to use certain technologies. Transmission lines to coal-fired power plants were built with taxpayer subsidies. If we stop spending money on some very cost-effective programs for clean energy, all it's going to do is put clean energy at an even bigger competitive disadvantage." A better solution may be to get rid of all federal subsidies for energy, said Nicolas Loris, an energy analyst with the conservative Heritage Foundation. "Given the financial situation of our government, energy subsidies is not an area where we need to be spending money," he said. But solar advocates argue that the government's investment is paying off. "We need to be fiscally disciplined as a country, but we shouldn't be foolhardy by eliminating programs that create jobs," said Rhone Resch, president and CEO of the Solar Energy Industries Association. "Ultimately, it's job creation that will reduce our national debt."

Plan Unpopular – Congress

No Congressional support for Space solar power-too expensive

Day 8 (Dwayne A., Program Officer – Space Studies Board of the National Research Council, “Knights in Shining Armor”, The Space Review, 6-9, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1147/1)

If all this is true, why is the space activist community so excited about the NSSO study? That is not hard to understand. They all know that the economic case for space solar power is abysmal. The best estimates are that SSP will cost at least three times the cost per kilowatt hour of even relatively expensive nuclear power. But the military wants to dramatically lower the cost of delivering fuel to distant locations, which could possibly change the cost-benefit ratio. The military savior also theoretically solves some other problems for SSP advocates. One is the need for deep pockets to foot the immense development costs. The other is an institutional avatar—one of the persistent policy challenges for SSP has been the fact that responsibility for it supposedly “falls through the cracks” because neither NASA nor the Department of Energy wants responsibility. If the military takes on the SSP challenge, the mission will finally have a home. But there’s also another factor at work: naïveté. Space activists tend to have little understanding of military space, coupled with an idealistic impression of its management compared to NASA, whom many space activists have come to despise. For instance, they fail to realize that the military space program is currently in no better shape, and in many cases worse shape, than NASA. The majority of large military space acquisition programs have experienced major problems, in many cases cost growth in excess of 100%. Although NASA has a bad public record for cost overruns, the DoD’s less-public record is far worse, and military space has a bad reputation in Congress, which would never allow such a big, expensive new program to be started. Again, this is not to insult the fine work conducted by those who produced the NSSO space solar power study. They accomplished an impressive amount of work without any actual resources. But it is nonsensical for members of the space activist community to claim that “the military supports space solar power” based solely on a study that had no money, produced by an organization that has no clout.

Last time SPS was introduced to congress- it was blocked because of controversy

Beverly K. Eakman, She left to become a scientific writer for a NASA contractor. She went on to serve as a former speechwriter for the Voice of America and for the late Chief Justice Warren E. Burger when he chaired the Commission on the Bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution. She was an editor and writer for the U.S. Dept. of Justice before retiring from federal government. She is now author of six books covering education policy, mental-health issues, data-trafficking and political strategy, with dozens of keynote speeches, feature articles and op-eds to her credit. Her most recent works include A Common Sense Platform for the 21st Century and the 2011 Edition of her ever-popular seminar manual, How To Counter Group Manipulation Tactics (Midnight Whistler Publishers, 2010 and 2011, respectively, 17 March 2011, 17 March 2011, , http://www.americandailyherald.com/20110318328/top-stories/left-wing-tsunami-puts-us-energy-infrastructure-at-risk//ZY

The solar-array concept went from NASA to the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) in Washington, DC, but was quickly deep-sixed for political reasons, mainly because of the environmentalists’ concerns over stray birds flying through the microwave beams—technically called “passive relay microwave energy”—(unlikely to harm wildlife in places like the Mojave Desert). Oil companies contributed to scuttling of the project out of expectations that resurgence in a U.S.-based oil economy eventually would push the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) out of the picture, which never happened. Instead of giving the green light to American oil-drilling, Congress learned nothing from Carter-era gas lines, and imported even more oil from overseas, because environmentalists deemed drilling at home messy, smelly and toxic.

Plan Unpopular – House

House republicans hate clean tech

ERIN KELLY,reporter at Gannett's Washington Bureau Jun. 26, 2011 12:00 AM, Solar power funding threatened by Congress, Federal grants, loans in jeopardy, http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2011/06/26/20110626solar-power-congress-funding-cuts.html//ZY

Extending the program will be tough in the House because the grant was part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the stimulus bill passed by the Democrat-led House in 2009. Many Republicans hate the act, saying it spent billions of dollars of taxpayer money while creating few jobs.

"I think we've got a 50-50 chance of getting the grant program renewed," said Efird of Suntech.

Plan Unpopular – Drains Political Capital (1/2)

Commitment to Solar drains Obama’s legitimacy - recent scandal, republican opposition and powerful lobbies

Washington Post , Sunday, June 26, 2011” Obama wasting money and political capital on 'clean tech'” Sunday, June 26, 2011

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/06/26/WP-Obamas-Clean-Energy-Trip-Raises-Questions.aspx//ZY

In all, Obama has visited 22 clean-tech projects on 19 separate trips, all emphasizing economic recovery and a $90 billion stimulus program to promote energy independence. The president has underscored his support by singling out specific companies in speeches and White House radio addresses.Obama’s unwavering focus has helped him fulfill a campaign pledge to push clean tech, from solar energy and wind power to electric vehicles. But it also has come with political exposure: By emphasizing a sector in which the risks are high, the president has prompted questions on Capitol Hill and from industry about the wisdom of his singular strategy and his political ties to some of the companies chosen for federal attention.The oil and gas industry, for example, has invested billions in energy innovation and job creation and could benefit from similar presidential attention, said Martin J. Durbin, executive vice president of the American Petroleum Institute.“He’s missing an incredible opportunity he has to join with us to make a difference in economic growth, job creation, national security and clean technology,” Durbin said. “If you went and added up the number of jobs at these clean-tech companies he visited, in all honesty, I think you’re going to find a very modest number of jobs.”This month, a congressional energy subcommittee chairman accused the administration of picking clean-tech “winners and losers” by pouring government money into a sector best determined by free-market forces.
Republicans and outside critics also have honed in on the political connections of some companies that have received federal help. The most attention has focused on Solyndra, a Silicon Valley solar company that ran into financial trouble after receiving a $535 million federal loan guarantee commitment. Last week, Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee pressed the Office of Management and Budget to account for its role in the selection. Obama visited Solyndra’s factory in May 2010, only weeks after it became public that independent auditors had questioned whether it could remain a “going concern.”
Some of the biggest investors in Solyndra, which makes easy-to-install solar panels, were venture capital funds associated with Tulsa billionaire George Kaiser, a key Obama fundraiser. Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.), chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee’s subcommittee on oversight and investigations, said he is “concerned that there was a hurry to get this money out of the door and that companies and individuals that supported the president were among the beneficiaries.’’
In the 2008 presidential race, Obama promised to invest at least $150 billion over 10 years in innovative energy projects, and he corralled extensive support from energy start-ups and venture capitalists. As a candidate, he was the “first that got the importance of emerging-growth companies in creating jobs,” said Mark Heesen, president of the National Venture Capital Association.
Obama collected twice as much campaign money from this group as did his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.). Numerous green-energy investors raised money for Obama and later won jobs or advisory roles in his administration.Obama began his clean-tech travel in March 2009. At a number of companies the president visited, there were connections — not all of them close, to be sure — to his 2008 campaign. Over the months, Obama touted a Florida’s utility’s electric grid project (a company in an Obama fundraiser’s portfolio was doing extensive business with the project) and a Nevada company that generates emission-free power from waste heat, the warmth radiated by machines or industrial processes (an Obama fundraiser is a partner in a venture fund that has a small stake in the company).There is much more. Many of the companies Obama has been touting are of dubious quality as is the products they sell. These boondoggles are hoping to pump out inefficient energy which Obama promotes while he attacks more efficient energy.
Look, we are going to need oil and gas for a long time and these start ups are not going to be competitive on a level playing field. In fact they are not competitive on a field tilted on their behalf by Obama and the Democrats. Obama needs to quit strangling the domestic production of more efficient energy. We need the jobs and the royalty payments as well as the energy produced in this country. If someone has a better product let the market place determine that.

Plan Unpopular – Drains Political Capital (2/2)

Solar energy is politically unpopular

National Journal 6/29 (Josh Kraushaar, 6/29/11, " Nerves Show on Team Obama “

http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/against-the-grain/nerves-show-on-team-obama-20110628?page=1)//

"Against the Grain" is a weekly column for National Journal Daily. The GOP Redistricting Advantage June 21, 2011 The States of Play June 14, 2011 Obama the Underdog June 7, 2011 AGAINST THE GRAIN Nerves Show on Team Obama Recent scrambling by the president’s political advisers indicates they’re very worried about his reelection chances. Fretful: President on defense. It’s been a rough June for the White House. Instead of being able to run a campaign taking credit for economic improvement, President Obama will, according to the latest forecasts, be trying to win four more years amid a grim economy next year. The president’s reelection team, once hoping to run on a “Morning in America” theme now doesn’t have that luxury. No wonder, the president’s advisers over the past month have been making moves that suggest they’re awfully concerned about his prospects: 1. Searching for an economic message. Veteran Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg recently offered perceptive advice to the president’s team by criticizing its “getting the car out of the ditch” metaphor meant to suggest the economy is slowly improving. As Greenberg wrote: “People thought they still were in the ditch.” This is a time when the president needs to find his inner Bill Clinton, and feel Americans’ pain. If he wants to be one of the few presidents to win reelection in a stagnant economy, he’ll have to devote less time to defending past policies, like the auto bailout, and more to offering specific solutions to help people get back to work. Think a 21st century version of FDR’s fireside chats. But there are few signs that the president’s economic messaging has changed. Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz recently said Democrats own the economy, but they don’t seem to be adapting their message to the bad economy likely to face them in November 2012. 2. Doubling down on manufacturing. The latest White House effort to wring good news out of a bad economy focuses on successes in the manufacturing sector: the auto bailout that put GM and Chrysler on sounder footing, as well as green initiatives. Politically, it’s a puzzling message. While there has been a small uptick in manufacturing jobs, it’s hardly enough to be felt by the blue-collar electorate, who have been bearing the brunt of the recession and never viewed Obama too favorably in the first place. The latest Gallup weekly tracking poll shows Obama’s approval with college graduates at 51 percent, with a 40 percent approval among nongraduates. The president’s emphasis on green jobs doesn’t help. It’s tough for many steelworkers to see themselves producing solar panels. Clean-energy jobs may be the future, but they’re not seen by displaced workers as a panacea.

Space solar power requires massive political will

David 8 (Leonard, Research Associate – Secure World Foundation and Senior Space Writer – Space.com, “Space-Based Solar Power - Harvesting Energy from Space”, CleanTech, 5-15, http://www.azocleantech.com/article.aspx? ArticleId=69)\

Overall, pushing forward on SBSP "is a complex problem and one that lends itself to a wide variety of competing solutions," said John Mankins, President of Artemis Innovation Management Solutions, LLC, in Ashburn, Virginia. "There's a whole range of science and technology challenges to be pursued. New knowledge and new systems concepts are needed in order to enable space based solar power. But there does not appear, at least at present, that there are any fundamental physical barriers," Mankins explained. Peter Teets, Distinguished Chair of the Eisenhower Center for Space and Defense Studies, said that SBSP must be economically viable with those economics probably not there today. "But if we can find a way with continued technology development ... and smart moves in terms of development cycles to bring clean energy from space to the Earth, it's a home run kind of situation," he told attendees of the meeting. "It's a noble effort," Teets told Space News. There remain uncertainties in SBSP, including closure on a business case for the idea, he added. "I think the Air Force has a legitimate stake in starting it. But the scale of this project is going to be enormous. This could create a new agency ... who knows? It's going to take the President and a lot of political will to go forward with this," Teets said.

Plan Unpopular – Infighting

Solar power creates infighting amongst dems and reps over technicalities

Washington Examiner (blog) 6/8 (Rand Simberg, 6/8/11, " Space politics makes strange bedfellows ", http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/opinion-zone/2011/06/space-politics-makes-strange-bedfellows)//ZY

These words were music to the ears of both the Competitive Space Task Force (full disclosure: of which I am chairman) and Tea Party in Space, a Florida-based group that promotes a vigorous but fiscally responsible space program (something exactly the opposite of what those who make space policy on the Hill seem to want). Hence, Monday's press release lauding the two senators' action. Interestingly and ironically, it sets up a potential battle in the upper chamber over space policy, in which the Democratic senators from California are fighting for a competitive approach (in the interest, of course, of their own home state contractor), against a "conservative" Republican senator from Utah who insists on a wasteful, sole-source pork-based one in the interest of his state. Which all goes to show (as we've seen for the last year and a half) that space policy is truly non-partisan, and non-ideological, and it is driven primarily by rent seeking, not a desire to open up space to humanity. As long as space policy remains unimportant, it will continue to be subject to the petty politics of those whose states and districts benefit from the jobs created, even as wealth is destroyed. But the good news is that this may delay things sufficiently long that an expensive, unnecessary rocket never gets built at all.

Plan Unpopular – Fossil Fuel Lobby

Fossil fuel lobby hates solar power- empirically block legislation

American Recycler Newspaper 6/1 (Mary M. Cox, 6/1/11, " Solar Energy Systems ", http://www.americanrecycler.com/0611/1017spotlight.shtml)//ZY

“Although the industry has experienced notable expansion recently, industry growth would have expanded faster under better economic conditions. A lack of energy legislation passage has also been a challenge for the solar industry. After the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), there was significant progress in Congress toward clean energy legislation, but the fossil fuel lobby proved formidable; and, once again, diminished the potential of the passage of a Clean Energy Act. If a Federal Clean Energy mandate were to occur, then the solar industry might become instantly ‘bankable,’ and we would see spectacular growth in the industry’s revenues and job creation,” said Mount.

He added, “The PV industry has been focused on reducing the price of energy production to a cost at or below that of conventional generation technologies, i.e., ‘grid parity.’ In recent years, cost reductions have been driven by reduction in the price of PV panels, which have dropped to less than half of what they were five years ago. Equipment manufacturers also continue to provide small increases to the solar equipment efficiencies, but PV trackers can provide a superior method to greatly improve the energy production of PV systems in moving solar power costs closer to grid parity. Solar trackers have been successfully used for many years in the European solar industry but solar trackers have only recently become the standard for large utility scale projects in the United States. Large commercial projects in the States and Canada are now adding solar trackers to improve their project economics.”

Gerard hates solar power- competes with Petroleum

ApproachDebra Saunders, columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle, author of one book, The World According to Gore, 6, 2011, The Trouble with "Green Jobs"http://www.montanaco-ops.com/index.php?mact=News,cntnt01,print,0&cntnt01articleid=175&cntnt01showtemplate=false&cntnt01returnid=61//ZY

Harvard economist Edward L. Glaeser saw Evergreen leave Massachusetts and opined in The New York Times that while he believed investing in green technology, "(I)t always was a mistake to think that clean energy was going to be a jobs bonanza." And: "We shouldn't pretend that cheaper solar energy will end up employing millions of our less-skilled citizens." This leaves American solons with two choices: Keep feeding the meter -- or cut your losses. The high cost of subsidizing wind and solar power should seal the deal. According to the California Energy Commission, the cost of photovoltaic solar electricity is about 26 cents per kilowatt hour, as opposed to 13 cents for electricity powered by natural gas. With the unemployment rate at 9 percent, Washington should be looking to create jobs that aren't going to run to China. Or, as Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, told The New York Times, "If the president really were serious about job creation, he would be working with us to develop American oil and gas by American workers for American consumers."

Plan Unpopular – A2 Symbolic (1/2)

Solar energy is no longer a symbol of western uniting pride- it has turned into normal dirty politics

Newsweek Alan Mascarenhas, July 12, 2010 A Green Retreat Why the environment is no longer a surefire political winner. http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/12/a-green-retreat.html //ZY

What has turned the fight against global warming from vote getter to political hot potato in so many places at once? Each country has its own brute politics at play. Rudd was just as much a victim of infighting between factions in Australia’s Labor Party as of shifting public attitudes on global warming. Coming off a battle to push through landmark health-care-reform legislation through Congress, Obama has likely exhausted his political capital for another controversial and far-reaching bill. In Europe, bailouts first of banks and now entire countries have sucked up decision-making bandwidth and given an opening to those who argue that climate legislation is an unaffordable economic burden. Cynics (and some frustrated environmentalists) say this is all just the usual cycle in media and politics, with the public tiring of the issue and moving on. Yet above all, it is climate politics itself that has turned murky and double-edged. No longer does it lend itself to the easy categories of good and bad that Rudd so successfully exploited in 2007. And controlling the global climate turned out to be a lot more complicated than the advocates of fierce and fast CO2 cuts would have us believe. Back in 2007, it was easy and popular—and cost nothing—to announce ever-tougher but faraway targets. The snag was that once in place, those lofty goals would require countries to get on with the harsh and costly business of reengineering entire economies, without which the numbers could never be reached. Rudd was the first green leader to fall because he was the first one to be hit by the tough reality of having to translate goals into practice, says Oliver Geden, a climate-policy expert at SWP, a think tank in Berlin. Not only is Australia the world’s biggest exporter of CO2-spewing coal, but its citizens and businesses also gobble up energy at one of the world’s highest per capita rates. The changes required of Australians would be immense. Increasingly, the whole concept of radical, top-down global targets is coming under scrutiny as citizens and governments face tougher choices over costs and benefits. Green policies can be popular when they mean subsidizing renewable fuels or going after unpopular power companies, but can quickly hit a wall when they force lifestyle change, such as less driving and fewer swimming pools—fears Rudd’s opponents have exploited. Policies that push trendy green fuels also cost much more than other options, such as replacing dirty coal with cleaner gas or emissions-free nuclear power. Some schemes, such as America’s corn ethanol and Europe’s biodiesel made from rapeseed, have virtually zero net emissions savings, but any petroleum they displace is quickly bought up by China. Even in the ideal case that the United Nations’ goal of 80 percent emissions reduction by 2050 is technologically and politically feasible, economists disagree widely on whether the cost of the current set of policies, such as carbon caps and green-fuel subsidies, is justified by the avoided damage from warmer temperatures. What’s more, hitting emissions targets remains an elusive quest. The world’s most ambitiously green region, Europe, has already clocked an 11.3 percent decrease in emissions since 1990—except much of it has little to do with climate policy. Instead, a large part of the decrease is attributable to economic forces such as the collapse of communist-era industry in Eastern Europe (much of which has shifted to China), British utilities’ switch from coal to North Sea gas, as well as the recent recession. “It’s hard to believe that we can regulate the global temperature in 2050 when politicians cannot even get a handle on health expenditures next year,” says Geden. There are other ways green policies have lost their innocence since 2007. In many ways, green projects have become just another flavor of grubby interest politics. Biofuels have become a new label for old-style agricultural subsidies that funnel some $20 billion annually to landowners with little effect on emissions (only Brazilian sugar-cane ethanol produces any significant savings; America’s corn ethanol and Europe’s biodiesel do not). Germany’s solar subsidies, a signature project in the country’s battle against climate change, are perhaps the most wasteful green scheme on earth, producing a mere 0.25 percent of the country’s energy at a cost to consumers of as much as $125 billion. A leading member of Merkel’s Christian Democrats in the German Parliament says there is growing unease both in his party and in the Bundestag “about the scary monster we’ve created that is sucking up ever larger amounts of money for a negligible effect.” On top of all this unease came last November’s “climategate” affair over irregularities in the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations body whose findings are the basis of all climate policy. Though a review panel has since cleared the researchers of most allegations, the lingering controversy could further undermine the IPCC’s longstanding push for massive CO2 reduction targets as the only viable option to deal with global warming. With green politics losing its moral high ground, there is a growing realization that climate change is just one policy priority among many that compete for limited resources and attention. That means, first, that climate politics will likely fall off its pedestal of being the Western world’s overarching priority. Second, the new sobriety could give more space to a third stream of climate politics between those who see warming as an unmitigated catastrophe that must be stopped at any cost, and those who reject global warming as a hoax. A new climate realism would more carefully weigh the costs and benefits of emissions controls, and look at other options beyond the current set of targets. The new debate will be more pragmatic and include a broader mix of policies. That might include a shift of subsidies into research and development, as many climate economists have argued. It would also include greater efforts to

[continued, no text deleted]

Plan Unpopular – A2 Symbolic (1/2)

[continued, no text deleted]

adapt society to a warmer climate, rather than focusing only on stopping the warming process in its tracks. That idea has so far figured little in the debate, largely because mainstream environmentalists fear it will distract from their push for CO2 cutbacks. Yet adaptation may offer equally valid and much less expensive choices than cutting back on emissions. For example, one of the most-feared effects of warming is rising sea levels—yet mankind has successfully dealt with similar rises for centuries. “As soon as you start talking to Dutch engineers, you realize that sea-level rise is business as usual,” says Geden. Declining water supplies in some regions of the world, another effect of warmer temperatures, might be more effectively met with efficient water distribution and less water-hungry crops than global temperature targets. Another emerging area of innovation is climate engineering, such as the manipulation of cloud cover and other artificial means of reflecting heat back into space. In other words, some of the money spent on current policies that often have only limited efficacy might be better spent on other measures, including protection against the worst effects of warming. What’s more, current economic worries are a reminder that every dollar spent on solar cells or biodiesel is a dollar less for education and other budget priorities. If that means climate and environmental policies in the future will be more stringently measured in terms of the tradeoffs involved given finite resources, that would be a lasting benefit that even Kevin Rudd might appreciate.

Plan Unpopular – Pawlenty

Pawlenty will never support climate change legislation- immense republican backlash and pressure from recent flip flop and

National Journal 6/23 (Coral Davenport, 6/23/11, " Pawlenty: Running from His Past Moves on Environmental Policy ", http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/pawlenty-running-from-his-past-moves-on-environmental-policy-20110623)//ZY

Tim Pawlenty has been apologizing to anyone who will listen for his so-called flirtation with cap-and-trade climate policy, recently dismissing his efforts to “look at it” as misguided and slamming carbon limits as “burdensome on the economy.” The former Minnesota governor has even renounced his previous conviction about the validity of climate science and now asserts that the research is “faulty” and can’t be trusted. “I looked at [cap-and-trade], like most of the other leading candidates did, some years ago—flirted with it, for sure,” he said in an interview last month on CNBC. “But I’ve just admitted my mistake and said I was wrong.… It would be harmful to the economy. It’s based on flawed science, and we should throw it out the window.” Pawlenty’s public squirming over climate change—an issue on which he was once viewed as an emerging national leader—highlights the deeply uncomfortable dance that top GOP contenders will have to execute as they seek to reconcile their past records, their current positions, and their party’s increasingly rigid dogma. Supporters of action against climate change have always been a small minority among Republicans. But they weren’t always considered heretics. John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee in 2008, was an unabashed believer in the reality of climate change and a coauthor in 2003, with Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, of the first Senate cap-and-trade bill. This year, many of the GOP contenders are grappling with past deviations from party doctrine. Newt Gingrich once made an ad with Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader whom Republicans like to demonize as a liberal Cruella De Vil, pledging to address climate change. Jon Huntsman, as governor of Utah, was the chief promoter of the Western Climate Initiative, a plan under which Utah would have joined California and other states in a regional cap-and-trade system. Mitt Romney, as governor of Massachusetts, worked on a similar plan for Northeastern states, though he ultimately refused to sign on. Today, all of the GOP candidates vow to fight anything that even hints of restrictions on fossil fuels and carbon emissions. Gingrich, who explicitly supported cap-and-trade policies in 2007, now ridicules similar Democratic proposals as “cap-and-tax.” Huntsman and Romney say they still believe in global warming but insist that this is not the time for new emissions rules. By 2009, it was clear that a rising conservative tide, which would ultimately turn into the tea party juggernaut, was now driving the Republican Party. Pawlenty became almost silent on clean-energy and climate issues—not to be heard from again until this year, when he went on the airwaves slamming the climate work he had once championed. In January, Pawlenty denied on Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace that he had even signed a bill to promote cap-and-trade policies. “We never did sign a bill relating to cap-and-trade or putting that into Minnesota,” he told Wallace. That was false. The Next Generation Energy Act that Pawlenty signed in 2007 specifically required state agencies to recommend a “regulatory system that imposes a cap on the aggregate air-pollutant emissions … and allows for market-based trading” of emission allowances. In the Republican presidential candidates’ first debate earlier this year, on Fox, Pawlenty abjectly apologized for his old positions. “I was wrong; it was a mistake, and I’m sorry,” he said. “Nobody’s perfect. We all, and everybody here and everybody else who’s going to be running for president … if you’ve been in an executive position, you’re going to have some battle scars. You’re going to have a few clunkers in your record. We all do.” Some GOP strategists say that Pawlenty risks losing more by abandoning causes he appeared to believe in deeply than he would by sticking to his positions and alienating ultra-conservatives. “He’s been involved enough in the issue to truly understand the realities of it,” said David Jenkins, vice president for government and political affairs for Republicans for Environmental Protection. “Being that deeply involved, you can’t come away without a deep understanding of the science.… He disowned his accomplishments to pander to one segment of the Republican Party.” Republican strategist Mike McKenna, who advises GOP leaders on energy policy and strategy, put it more bluntly. “Guys like Pawlenty now look like what they are—opportunists without authentic beliefs,” he wrote in an e-mail to National Journal. “That is why the issue is so damaging. It is totemic.”

Plan Unpopular – Shelby

Shelby opposes government subsidizing space exploration- competition and tax money

al.com 6/16 (Budd McLaughlin, 6/16/11, " Shelby voices concerns to NASA over bidding for booster system ", http://blog.al.com/breaking/2011/06/shelby_voices_concerns_to_nasa.html)//ZY

HUNTSVILLE, Alabama -- U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby has sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden "strongly" encouraging competitive bidding for the Space Launch System booster. Shelby, R-Tuscaloosa, said he was concerned that the current plan for the booster system may go "without a meaningful competitive process." Sen. Richard Shelby urges NASA to open bidding process for Space Launch System booster rockets. (The Huntsville Times/Glenn Baeske) This year, NASA named Marshall to lead the development of the heavy-lift Space Launch System, the nation's next manned rocket. Recently, Teledyne Brown announced it had formed a partnership with Aerojet to bid on building liquid fuel engines for the heavy lift rocket. But Shelby noted that the plans for the SLS include a space shuttle booster system. In his letter to Bolden, Shelby wrote that he was also concerned that the space shuttle booster system "ties NASA, once again, to the high fixed costs associated with segmented solids." There have been other concerns, too, that opening the boosters to competitive bidding would lead the space agency to delay the program past its congressionally mandated target date of 2016. The senator wrote that the 2010 NASA Authorization Act calls for using existing contracts, work force and hardware but only "to the extent practicable." Shelby's office has no problem with using the solid boosters for test flights while the liquid engines are being developed. But, the senator wrote he has not seen any evidence "that foregoing competition for the booster system will speed development of SLS or, conversely, that introducing competition will slow the program down." "I strongly encourage you to initiate a competition for the Space Launch System booster. I believe it will ultimately result in a more efficient SLS development effort at lower cost to the taxpayer."

Plan Unpopular – McClintock

McClintock avidly opposes government subsidies of energy

Climate Spectator 6/7 (Andrew Leonard, 6/7/11, " Who's anti-energy? ", http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/whos-anti-energy)//ZY

On June 2, reports the Denver Post, nine House GOP representatives signed a letter sent to the House Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, requesting the elimination of federal funding for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colorado: "The lawmakers ask that funding in the 2012 budget be eliminated for the Department of Energy's Office of Science and Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy programs because they 'have failed to live up to their supposed potential.' '...The letter, written by California US Rep. Tom McClintock, says: 'We should not follow the president's poor planning in increasing the funding for these anti-energy boondoggles'." "Anti-energy boondoggles" seems like a strange way to talk about research into wind turbines, solar power, geothermal and biofuel technologies. The most recent numbers tell us that In 2010, China poured a record $US54.4 billion of private and public money in clean energy sector investment, ranking it number one, by a large margin, in the world. Is China anti-energy? Then again, McClintock, who represents one of California's most conservative congressional districts, is a fairly standard exemplar of contemporary Tea Party Republicanism. In that universe, it's really not a shock to see research that might improve solar panel or wind turbine efficiency described as a boondoggle.

Plan Popular – Generic

Obama is losing political capital by not taking action on solar

Reuters ,“The White House Goes Solar. 2010Why Now?”// http://solveclimatenews.com/news/20101006/white-house-goes-solar-why-now//ZY

In an interview with SolveClimate News, Parentau explained that President Obama squandered enormous political capital by not acting immediately on climate change legislation. And the outlook for next year isn’t too encouraging, with cap-and-trade–bashing Republicans seemingly poised to gain a majority in the House and stake out more seats in the Senate. “If Obama has a fault, it’s that he’s too reasonable and not willing to bare-knuckle it when that’s what a situation calls for,” the professor said. “I blame his advisers. He must be getting conflicting advice on how to play environmental and energy issues, and that’s why you’re seeing this erratic behavior—kind of a schizophrenia in the White House.” At the beginning of Obama’s term, Parenteau said, everybody was wowed by an environmental team featuring the likes of Carol Browner as energy czar, John Holdren as science adviser and Steven Chu leading the Energy Department. He speculated that perhaps an enforcer such as just-departed Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel might have frowned on being more aggressive with energy and climate efforts.

Plan Popular – Increases Political Capital

Obama is losing political capital by not taking action on solar

Reuters ,“The White House Goes Solar. 2010Why Now?”// http://solveclimatenews.com/news/20101006/white-house-goes-solar-why-now//ZY

In an interview with SolveClimate News, Parentau explained that President Obama squandered enormous political capital by not acting immediately on climate change legislation. And the outlook for next year isn’t too encouraging, with cap-and-trade–bashing Republicans seemingly poised to gain a majority in the House and stake out more seats in the Senate. “If Obama has a fault, it’s that he’s too reasonable and not willing to bare-knuckle it when that’s what a situation calls for,” the professor said. “I blame his advisers. He must be getting conflicting advice on how to play environmental and energy issues, and that’s why you’re seeing this erratic behavior—kind of a schizophrenia in the White House.” At the beginning of Obama’s term, Parenteau said, everybody was wowed by an environmental team featuring the likes of Carol Browner as energy czar, John Holdren as science adviser and Steven Chu leading the Energy Department. He speculated that perhaps an enforcer such as just-departed Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel might have frowned on being more aggressive with energy and climate efforts.

Plan Popular – Senate

Solar power popular in the senate- Reid committed

ERIN KELLY,reporter at Gannett's Washington Bureau Jun. 26, 2011 12:00 AM, Solar power funding threatened by Congress, Federal grants, loans in jeopardy, http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2011/06/26/20110626solar-power-congress-funding-cuts.html//ZY

Solar programs also remain popular in the Senate, where Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., fought off efforts early this year by the House to end the loan-guarantee program that helps solar companies secure financing for their projects. Reid announced last month that the Energy Department will provide conditional guarantees for the Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project in Tonopah, Nev., creating nearly 5,000 jobs in his state, which has the nation's highest unemployment rate. Solar lobbyists said they believe at least one of the two sections of the loan-guarantee program will survive, although it is not yet clear how much money it will receive. McClintock, the California congressman, and other conservatives, including Rep. David Schweikert, R-Ariz., wrote letters this month asking the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development to end the loan guarantees. The subcommittee approved $160 million for loan guarantees, far less than the $1 billion sought by the administration but enough to keep the program alive. The fate is less certain for the Section 1603 Treasury Grant Program, which gives solar companies a grant equal to 30 percent of the cost of a solar system as an incentive to develop solar projects. It was intended to help companies that were struggling in the sluggish economy. The program has been crucial to companies such as SolarCity, which has an operations center in Phoenix that installs solar electricity systems in homes and businesses.

Energy bills have a minute majority in the senate

Reuters 6/8 (Elizabeth McGowan, 6/8/11, " GOP Ally for Senator Sanders's 10 Million Solar Roofs Bill ", http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/08/idUS41670750020110608)//ZY

However, now that the Senate's Democratic caucus carries a slim 53-47 majority, energy bills are iffy, at best. And Bingaman has to tread much more gently because his 22-member committee has only a 12-10 Democratic advantage. Sanders serves on that panel but Boozman does not. Last year's bill called for $250 million for fiscal year 2012 and an additional $500 million annually through 2021. That money was targeted for a competitive grant program so state and local governments could receive incentives to boost the use of rooftop solar panels and water heaters in homes, schools and businesses. This time around, Sanders tweaked the bill so it zeroes in on slicing through the red tape of overpriced permits and inspections that are a barrier to smooth growth of solar. For instance, DOE would give preference to grant applicants that have partnered with states, public utility commissions or other stakeholders to adopt standards that encourage utility interconnection and net metering. "The approach here is really a carrot and not a stick," Darren Springer, senior legislative assistant for Sanders, told SolveClimate News. "DOE is tasked with seeking out best practices on permitting and inspections. This bill puts federal funds on the table for communities to scale up those best practices."

Solar power popular in the senate- Reid committed

ERIN KELLY,reporter at Gannett's Washington Bureau Jun. 26, 2011 12:00 AM, Solar power funding threatened by Congress, Federal grants, loans in jeopardy, http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2011/06/26/20110626solar-power-congress-funding-cuts.html//ZY

Solar programs also remain popular in the Senate, where Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., fought off efforts early this year by the House to end the loan-guarantee program that helps solar companies secure financing for their projects. Reid announced last month that the Energy Department will provide conditional guarantees for the Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project in Tonopah, Nev., creating nearly 5,000 jobs in his state, which has the nation's highest unemployment rate. Solar lobbyists said they believe at least one of the two sections of the loan-guarantee program will survive, although it is not yet clear how much money it will receive. McClintock, the California congressman, and other conservatives, including Rep. David Schweikert, R-Ariz., wrote letters this month asking the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development to end the loan guarantees. The subcommittee approved $160 million for loan guarantees, far less than the $1 billion sought by the administration but enough to keep the program alive. The fate is less certain for the Section 1603 Treasury Grant Program, which gives solar companies a grant equal to 30 percent of the cost of a solar system as an incentive to develop solar projects. It was intended to help companies that were struggling in the sluggish economy. The program has been crucial to companies such as SolarCity, which has an operations center in Phoenix that installs solar electricity systems in homes and businesses.

Plan Popular – Senate Small Majority

Energy bills have a minute majority in the senate

Reuters 6/8 (Elizabeth McGowan, 6/8/11, " GOP Ally for Senator Sanders's 10 Million Solar Roofs Bill ", http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/08/idUS41670750020110608)//ZY

However, now that the Senate's Democratic caucus carries a slim 53-47 majority, energy bills are iffy, at best. And Bingaman has to tread much more gently because his 22-member committee has only a 12-10 Democratic advantage. Sanders serves on that panel but Boozman does not. Last year's bill called for $250 million for fiscal year 2012 and an additional $500 million annually through 2021. That money was targeted for a competitive grant program so state and local governments could receive incentives to boost the use of rooftop solar panels and water heaters in homes, schools and businesses. This time around, Sanders tweaked the bill so it zeroes in on slicing through the red tape of overpriced permits and inspections that are a barrier to smooth growth of solar. For instance, DOE would give preference to grant applicants that have partnered with states, public utility commissions or other stakeholders to adopt standards that encourage utility interconnection and net metering. "The approach here is really a carrot and not a stick," Darren Springer, senior legislative assistant for Sanders, told SolveClimate News. "DOE is tasked with seeking out best practices on permitting and inspections. This bill puts federal funds on the table for communities to scale up those best practices."

Plan Popular – Pelosi

Pelosi pledged to address climate change

National Journal 6/23 (Coral Davenport, 6/23/11, " Pawlenty: Running from His Past Moves on Environmental Policy ", http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/pawlenty-running-from-his-past-moves-on-environmental-policy-20110623)//ZY

This year, many of the GOP contenders are grappling with past deviations from party doctrine. Newt Gingrich once made an ad with Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader whom Republicans like to demonize as a liberal Cruella De Vil, pledging to address climate change. Jon Huntsman, as governor of Utah, was the chief promoter of the Western Climate Initiative, a plan under which Utah would have joined California and other states in a regional cap-and-trade system. Mitt Romney, as governor of Massachusetts, worked on a similar plan for Northeastern states, though he ultimately refused to sign on.

Pelosi loves solar- support of the Solar Technology Roadmap Act proves

Office of the Speaker of the House Oct. 22, 2009 http://www.solarnovus.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=111:pelosi-solar-technology-act-lays-foundation-for-a-future-of-renewable-energy-sustainability-and-clean-energy-jobs&catid=45:politics-policy-news&Itemid=249//ZY

WASHINGTON, Oct. 22, 2009 -- US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued the following statement today after the House passed the Solar Technology Roadmap Act, which would strengthen the American solar technology industry through a coordinated research and development program and public-private partnerships. The bill passed by a vote of 310 to 106. "The Solar Technology Roadmap Act lays the foundation for a future of renewable energy, sustainability, a growing economy, and good-paying jobs that cannot be shipped overseas. This bill helps improve the performance and reliability of solar technology, and invests in critical research and development initiatives that will redefine how we power our homes and offices. "More solar technology means better energy security, more home-grown energy, and lower greenhouse gas emissions. It returns the United States to the forefront of cutting-edge research and places the next generation of American workers on the frontlines of a clean energy future. "This bipartisan legislation embraces what's possible when our best minds in the public and private sector come together; when innovation becomes a centerpiece of public policy; and when we harness the potential of our most precious natural resources for the greater good. "Today's vote marks a significant step forward for our nation's economy and environment. I applaud my colleagues for supporting this bill and adding their voices to the chorus calling for cleaner energy jobs nationwide."

Pelosi supports solar innovation- wants to keep it in the US

Transportation nation July 15, 2010 Pelosi Defends Solar-Powered Ferry As Stimulus http://transportationnation.org/2010/07/15/pelosi-defends-solar-powered-ferry-as-stimulus//ZY

(Washington, DC — Todd Zwillich, Transportation Nation) House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is defending a transportation project in her home district, saying it would help spur the renewable energy industry in the U.S. Pelosi put the $500,000 earmark in an upcoming transportation spending bill, saying the money would fund two solar-powered ferries from San Francisco to Berkeley, across the Bay. The project fell under criticism Tuesday from Citizens Against Government Waste, an anti-earmarking group in Washington. “In this instance, going green wastes the taxpayers’ greenbacks,” the group said in a statement Pelosi told Transportation Nation this week that the project is an example of home-grown renewable energy. “We just don’t want it made in China,” she said. The speaker also waxed poetic about the ferry’s potential to push green energy ahead in the U.S. She told us that the earmark was meant “to reach for the sun, rather than going into the middle of the Earth for a source of energy. And we think that would be a good model for the nation.” Listen:

Plan Popular – Pickens

Pickens has immense sway over republicans- convinced republicans to support clean tech before

Washington Times 6/14 (Ned Ryun, 6/14/11, " RYUN: Republican energy crisis ", http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/14/republican-energy-crisis/)//ZY

Further, the bill is a perfect example of crony capitalism, and the GOP takes a great risk with tea party members if they go through with it. T. Boone Pickens has spent millions courting lawmakers for this legislation. He also just happens to be the largest shareholder in Clean Energy Fuels, which owns 200 natural gas stations across the country. Clean Energy Fuels owns BAF Technologies, which is one of the largest companies that converts vehicles to run on natural gas, and Mr. Pickens also owns the mineral rights to almost 200,000 acres believed to have significant natural gas reserves. He's lined it all up for personal profit, and now just needs the bill to pass and be signed into law.

In supporting the Pickens bill, Republicans are playing the same Washington game they ran against in 2010. This bill, if enacted, would make Mr. Pickens a fortune, give the president a victory, insert government further into the marketplace and hand the taxpayers a huge bill.

Plan Popular – Castor

Castor will maintain Weiners strong commitment to clean energy

Hill (blog) 6/22 (Andrew Restuccia, 6/22/11, " Rep. Castor gets Weiner's Energy and Commerce seat ", http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/167865-rep-castor-get-weiners-energy-and-commerce-seat)//ZY

House Democrats officially tapped Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) to take former Rep. Anthony Weiner’s (D-N.Y.) seat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. “[C]astor will add a strong, committed voice to advancing our core goals, as a party and as a nation: promoting commerce, preserving public health, pursuing a clean energy future, and investing in technologies that will drive our economic growth,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Wednesday. Castor served on the panel in the last Congress, but lost her seat when Republicans took over the House. She is the most senior of the seven Democrats who lost their seats after the 2010 midterm elections. Weiner resigned from Congress last week.

Plan Popular – Schumer

Schumer supports clean energy

Hill (blog) 6/22 (Erik Wasson, 6/22/11, " Dems call for stimulus in debt deal as CBO offers warnings ", http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/167965-dems-call-for-stimulus-in-debt-deal-as-cbo-offers-warnings)//ZY

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and other Democrats said the slowing economy demands a deficit-reduction package that includes provisions to create jobs. “We can have job creation embedded as part of the deficit-reduction package,” Schumer said after a press conference touting the message. He and other Democrats mentioned an expanded and extended payroll tax reduction as one measure that would boost an economy the Federal Reserve says is slowing, but offered no specifics on the proposal. They noted the CBO report warned near-term spending cuts could hurt the economy, and they said they would pay for their stimulus plan with other offsetting spending cuts or tax increases. The Fed lowered its outlook on the economy on Wednesday, predicting it would grow between 2.7 and 2.9 percent in 2011, down from an earlier 3.1 to 3.3 percent estimate in April. Schumer argued Republicans are focusing on the deficit at the peril of the economy, and that infrastructure spending and support for clean energy are other stimulus measures that should be considered by Congress. “It is hard to figure out why Republicans would say no for three reasons: It’s pro-business, it’s a tax cut, and many of them have supported it in the past,” he said. Schumer suggested that opposition to the stimulus proposal could come because the GOP deliberately wants to scuttle the economy in order to prevent Obama from being reelected.

Plan Popular – Lieberman

Lieberman pushed through energy efficient jobs in Connecticut- supports green energy

Patch.com 6/23 (Dirk Langeveld, 6/23/11, " New London Unemployed To Benefit From Green Jobs Grant ", http://newlondon.patch.com/articles/new-london-unemployed-to-benefit-from-green-jobs-grant)//ZY

Senators Lieberman and Blumenthal announce $5.8 million Green Jobs Innovation grant assisting 975 unemployed from seven communities Unemployed workers from New London will be among 975 people receiving benefits from a $5.8 million green jobs grant, Senators Richard Blumenthal and Joe Lieberman announced. The senators said the funding from the Green Jobs Innovation Fund, part of the Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration, will be given to the Connecticut Department of Labor. The purpose of the grant is to train employees in careers in green industry, such as solar panel installation, sustainable agriculture, energy efficiency, and Brownfield remediation. The grant will be used to train residents from Bridgeport, Bristol, Hartford, New Britain, New Haven, New London, and Waterbury. “Thanks to the Green Jobs Innovation Fund, this grant will prove to be a major investment in Connecticut’s workforce and its environment,” Lieberman said in a joint statement issued by the senators. “At a time where jobs are hard to come by, this program will provide many underemployed and unemployed workers throughout Connecticut with the skills necessary to participate in the growing green energy industry.” “This grant is crucial to the growth of green jobs in Connecticut and to ensuring that our workers have tools they need to compete in this developing sector. These smart investments in job training are vital to the continual development of good-paying green jobs that are the economic future of our state and our country,” said Blumenthal. “I look forward to continuing to provide support to these types of strong grant applications that will foster our economic recovery and put Connecticut back to work.”

Plan Popular - Nelson

Nelson supports space heg –he’s negotiated on behalf of NASA before

Florida Today.6/24/2011, “NASA faces subpoena on heavy-lift rocket work”. http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20110624/NEWS02/106240330/NASA-faces-subpoena-heavy-lift-rocket-work//ZY

The compromise, negotiated by Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Orlando, was enacted by Congress as a law guiding NASA policy. Congress ordered that NASA leverage its previous investment in the shuttle and Constellation program and build a vehicle that could be operational by end of 2016.The congressional compromise has been contentious because of competition for scarce federal funding, and because NASA warned that it probably couldn't make that deadline with the funding being provided. NASA has not fully responded to a May 18 request from the Senate science committee for documents relating to development of that rocket, which was intended to help NASA astronauts eventually reach asteroids and Mars. "We regret that NASA appears to be unwilling to cooperate in our efforts to conduct legitimate congressional oversight," Rockefeller and Hutchison wrote Wednesday. "In spite of repeated requests by committee staff, NASA has not offered any valid basis for why it is withholding these and other documents that are clearly responsive to our May 18 letter." Nelson's spokesman, Dan McLaughlin, said lawmakers and NASA "have the exact same goal, which is to make sure America maintains its leadership in science and technology driven by a robust space program."

Wednesday's letter says science committee staffers spoke with NASA officials on June 7 about why the staffers hadn't received any of 19 drafts of a report about development of the heavy-lift rocket and its crew capsule.

Nelson is a former astronaut and supports space spending- even during budget cuts

USA Today, 6/23/11 “Standing tall, Atlantis awaits on launch pad 39A at Cape Canaveral for the final liftoff by a NASA space shuttle.”, Before Atlantis' last flight, shuttle era's legacy debated, http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2011-06-27-shuttle-atlantis-last_n.htm//ZY

That has led to clashes with legislators from states loaded with space shuttle jobs, such as Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., a former astronaut who has called for more spending on a heavy rocket, one capable of reaching the moon. Amid budget cutting in Congress, the replacement for the shuttle looks like a potential casualty, former NASA chief Griffin warns.

"The regret in retiring the shuttle is not that we're retiring a 30-year-old system. That's to be expected," Griffin says. "The regret is that we're not moving on to something that can do more for us. We're not moving on to anything. … I was in favor of retiring the shuttle if that was the price of building a system that could take us back to the moon and beyond. I'm not in favor of retiring the shuttle and replacing it with nothing. … That is what is going to happen."

Plan Popular – Chu

Chu supports solar- pushing legislation

PV-Tech 6/28 (6/28/11, " US Energy Secretary visits new Amonix production facility ", http://www.pv-tech.org/news/us_energy_secretary_visits_new_amonix_production_facility)

The Government has already awarded more than US$8 billion in loan guarantees to half a dozen major PV developments projects and further indication of its backing was seen on Thursday as Energy Secretary Steven Chu paid a visit to Amonix's new production facility in Las Vegas. Chu was taken on a tour of the concentrated photovoltaic (CPV) production facility, before leading a roundtable discussion, attended by several major figures within the industry. As a former winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics and director of the Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, Chu is not a newcomer to solar and he has been prominent in pushing forward the Obama Administration's SunShot initiative. “Secretary Chu has a long-standing interest in renewable energy sources. It's an honor to have him visit Amonix to take a closer look at our state-of-the-art manufacturing facility,” said Amonix CEO Brian Robertson. “His visit emphasises the reality that utility-scale solar energy is an economically viable reality.”

Plan Popular – Reid

Reid supports solar power

ERIN KELLY,reporter at Gannett's Washington Bureau Jun. 26, 2011 12:00 AM, Solar power funding threatened by Congress, Federal grants, loans in jeopardy, http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2011/06/26/20110626solar-power-congress-funding-cuts.html//ZY

Solar programs also remain popular in the Senate, where Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., fought off efforts early this year by the House to end the loan-guarantee program that helps solar companies secure financing for their projects. Reid announced last month that the Energy Department will provide conditional guarantees for the Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project in Tonopah, Nev., creating nearly 5,000 jobs in his state, which has the nation's highest unemployment rate. Solar lobbyists said they believe at least one of the two sections of the loan-guarantee program will survive, although it is not yet clear how much money it will receive. McClintock, the California congressman, and other conservatives, including Rep. David Schweikert, R-Ariz., wrote letters this month asking the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development to end the loan guarantees. The subcommittee approved $160 million for loan guarantees, far less than the $1 billion sought by the administration but enough to keep the program alive. The fate is less certain for the Section 1603 Treasury Grant Program, which gives solar companies a grant equal to 30 percent of the cost of a solar system as an incentive to develop solar projects. It was intended to help companies that were struggling in the sluggish economy. The program has been crucial to companies such as SolarCity, which has an operations center in Phoenix that installs solar electricity systems in homes and businesses.

Internals – Obama Support

Obama already came out and supported solar power- your link is not unique

ERIN KELLY,reporter at Gannett's Washington Bureau Jun. 26, 2011 12:00 AM, Solar power funding threatened by Congress, Federal grants, loans in jeopardy, http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2011/06/26/20110626solar-power-congress-funding-cuts.html//ZY

Ally found in Obama

The solar industry has an ally in Obama, who has called for a national clean-energy standard with a goal of generating 80 percent of the nation's electricity from clean sources by 2035. Although there is little chance that Congress will approve that ambitious goal, the administration could take steps on its own to help the solar industry by allowing federal agencies to enter into long-term agreements to purchase solar power, Resch said.

Internals – Slim Democrat Majority

Slim Democrat majority on solar

Reuters 6/8 (Elizabeth McGowan, 6/8/11, " GOP Ally for Senator Sanders's 10 Million Solar Roofs Bill ", http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/08/idUS41670750020110608)

New Congress, New Bill A different and more expensive solar bill Sanders floated last year gained a nod of approval from the Energy and Natural Resources Committee in July before petering out. However, now that the Senate's Democratic caucus carries a slim 53-47 majority, energy bills are iffy, at best. And Bingaman has to tread much more gently because his 22-member committee has only a 12-10 Democratic advantage. Sanders serves on that panel but Boozman does not.

Internals – Hastert=Influential

Hastert is a key player-Energy policy act of 05 proves

Seattle Post Intelligencer 6/21 (6/21/11, " Ethanol losing influence in Congress ", http://www.seattlepi.com/national/politico/article/Ethanol-losing-influence-in-Congress-1434443.php)//ZY

Now, after major losses in the House and Senate last week, the ethanol industry is missing the influence of those pro-ethanol congressional leaders. Hastert later used his influence as House speaker to ensure the Energy Policy Act of 2005 included a crucial renewable fuels mandate that remains the ire of fiscal conservatives and coastal lawmakers as part of a triple play of ethanol subsidies along with a blender tax credit and an import tariff. Also gone are former Senate GOP leader Bob Dole of Kansas and former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota. "You've had key House members and key senators in key places that could either begin the programs or protect them," Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) told POLITICO last week.

***Mars Colonization***

Plan Unpopular – Generic

Increasing funding for NASA’s missions hurts Obama – it’s seen as unsustainable and too expensive.

Handberg 2011, (Roger, Professor and Chair of the Department of Political Science at the University of Central Florida. “Small ball or home runs: the changing ethos of US human spaceflight policy.” http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1759/1//\

If one conceptualizes Apollo as the example par excellence of the home run approach, what does the small ball approach mean for NASA? Simply put, NASA needs to think of its human space exploration effort as a process, not a project. Apollo arose from the political world rather than the logical outcome from a systematic approach to space exploration. NASA provided the substance but the president, Kennedy, was looking for flashy items to highlight US prestige and technological capabilities. The latter was particularly important since the Soviets were clearly leading the United States in the space race in May 1961. This event, Apollo, with its great success, imprinted itself into NASA’s organizational DNA: human spaceflight programs must be large scale and dramatic. That is what needs to change if NASA and its aspirations are to survive.

NASA Administrator Charles Bolden alluded to that reality recently: “Future NASA space programs must be affordable, sustainable and realistic to survive political and funding dangers that have killed previous initiatives.” This is harsh talk but it reflects the reality confronting all US discretionary programs in the federal budget. The new Republican House majority is determined to cut federal expenditures and appear to have little concern for where the cuts occur. The budget struggles this year and next will find all discretionary programs mobilizing their supporters. Competing agencies like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Science Foundation (NSF) have constituencies who are savvy veterans of getting their way even when budgets are tight. The cure for some disease is always just another appropriation away from happening.

As has been repeatedly said, Apollo was sui generis, one of a kind, a product of unique historical circumstances. NASA’s future in human spaceflight is budget wise and politically more supportable as a small ball approach. This is clearly less flashy, but today being politically sustainable must become the focus. The flexible path suggested by the Obama Administration is perceived by some as too vague and indefinite (see “Prognosticating NASA’s Future”, The Space Review, March 29, 2010). That may be an accurate judgment, but that plan envisions a process rather than a constituency or destination focus, which has been typical of NASA initiatives. Such a project or destination focus becomes finite, with an end date and no logical follow on into the future. Conceptualizing space exploration as a process rather than a destination or project allows you to build on success and push outward beyond the Moon and into the solar system.

Their popularity claims are short term-Expenses means mars mission is unpopular

Robinson 10 (Michael, PHD University of Hartford, “The problem with human missions to Mars” Journal of Cosmology, October-November, < http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars134.html>)

However realistic or important these benefits may be, they are the windfalls of discovery, not its object. To say that we should spend a trillion dollars to send astronauts to Mars in order to employ engineers and develop spin-offs is like saying that we built the Empire State Building because of its excellent views of Manhattan. The promise of jobs and new patents may temporarily boost Congressional and public support, but they will not sustain it; they do not offer a compelling motive that would support such projects over the long haul. Sending humans to Mars requires a vision of exploration that convincingly explains why we should place humans at the center of an exploration program despite risk and expense (Logsdon 2003).

Plan Unpopular – Funding (1/2)

Mars unpopular – partisan fights and funding

Statesman 10 (“NASA: Moon Not Among Returns on Investment”, 2-2, http://www.statesman.com/opinion/nasa-moon-not-among-returns-on-investment-209597.html?printArticle=y)

Now, faced with daunting budget deficits that grow larger and larger, Obama wants Congress to put the brakes on future lunar missions, including Bush's vision of a lunar base from which Mars missions could begin. "We do not know where this journey will end, yet we know this: Human beings are headed into the cosmos," Bush told NASA employees in 2004, announcing the ambitious plan and declaring the moon the "home to abundant resources." Obama's new vision of NASA includes $18 billion for new technologies that eventually could take humans farther into space. The president wants NASA to concentrate on research and development, while the nation would look to commercial companies to handle "space taxi services" to the International Space Station. John M. Logsdon, former director of George Washington University's Space Policy Institute and one of the experts briefed by the White House, told The New York Times the Obama plan is "a somewhat risky proposition." But he also noted it's time for something new because "we've been kind of stuck using the same technologies we developed in the '50s and '60s." To that end, Obama is calling for an end to NASA's Constellation program that has been underway for four years to replace the space shuttles. And while the White House plan calls for a "bold new initiative," it offers no schedules or destinations. We eagerly await more details on Obama's vision for space exploration. In any form, it is an expensive undertaking. But we know from history that it can be an investment with an attractive rate of return. These are times that call for cautious spending of precious public funds. Is NASA a wise place to look for savings? Could be, but we trust that Congress will have a full-throated discussion of this before making the radical midcourse correction favored by Obama. With the NASA facility near Houston (thanks, LBJ), Texas obviously has a large stake in the space program. Texas lawmakers, led by Sens. John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison, already have pushed back against Obama's plan. Hutchison blasts the proposed cuts as "very short-sighted \u2026 especially considering how much has been poured into the space program in the past." We agree, but we will withhold final judgment until Congress delves further into the president's plan. Like most federal projects, NASA probably can stand some trimming. But we believe it continues to be involved in important research that can have benefits here on our little planet. The last thing we need is a partisan battle over NASA. Can we please shift politics to a back burner, just this one time, so we can have a forward-looking (beyond the next election) discussion abut this?

Mars exploration unpopular – funding

McCurdy 7 (Professor Howard E., Chair of the School of Public Affairs – American University, “Congress and America’s Future in Space: Pie in the Sky or National Imperative?”, Wilson Center Congress Project, 5-14, http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=topics.event_summary&event_id=201072&topic_id=1412)

America must continue with its scientific exploration of outer space, though the costs of building a space station on the Moon as a launch pad for sending astronauts to Mars and beyond—-estimated by some at over $400 billion--may be too much for Congress and the public to swallow. That was the consensus of a panel of experts at the Congress Project Seminar on Congress and America’s Future in Space. Professor Howard E. McCurdy of American University traced the history of America’s space program while exploding “the myth of presidential leadership in space.” According to that myth, says McCurdy, all the President has to do is move his lips and say the words, and it will be done. But that ignores both the independence of Congress and the ways of the NASA bureaucracy. Congress sometimes says “no” and sometimes, “go slow.” While Congress did largely defer to the President during the 1960s when John F. Kennedy called for putting a man on the moon within the decade, that began to change with the next stages of our space program. When President George W. Bush announced in 2004 his “Vision for Space Exploration,” which included building a Moon station for manned flights to Mars, he was recycling an idea that’s been kicked around for the last 50 years, says McCurdy. In fact, in 1989 Bush’s father called for the exact same thing, calling it the “Space Exploration Initiative.” But it died a natural death in Congress.

Plan Unpopular – Public

Mars publically unpopular

Rasmussen 10 (Rasmussen Reports – National Polling, “59% Favor Cutting Back on Space Exploration”, 1-15, http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/january_2010/50_favor_cutting_back_on_space_exploration)

Only 27% of Americans believe the current goals of the space program should include sending someone to Mars. Fifty percent (50%) oppose such a mission, with 24% undecided. The findings on this question are unchanged from last July. The feelings are virtually identical about sending someone to the moon. Twenty-six percent (26%) like the idea, but twice as money (52%) are opposed to sending someone to the moon as one of the current goals of the space program.

Plan Popular – Generic

Mars Mission is the only mission that’s politically popular

Thompson 11 (Loren, Chief Financial Officer – Lexington Institute, “Human Spaceflight”, April, http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/library/resources/documents/Defense/HumanSpaceflight-Mars.pdf)

Mars is the sole destination for the human spaceflight program that can generate sufficient scientific benefits to justify the scale of expenditures required. It is also the only destination likely to sustain political support across multiple presidential administrations. Mars is the most Earth-like place in the known universe beyond our own planet, and it is the one location that could conceivably support a self-sustaining human colony. It has water, seasons, atmosphere and other features that may hold important lessons for the future of the Earth, but unlocking those lessons would require a sustained human presence on the Red Planet’s surface.

Plan Popular – Public

Mars popular-Congress and Public

Thompson 11 (Loren, Chief Financial Officer – Lexington Institute, “Human Spaceflight”, April, http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/library/resources/documents/Defense/HumanSpaceflight-Mars.pdf)

This all makes sense from a budgetary and scientific perspective. What’s missing is a grasp of the rationale required to sustain political support across multiple administrations. While exploration of the Moon’s far side or nearby asteroids may have major scientific benefits, those benefits are unlikely to be appreciated by politicians struggling to reconcile record deficits. NASA’s current research plans do not connect well with the policy agendas of either major political party, and the flexible path will not change that. To justify investments of hundreds of billions of dollars in human spaceflight over the next 20 years while entitlements are being pared and taxes are increasing, NASA must offer a justification for its efforts commensurate with the sacrifices required. Mars is the only objective of sufficient interest or importance that can fill that role. Thus, the framework of missions undertaken pursuant to the flexible-path approach must always be linked to the ultimate goal of putting human beings on the Martian surface, and the investments made must be justified mainly on that basis. The American public can be convinced to support a costly series of steps leading to a worthwhile objective, but trips to the Moon and near-

***Moon Mining***

Plan Unpopular – Generic (1/2)

Plan has no political support-too expensive

Thompson 11 (Loren, Chief Financial Officer – Lexington Institute, “Human Spaceflight”, April, http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/library/resources/documents/Defense/HumanSpaceflight-Mars.pdf)

This all makes sense from a budgetary and scientific perspective. What’s missing is a grasp of the rationale required to sustain political support across multiple administrations. While exploration of the Moon’s far side or nearby asteroids may have major scientific benefits, those benefits are unlikely to be appreciated by politicians struggling to reconcile record deficits. NASA’s current research plans do not connect well with the policy agendas of either major political party, and the flexible path will not change that. To justify investments of hundreds of billions of dollars in human spaceflight over the next 20 years while entitlements are being pared and taxes are increasing, NASA must offer a justification for its efforts commensurate with the sacrifices required. Mars is the only objective of sufficient interest or importance that can fill that role. Thus, the framework of missions undertaken pursuant to the flexible-path approach must always be linked to the ultimate goal of putting human beings on the Martian surface, and the investments made must be justified mainly on that basis. The American public can be convinced to support a costly series of steps leading to a worthwhile objective, but trips to the Moon and near-

Moon missions partisan and unpopular

Statesman 10 (“NASA: Moon Not Among Returns on Investment”, 2-2, http://www.statesman.com/opinion/nasa-moon-not-among-returns-on-investment-209597.html?printArticle=y)

Now, faced with daunting budget deficits that grow larger and larger, Obama wants Congress to put the brakes on future lunar missions, including Bush's vision of a lunar base from which Mars missions could begin. "We do not know where this journey will end, yet we know this: Human beings are headed into the cosmos," Bush told NASA employees in 2004, announcing the ambitious plan and declaring the moon the "home to abundant resources." Obama's new vision of NASA includes $18 billion for new technologies that eventually could take humans farther into space. The president wants NASA to concentrate on research and development, while the nation would look to commercial companies to handle "space taxi services" to the International Space Station. John M. Logsdon, former director of George Washington University's Space Policy Institute and one of the experts briefed by the White House, told The New York Times the Obama plan is "a somewhat risky proposition." But he also noted it's time for something new because "we've been kind of stuck using the same technologies we developed in the '50s and '60s." To that end, Obama is calling for an end to NASA's Constellation program that has been underway for four years to replace the space shuttles. And while the White House plan calls for a "bold new initiative," it offers no schedules or destinations. We eagerly await more details on Obama's vision for space exploration. In any form, it is an expensive undertaking. But we know from history that it can be an investment with an attractive rate of return. These are times that call for cautious spending of precious public funds. Is NASA a wise place to look for savings? Could be, but we trust that Congress will have a full-throated discussion of this before making the radical midcourse correction favored by Obama. With the NASA facility near Houston (thanks, LBJ), Texas obviously has a large stake in the space program. Texas lawmakers, led by Sens. John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison, already have pushed back against Obama's plan. Hutchison blasts the proposed cuts as "very short-sighted \u2026 especially considering how much has been poured into the space program in the past." We agree, but we will withhold final judgment until Congress delves further into the president's plan. Like most federal projects, NASA probably can stand some trimming. But we believe it continues to be involved in important research that can have benefits here on our little planet. The last thing we need is a partisan battle over NASA. Can we please shift politics to a back burner, just this one time, so we can have a forward-looking (beyond the next election) discussion abut this?

Plan Unpopular – Generic (2/2)

Nobody likes Lunar Mining

Jones 1995 (Eric, “Epilogue: When might we go back to the Moon?”,http://www.solarviews.com/eng/apoepi.htm, ldg, Apollo Lunar Surface Journal DOA: 5-13-11)

The space program and its supporters have been on a financial and emotional roller coaster virtually from the beginning . The debate over funding is sure to continue until the time comes that most of our activities in space are self-supporting and public funding is no longer required. The issue at the center of the debate is, of course, the relative value of the space program and, as we have discussed, the perception of space as a technology driver - coupled with the fact that plenty of people still want to rub elbows with astronauts and plenty of kids still want to grow up to be one - generates funding at a level of about one quarter of one percent of the GDP. If the rules of the game were to change , of course, then increased levels of funding might well be in the cards . If , for example, people began to think that there was a real possibility of a substantial, near-term economic return, then new funding might become available . The space community talks hopefully about asteroid mining , about solar power satellites, and about Helium-3mining on the Moon but, unfortunately, they been unable to convince anyone but the faithful that the technological risks are low enough - and the potential payoffs large enough and soon enough - to warrant spending large sums of public or private money . Alternatively, the development of significantly cheaper transportation systems would make it possible to do more at the current levels of funding and, at the same time, would make a broader array of space activities attractive. However, technical innovation is only part of the answer to cheaper transportation. Of even great importance is the ability to build many copies of a new vehicle and to fly them frequently and efficiently. That is, economies of scale are crucial and, to achieve them, we will probably have to rely on increases in space activities to produce increases in demand and, therefore, decreases in unit costs

Plan Unpopular – Congress

Congress hates moon missions-basing proves

McCurdy 7 (Professor Howard E., Chair of the School of Public Affairs – American University, “Congress and America’s Future in Space: Pie in the Sky or National Imperative?”, Wilson Center Congress Project, 5-14, http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=topics.event_summary&event_id=201072&topic_id=1412)

America must continue with its scientific exploration of outer space, though the costs of building a space station on the Moon as a launch pad for sending astronauts to Mars and beyond—-estimated by some at over $400 billion--may be too much for Congress and the public to swallow. That was the consensus of a panel of experts at the Congress Project Seminar on Congress and America’s Future in Space. Professor Howard E. McCurdy of American University traced the history of America’s space program while exploding “the myth of presidential leadership in space.” According to that myth, says McCurdy, all the President has to do is move his lips and say the words, and it will be done. But that ignores both the independence of Congress and the ways of the NASA bureaucracy. Congress sometimes says “no” and sometimes, “go slow.” While Congress did largely defer to the President during the 1960s when John F. Kennedy called for putting a man on the moon within the decade, that began to change with the next stages of our space program. When President George W. Bush announced in 2004 his “Vision for Space Exploration,” which included building a Moon station for manned flights to Mars, he was recycling an idea that’s been kicked around for the last 50 years, says McCurdy. In fact, in 1989 Bush’s father called for the exact same thing, calling it the “Space Exploration Initiative.” But it died a natural death in Congress.

***Asteroid Mining***

Plan Unpopular – Generic

Obama’s asteroid plan massively partisan

Jagirdar 2010 (Sarabjit, “Obama Sets Eyes on Mars,” Indiana Pioneer, 17 Apr 2010, L/N)

"By 2025, we expect new spacecraft designed for long journeys to allow us to begin the first-ever crewed missions beyond the Moon into deep space. We'll start by sending astronauts to an asteroid for the first time in history," he said and went on to outline the Mars plan. Development of breakthrough propulsion systems and other advanced technologies will be critical to deep space exploration, he said and challenged NASA to break through these barriers. After Obama's address, Republicans stepped up their attack over scrapping the Constellation programme and termination of the space shuttles. Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison said that without a shuttle, US space flight options would continue to depend on countries like Russia and China. "The President's plan fails to guarantee American leadership in space and the American people and Congress will not settle for it," said the other Texas Senator John Cornyn.

Nobody likes Asteroid Mining

Jones 1995 (Eric, “Epilogue: When might we go back to the Moon?”,http://www.solarviews.com/eng/apoepi.htm, ldg, Apollo Lunar Surface Journal DOA: 5-13-11)

The space program and its supporters have been on a financial and emotional roller coaster virtually from the beginning . The debate over funding is sure to continue until the time comes that most of our activities in space are self-supporting and public funding is no longer required. The issue at the center of the debate is, of course, the relative value of the space program and, as we have discussed, the perception of space as a technology driver - coupled with the fact that plenty of people still want to rub elbows with astronauts and plenty of kids still want to grow up to be one - generates funding at a level of about one quarter of one percent of the GDP. If the rules of the game were to change , of course, then increased levels of funding might well be in the cards . If , for example, people began to think that there was a real possibility of a substantial, near-term economic return, then new funding might become available . The space community talks hopefully about asteroid mining , about solar power satellites, and about Helium-3mining on the Moon but, unfortunately, they been unable to convince anyone but the faithful that the technological risks are low enough - and the potential payoffs large enough and soon enough - to warrant spending large sums of public or private money . Alternatively, the development of significantly cheaper transportation systems would make it possible to do more at the current levels of funding and, at the same time, would make a broader array of space activities attractive. However, technical innovation is only part of the answer to cheaper transportation. Of even great importance is the ability to build many copies of a new vehicle and to fly them frequently and efficiently. That is, economies of scale are crucial and, to achieve them, we will probably have to rely on increases in space activities to produce increases in demand and, therefore, decreases in unit costs

Plan Popular – Helium-3

Congress wants helium-3

Jeremy Hsu, 04.19.2010, Congress to Address Helium-3 Shortage Hurting Scientific Research and Nuclear Security, http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-04/helium-3-shortage-hits-scientific-research-and-nuclear-security

A large Cold War supply of helium-3 has begun to rapidly run out, due to heavy demand from U.S. scientists who need the gas for neutron detectors and cryogenic experiments. Almost 60,000 liters of helium-3 were used in 2007 and 2008, compared to just 10,000 liters used annually about 10 years ago. A House subcommittee has been convened to search for a solution this week, New Scientist reports.

Private companies need helium-3

Cole Latimer, editor at Australian mining, 22 June 2011, SPACE: MINING'S FINAL FRONTIER, http://www.miningaustralia.com.au/news/mining-s-final-frontier,

A number of US and Indian firms are looking at potentially mining on the moon, with MIT reporting that there is set to be a race to secure Helium-3 from the satellite. There is also set to be a run to mine asteroids and even work on comets. One can only imagine the strict site safety laws that will have to be in place while working on a relatively small rock hurtling through space at thousands of kilometres per hour. Movies and television have already portrayed what mining in space will be like, and it is fairly varied to say the least.

***Constellation***

Plan Unpopular – Generic

Obama growing tired of constellation issues, its being cut

Friedman 10 (Jacob reporter for thenextweb.com) 1/2/ “Obama Slashes NASA Constellation Program, Scientists Furious” http://thenextweb.com/us/2010/02/01/obama-slashes-nasa-constellation-program-scientists-furious/ RM

NASA scientists were severely disappointed to hear the news that President Obama is canceling the agency’s Constellation project in favor of less costly alternatives. The project, which hoped to put man back on the moon by 2020, is being shelved in favor of more unmanned probes, further experimentation on heavy-lift rocket systems and orbital tests of new technology. However, NASA scientists say that this decision will severely impede Mars exploration efforts, and represents a significant loss of existing resources. A NASA Scientist, who requested to remain unnamed, said that this decision will unnecessarily junk previous investments. “The Constellation program has had some serious issues, but it’s hard to build a rocket. Starting from scratch after spending $2 billion doesn’t seem like a particularly good idea, and a lot of engineers are going to lose their jobs because of this decision, “ she said. She added that, “What really irritates me about the decision is that now we won’t be going back to the Moon for ages. Robotic missions are fine, but we’ve been doing that for 50 years. if we want to go to Mars someday, we have to go to the Moon first.” In lieu of lunar exploration, the President has asked NASA to focus on Earth Observation. Combined with recent announcements regarding the privatization of the space program, this suggests that President Obama has grown tired with NASA’s persistent budgetary issues. By axing the trip to the Moon, Obama hopes to save resources for a potential future Mars trip. This would be fine if a Moon trip weren’t so important along the road to Mars. While the Moon trip would be a mere fraction of the length of the Mars mission, it’s a necessary proof of concept for the Mars mission. Certain systems necessary to survive an extraorbital mission cannot be tested in low Earth orbit. By making a manned trip to the Moon, these vital systems could be given the shakedown and test that they will need. If the Obama Administration doesn’t wish to give up on a manned mission to Mars, they should reverse their decision and keep the Constellation program alive, despite its many flaws.

Plan Unpopular – Obama

Obama doesn’t want constellation – he wants other space programs

Chow 11 (Denise writer for space.com) 1/13/ “The case against the moon: why we shouldn’t go strait back” http://www.marssociety.org/home/press/news/thecaseagainstthemoonwhyweshouldntgostraightback RM

NASA's now-canceled Constellation program, established during the administration of President George W. Bush, aimed to return American astronauts to the moon by 2020. As part of the roughly $9 billion program, NASA was charged with developing new Ares rockets and a space capsule called Orion that would act as a replacement for the agency's retiring space shuttle fleet. But President Obama's 2011 budget request effectively shut down the moon-oriented Constellation program and shifted the focus of future U.S. space exploration toward asteroids and Mars. On Oct. 11, 2010, Obama signed a major NASA act that turned these lofty goals into law. The signing officially scrapped the Constellation program and set the stage for a manned mission to an asteroid by 2025, followed by a manned mission to Mars, currently envisioned for some time in the 2030s.

Plan Popular – GOP

GOP hates Obama’s plan to cancel Constellation

Jagirdar 2010 (Sarabjit, “Obama Sets Eyes on Mars,” Indiana Pioneer, 17 Apr 2010, L/N)

"By 2025, we expect new spacecraft designed for long journeys to allow us to begin the first-ever crewed missions beyond the Moon into deep space. We'll start by sending astronauts to an asteroid for the first time in history," he said and went on to outline the Mars plan. Development of breakthrough propulsion systems and other advanced technologies will be critical to deep space exploration, he said and challenged NASA to break through these barriers. After Obama's address, Republicans stepped up their attack over scrapping the Constellation programme and termination of the space shuttles. Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison said that without a shuttle, US space flight options would continue to depend on countries like Russia and China. "The President's plan fails to guarantee American leadership in space and the American people and Congress will not settle for it," said the other Texas Senator John Cornyn.

Constellation massively popular with GOP

Nohlgren 2010 (Stephen, Times Staff Writer, “To Mars and Beyond, Obama Says,” St. Petersburg Times, 16 April L/N)

Obama has come under intense fire since February, when he killed Constellation, the Bush administration's strategy for returning to the moon by 2020. It came as a shock to aerospace workers, who already were facing massive layoffs when the space shuttle program ends this year - including a loss of up to 9,000 NASA-related jobs in Florida. Though without the space shuttle, the United States will have to hire the Russians Constellation was behind schedule and over budget, many had hoped its bigmission timetables would return prosperity to the Space Coast. Also, or yet-to-be-built commercial rockets to ferry astronauts to the International Space Station for years to come.

***China Cooperation***

Plan Unpopular – Congress (1/4)

Massive unpopular with China cooperation- white house and congress are fighting over jurisdiction

Yahoo news correspondent Mark Whittington , a writer residing in Houston, Texas. He is the author of The Last Moonwalker, Children of Apollo and Nocturne. He has written numerous articles, some for the Washington Post, USA Today, the LA Times, and the Houston Chronicle, 5/8/11“White House and Congress Clash Over NASA Funding, Space Cooperation with China”, http://contributor.yahoo.com/user/1659/mark_whittington.html//ZY

Another indication that President Barack Obama's 2012 NASA funding request was in trouble occurred when at a hearing of the House Appropriations commerce, justice, science subcommittee on May 3. White House science czar John Holdren came under some sharp questioning by Rep. Frank Wolf chairman of the subcommittee. The questioning revolved around the belief by Wolf that the administration is short changing the development of a heavy lift launcher and the Orion spacecraft that congress views as vital for the long term human exploration of space. The priorities of the administration include subsidies to commercial space firms, Earth science, and technology development. Wolf also questioned why NASA has not gotten a request for an increase of funding, even though some other science oriented agencies have gotten such requests. According to the account of the hearings on Space News, Wolf did not find Holdren's answers to be satisfactory. That suggests that there will be a renewed clash between the congress and the White House on space policy. The clash is not limited to funding and of space policy priorities. Space News also reports that the following day, on May 4, Holdren told members of the subcommittee that cooperation with China is seen as critical for prospects for long term space exploration, such as to Mars. This, mildly speaking, was not welcome news to members of the subcommittee. [ For complete coverage of politics and policy, go to Yahoo! Politics ] The problem is that China is currently ruled by a tyrannical regime that violates the human rights of its own people and is engaged in an imperial drive toward super power status at the expense of the United States. Congress has, in fact, passed a law prohibiting most forms of space and science cooperation with the People's Republic of China. The distrust Congress holds toward the administration where it comes to space policy is palatable. Members of Congress have expressed the view that NASA is slow walking the heavy lift launcher. Many are also pretty sure that the White House is trying to circumnavigate the law and is trying to find ways to cooperate with China despite the law. All of this points to the very real possibility that congress will use the power of the purse to restrict White House space policy options and to impose its own will on the future direction of NASA and space exploration. That this clash is happening at all is a direct result of a series of political blunders made by the administration dating back to the cancellation of the Constellation space exploration program and a lack of leadership on the part of the president.

No link turns – US China cooperation has zero political support

Taylor Dinerman, senior editor at the Hudson Institute’s New York branch and co-author of the forthcoming Towards a Theory of Spacepower: Selected Essays, from National Defense University Press, 8/23/04, “Dancing on eggs: US space cooperation with China”, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/212/1//jchen

The US response to China’s increasing role in space has been low key—so low key, as to be almost nonexistent. As far as one can tell, official Washington confined itself to a single statement of congratulations from NASA Administrator Sean O’Keefe. This is not a sign of any carefully laid-out strategy, and if there is any quiet space diplomacy going on, it is exceptionally well hidden. Instead, the US response to China’s space programs is based on several political factors. First of all, there is the failure of the US government to satisfactorily resolve the “Chinagate” issue left over from the Clinton Administration. The Cox Committee report conclusions that showed China’s comprehensive effort to steal US space technology to improve their ICBMs has been challenged but not disproved. Until there is some definitive answer to the question, “Did China use its commercial launch industry to steal militarily significant technology?” the US Government is going to find it difficult to cooperate with Beijing on anything other than a superficial level. Second, there is the lack of any desire on the part of NASA to stick its collective neck out and risk being told “Hell No!” by the Congress and the Administration. The agency has enough problems to deal with right now and does not need the added stress of trying to push forward a relationship that will not help achieve NASA’s vision or its goals. China might be able to help marginally, but not in the short run. Third, there is no real constituency inside the Washington foreign policy establishment pushing for US-Chinese space cooperation. The China desk at the State Department does not seem to be interested and the think tanks that deal with Asian issues also seem to lack any interest in making a real effort to work on space cooperation.

Plan Unpopular – Congress (2/4)

Opposition strong- suspicion of Chinas goals

CNN By Patrick Goodenough, CNSNews.com’s international editor, Pacific Rim-based correspondent for an American online news service, October 20, 2010, NASA Head’s Visit to China Makes Republican Lawmakers Uneasy “, http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/nasa-head-s-visit-china-makes-republican//ZY

(CNSNews.com) – NASA Administrator Charles Bolden is in China this week, on a five-day visit that has drawn opposition from some Republican members of Congress unhappy about the prospect of U.S.-Chinese cooperation in space. Chinese media outlets have given scant attention to Bolden’s visit, which began at the weekend, in stark contrast to the full coverage given to his predecessor when Michael Griffin in 2006 became the first NASA head to visit China. The Web site of the China National Space Administration (CNSA), one of the host organizations, appears to carry no information about the visit. U.S. and Chinese leaders agreed late last year that Bolden and his Chinese counterpart should pay reciprocal visits during 2010. In Beijing last November, President Obama and President Hu Jintao, in a joint communiqué, called for “expanding discussions on space science cooperation and starting a dialogue on human space flight and space exploration, based on the principles of transparency, reciprocity and mutual benefit.” In one of the only Chinese media reports to appear ahead of Bolden’s visit, the Communist Party-affiliated Global Times quoted a Chinese astronautics specialist as saying areas of bilateral cooperation could include GPS data-sharing, environmental protection and climate monitoring. On the eve of the trip, four GOP lawmakers asked Bolden to brief Congress when he returns. “As you know, we have serious concerns about the nature and goals of China’s space program and strongly oppose any cooperation between NASA and China,” the four wrote in a letter. “In light of the short notice and scant information provided before your departure to China, we respectfully request a full briefing with you upon your return.” Apart from details on subjects to be discussed and facilities visited, the members of Congress stressed that they wanted Bolden’s “personal assurance that at no time during your trip there were any discussions of cooperation on human space flight activities.” The letter was signed by U.S. Reps. Frank Wolf (Va.), John Culberson (Texas.) and Robert Aderholt (Ala.) – all members of the House Appropriations subcommittee responsible for the NASA budget – as well as Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (Calif.), a vocal critic of Beijing’s policies. “China’s intentions for its space program are questionable at best, and the American public deserves full disclosure about any discussions between that country and ours,” they wrote. Transparency China in 2003 became the third country in the world (after the U.S. and the former Soviet Union) to independently send a human into orbit. A two-man flight took place in 2005, followed by a 2008 mission incorporating a spacewalk. This month China launched a lunar probe tasked to take pictures of the moon’s surface, ahead of an unmanned landing planned for 2012. n an exchange of letters earlier this month, Wolf told Bolden, “It should go without saying that NASA has no business cooperating with the Chinese regime on human spaceflight. China is taking an increasingly aggressive posture globally, and their interests rarely intersect with ours.” “I need not remind you that no such planning or coordination has been approved by the Congress,” added the Virginia lawmaker, who stands in line to become the chairman of the Commerce, Justice and Science subcommittee should the Republicans win control of the House in next month’s election. Wolf also raised the visit by Bolden’s Chinese counterpart, due to take place in November. He requested a list of the NASA facilities to be visited and the security arrangements that would be in place. In his response, Bolden described his China trip as “introductory.” As for the reciprocal visit, he told Wolf no strategic or classified information would be relayed, and that NASA’s hosting of the Chinese visitors “will be guided by the degree of transparency and openness that is displayed during my visit.” Culberson also wrote to Obama this month, expressing “grave concerns about the nature and goals of China’s space program.” “Because of the military nature of China’s space program, Congress has set limitations on cooperation and discussions on human space flight collaboration, particularly without adequate consultation with Congress,” he pointed out. When Bolden’s predecessor, Griffin, traveled to China in Sept. 2006, he told a press briefing in Shanghai there were no plans then in the pipeline for cooperation with China in human spaceflight. The issue of transparency came up during the briefing, and although Griffin was diplomatic in his comments, it emerged that he had chosen not to visit China’s Jiuquan launch center in the remote Gobi desert because had he done so the tour would have been restricted to viewing the launch pad. “We were told we would not have access to the buildings and facilities where spacecraft were being built and tested and prepared for launch,” he said. “I’m not a tourist, this business is in fact my profession, and the interesting part of the visit would have been to see the engineering facilities and to discuss those processes … I have seen a lot of launch pads in my time and didn’t need to go that far to see another one.” Satellite shootdown A 2009 Pentagon report to Congress on Chinese military power said the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) was acquiring technologies to improve its space-based “Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance” – elements that were important in winning modern wars. “China is developing the ability to attack an adversary’s space assets,” the report said. It cited a PLA analysis of U.S. and coalition military operations, which stated that “destroying or capturing satellites and other sensors … will deprive the opponents of initiatives on the battlefield and [make it difficult] for them to bring their precision guided weapons into full play.” U.S. concerns deepened in early 2007 – less than four months after Griffin’s visit – when China launched a ground-based ballistic missile to destroy a Chinese weather satellite in orbit, some 500 miles above the Earth. Again, China become just the third country, after the U.S. and Soviet Union, to shoot down an object in space. The successful test of an anti-satellite (ASAT) weapon prompted the then head of U.S. Pacific Command, Adm. Timothy Keating, to remark that the action “is not necessarily a clear indication of a desire for peaceful utilization in space.” The 2009 Pentagon report said the ASAT launch “demonstrates that the PLA’s interest in counterspace systems is more than theoretical.” “In addition to the ‘kinetic kill’ capability demonstrated by the ASAT test, the PLA is developing the ability to jam, blind, or otherwise disable satellites and their terrestrial support infrastructure,” it said.

Plan Unpopular – Congress (3/4)

Congress banned China cooperation- the plan would be political suicide for Obama

Science NAAAS, 5/4/11, “Holdren's Response to Ban on China Science Partnerships Draws GOP Ire”, http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/05/holdrens-response-to-ban-on-china.html//ZY

The ban is part of the 2011 budget approved last month to avert a government shutdown. It was crafted by Representative Frank Wolf (R-VA), a fierce critic of China who chairs a House spending committee that oversees several science agencies. The ban says that no funds can be used by NASA or the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) "to develop, design, plan, promulgate, implement or execute a bilateral policy, program, order, or contract of any kind to participate, collaborate, or coordinate bilaterally in any way with China or any Chinese-owned company." It also prevents any NASA facility from hosting "official Chinese visitors." Appearing today before that panel to defend the Administration's 2012 budget request for science, presidential advisor John Holdren told Wolf that, in effect, the ban doesn't apply to the president's ability to conduct foreign policy. That authority, Holdren explained, extends to a bilateral agreement on scientific cooperation that Holdren and China's science minister signed in January that builds upon a 1979 pact that has spawned activities between many U.S. agencies and their Chinese counterparts. Wolf asked Holdren for his interpretation of the budget language. "It is our intent to live within the terms of that prohibition insofar as doing so is consistent with my responsibilities to execute the president's constitutional authority," said Holdren. "I have been instructed after appropriate consultation ... that the prohibition should not be read as prohibiting interactions that are part of the president's constitutional authority to conduct negotiations. At the same time, there obviously are a variety of aspects of that prohibition that very much apply to OSTP, and we will be looking at that on a case-by-case basis." Wolf initially seemed satisfied with that answer. "Could you keep the committee informed, on a case-by-case basis, anytime you are doing anything at all with China when you think that it might in conflict with that language?" he asked Holdren after hearing that explanation. "We'd be happy to do that," Holdren replied. But that would not be the last word on the subject. Panel members returned time and again to the issue. One notable exchange involved Representative John Culberson (R-TX), who, after a whispered conversation with Wolf, began to grill Holdren about what he viewed as the Administration's deliberate attempt to get around the language: note in your response to the chairman that the administration has decided that negotiations the president conducts are an exemption to the policy adopted by Congress… The president just signed into law an absolute, iron-clad, and unambiguous requirement that none of the funds be made available to the administration may be used by NASA or your office… [to carry out] a bilateral policy with China or any Chinese-owned company. It's not ambiguous or confusing. But you've just told us that you have embarked on a policy to evade and avoid this very specific requirement. Holdren tried to deflect Culberson's attack. "You can argue that point with me until the cows come home," he replied. "But I'm not a lawyer, and I will lose." But Culberson wasn't ready to drop it. In fact, he then warned Holdren about the possibly dire consequences flowing from the Administration's interpretation of the language: You need to remember that Congress enacts these laws and it's the chief executive's job to enforce them. ... Now if anyone in your office, or at NASA, participates or collaborates or coordinates in any way with China, you're in violation of the statute. And frankly, you're endangering your funding and NASA's funding ... and it's up to the chairman and this committee to decide how to enforce the law or what remedies are available. ... You have a huge problem on your hands. The issue was by far the most contentious topic covered in the 2½ hour hearing, which also examined science education, space exploration, environmental and energy policy, and overall funding trends. And before it ended, Holdren had conceded that some planned bilateral activities with China might fall outside the exemption. "My assumption is that there will be some activities that will be precluded," he told ScienceInsider after the hearing. "The question is what we can and cannot do. And as I told the chairman, we'll be reviewing them on a case-by-case basis."

Plan Unpopular – Congress (4/4)

Massive Congressional opposition exists to space cooperation with China

Brown 10 (Peter J., Satellite Journalist – Asia Times, “Asia Takes Stock of New US Space Policy”, Asia Times, 7-16, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/LG16Df02.html)

A new National Space Policy issued by United States President Barack Obama's administration in late June emphasized the important role of international cooperation in space and demonstrated the apparent willingness of the US to begin work on a space weapons treaty. [1] As the three major space powers in Asia - China, India and Japan - assess the new policy, they must pay close attention not only to the details, but also to the harsh political winds that are buffeting Obama these days. Some see China as the big winner in this instance, while others see India and Japan coming out on top. "[The new US space policy] which lays out broad themes and goals, does not lend itself to such determination for a specific country," said Subrata Ghoshroy, a research associate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Program in Science, Technology, and Society. However, he added, "countries like India and Japan are expected to benefit more". From the start, however, Obama's overhaul of both the US space sector as a whole and the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) in particular has encountered stiff opposition in the US Congress. That opposition is likely to intensify as November's mid-term elections approach. In the US Senate, attempts are being made to toss aside Obama's domestic space sector agenda. [2] Political infighting aside, it is not just US conservatives who do not want the US to embrace China in space. "Many members of the Obama administration and a large majority of the members of Congress are opposed to cooperation with China in space. They want to deny China status as a member in good standing of the international community of space-faring nations," said Gregory Kulacki, senior analyst and China Project Manager for the Global Security Program at the Massachusetts-based Union of Concerned Scientists. "Many believe they have not earned that right. At the same time, however, they have not specified what China must do to earn it. Some tie cooperation in space to human rights. Others connect cooperation in space it to other troublesome issues in the bilateral relationship."

Congress hates china co-op

Day 5 (Dwayne A., Program Officer – Space Studies Board of the National Research Council, “Mysterious Dragon: Myth and Reality of the Chinese Space Program”, The Space Review, 11-7, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/ 492/1)

The bottom line for the speakers was that absent a dramatic policy change in either Washington or Beijing, international cooperation in space is not going to happen in the near future. Either Beijing will have to change its military, foreign policy, and human rights policies, or Washington will need an entirely new presidential administration and Congress. Several of the speakers—not known as critical of White House policy—suggested that the United States was missing an important opportunity to engage China. Fly a single taikonaut aboard a space shuttle to the ISS, one of them suggested, and instantly the United States is back in a clear leadership position regarding China. Another indicated that cooperating with China would give the United States access to Chinese rocket and space experts, and give the Chinese an incentive to “play nice” internationally. Cooperation could take place on several levels. The lowest would be data sharing and cooperation on robotic scientific missions. Higher level cooperation could be commercial efforts and human spaceflight. However, ever since the 1998 “Cox Report” from Congress, there has been strong opposition within Congress to even the most basic space cooperation with China.

Plan Unpopular – Republicans (1/4)

Wolf and Culberson hate the plan – they distrust Chinese intentions

Keith Richburg, Washington Post staff writer, Staff researchers Liu Liu in Beijing and Wang Juan in Shanghai, 1/22/11, “Mistrust stalls U.S.-China space cooperation”//jchen

Last fall, when NASA administrator Charles F. Bolden Jr. visited China to explore areas where the two countries could cooperate in space, two senior Republican members of Congress - Reps. Frank R. Wolf (Va.) and John Abney Culberson (Tex.) - wrote to Bolden beforehand to protest, saying they had "serious concerns about the nature and goals of China's space program" and warning that "China's intentions for its space program are questionable at best." Since Republicans won control of the House in November's elections, Wolf now chairs the House Appropriations Committee's commerce, justice and science subcommittee, which oversees NASA's budget, and Culberson is a senior subcommittee member.

Republicans oppose china space co-op- threatened by china’s technology and potential space dominance

China Times, 2011-01-06, US-China Cooperation May Not Reach Final Frontier: Report.://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?cid=1104&MainCatID=11&id=20110106000008//ZY

The prospect of US-China cooperation in space is fading with the White House's escalating wariness of Beijing's growing space power, according to an article from Reuters. China and the United States released a joint statement in 2009 to call for closer "cooperation in space exploration on the basis of mutual benefit and reciprocity" when US President Barack Obama met Chinese President Hu Jintao in Beijing. However, the idea of joint ventures in space including spacewalks and exploration has dimmed on both sides, says Jim Wolf, author of the analysis. One reason is the US government's grave concern over the unintentional transfer of technology through cooperation and exchanges. Another obstacle, according to the analysis, comes from the Republicans regaining control of the House of Representatives in the mid-term congressional elections in November. Frank Wolf, a Republican and chairman of the appropriation subcommittee that funds the US space agency, has faulted NASA's chief for meeting leaders of China's Manned Space Engineering Office in October. "As you know, we have serious concerns about the nature and goals of China's space program and strongly oppose any cooperation between NASA and China," Wolf and three fellow Republican congressmen said after NASA administrator's visit to China in October. China in 2008 became the third country to send astronauts on a spacewalk outside an orbiting craft and launched its second moon orbiter in October. Beijing's anti-satellite test in January 2007 further complicated possible cooperation on both sides when the Chinese government used a ground-based missile to knock out one of its inactive weather satellites in high polar orbit, an act which Wallace Gregson, assistant US secretary of defense for Asian and Pacific security affairs described as "destabilizing." "It has become increasingly evident that China is pursuing a long-term, comprehensive military buildup that could upend the regional security balance," according to Gregson. The Heritage Foundation, a conservative US thinktank, called on members of the incoming Congress to be wary of any space cooperation with China on the grounds it could bolster Beijing's knowledge and harm US security, the analysis said. In a sense, [space] cooperation would be more of a political project than a technical one, said Gregory Kulacki, China project manager for the Union of Concerned Scientists, a group often at odds with US policy. "We need to get past the idea that the Chinese need us more than we need them," he said.

Plan Unpopular – Republicans (2/4)

China co-op alienates republicans- committed to stopping Obama

Reuters 1/3/2011 “Space: A frontier too far for U.S.-China cooperation”, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40897403/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/space-frontier-too-far-us-china-cooperation///ZY

WASHINGTON — The prospects for cooperation between the United States and China in space are fading even as proponents say working together in the heavens could help build bridges in often-testy relations on Earth. The idea of joint ventures in space, including spacewalks, explorations and symbolic "feelgood" projects, have been floated from time to time by leaders on both sides. Efforts have gone nowhere over the past decade, swamped by economic, diplomatic and security tensions, despite a 2009 attempt by President Barack Obama and his Chinese counterpart, Hu Jintao, to kick-start the bureaucracies. U.S. domestic politics make the issue unlikely to advance when Obama hosts Hu at the White House on Jan. 19. Washington is at odds with Beijing over its currency policies and huge trade surplus but needs China's help to deter North Korea and Iran's nuclear ambitions and advance global climate and trade talks, among other matters. Hu's state visit will highlight the importance of expanding cooperation on "bilateral, regional and global issues," the White House said. But space appears to be a frontier too far for now, partly due to U.S. fears of an inadvertent technology transfer. China may no longer be much interested in any event, reckoning it does not need U.S. expertise for its space program. New obstacles to cooperation have come from the Republicans capturing control of the House of Representatives in the Nov. 2 congressional elections from Obama's Democrats. Repr. Frank Wolf, R-Va., for instance, is set to take over as chairman of the appropriations subcommittee that funds the U.S. space agency in the House. A China critic and human rights firebrand, the Republican congressman has faulted NASA's chief for meeting leaders of China's Manned Space Engineering Office in October. "As you know, we have serious concerns about the nature and goals of China's space program and strongly oppose any cooperation between NASA and China," Wolf and three fellow Republicans wrote NASA Administrator Charles Bolden on Oct. 15 as he left for China. U.S. officials say China's capabilities could threaten U.S. space assets in low orbit. The Chinese test also created a large cloud of orbital debris that may last for 100 years, boosting the risk to manned spaceflight and to hundreds of satellites belonging to more than two dozen countries. China's work on anti-satellite weapons is "destabilizing," Wallace Gregson, assistant U.S. secretary of defense for Asian and Pacific security affairs, said in December, also citing its investment in anti-ship missiles, advanced submarines, surface-to-air missiles and computer warfare techniques. "It has become increasingly evident that China is pursuing a long-term, comprehensive military buildup that could upend the regional security balance," Gregson told a forum hosted by the Progressive Policy Institute in Washington. The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, called on members of the incoming Congress to be wary of any space cooperation with China on the grounds it could bolster Beijing's knowledge and harm U.S. security. "Congress should reject (the Obama) administration attempts to curry favor with the international community while placing U.S. advantages in space at risk," Dean Cheng, a Heritage research fellow for Chinese political and security affairs, and two colleagues said in a Dec. 15 memo to lawmakers. Proponents of cooperation say even symbolic steps, such as hosting a Chinese astronaut on the International Space Station, might help win friends in Beijing and blunt hard-liners. Gregory Kulacki, China project manager for the Union of Concerned Scientists, a group often at odds with U.S. policy, said cooperation would be more of a political project than a technical one. "We need to get past the idea that the Chinese need us more than we need them," he said.

Plan Unpopular – Republicans (3/4)

Co-op with China pisses off the GOP-also turns the case because it means cooperation in the long term is impossible

Page 10 (Jeremy, China Correspondent – WSJ, “Orbital Paths of U.S., China Set to Diverge”, Wall Street Journal, 10-29, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303891804575575904021690456.html)

The Obama administration's space policy, released earlier this year, went further than any previous administration in emphasizing international cooperation and Gen. Bolden has frequently spoken about its importance, with aides suggesting China could play a key role. But with Republicans expected to regain control of the House of Representatives in next month's mid-term elections—and China looming large as a campaign issue—experts now deem it unlikely that there will be real progress on joint manned missions in Mr. Obama's first term, and possibly for the next decade. "In the short term, I think there is little chance of such joint missions. I don't think Congress would accept it," said Peter Bond, consultant editor of the Jane's Space Systems & Industry directory. Dean Cheng, an expert on China's space program at the Heritage Foundation, said: "Any effort to push manned spaceflight cooperation without the necessary groundwork and high-level support is far more likely to lead to disappointment and frustration, retarding future cooperation." The controversy highlights the volatility of U.S.-China relations over the last year, with overlapping disputes on the value of China's currency, U.S.arms sales to Taiwan, Beijing's territorial claims and U.S.support for a Chinese dissident who won the Nobel Peace Prize. It also speaks to the longer-term anxiety in Washington—compounded since the 2008 financial crisis—about how China plans to use its rapidly expanding economic, military and technological power, and whether it could one day become more powerful than the U.S. "Ambivalence about human space cooperation with China reflects the mixed view of China's role in the world," said Scott Pace, director of the Space Policy Institute. "Any major cooperation with China will likely require a long period of building common understanding, transparency, and trust." China sent its first astronaut into space in 2003, launched its second unmanned lunar probe this month, and by 2025 plans to become the second country after the U.S. to land a man on the moon. The U.S., by contrast, canceled its manned lunar program in February and is due to ground its space shuttle fleet next year, relying entirely on Russia, at least through the first half of the decade, to take astronauts to the International Space Station. Yet opposition in the U.S. to space cooperation with China appears to be growing, even as the European Space Agency and other countries deepen their engagement with Beijing. ESA, for example, has helped China monitor its satellites, worked with it to explore the Earth's magnetic field, and advocated its participation in the ISS—currently run by the U.S., Russia, Canada, Japan, Brazil and ESA's 11 members. A Chinese astronaut is also participating in a joint exercise with Russia and ESA to simulate a 500-day flight to Mars and back. "Cooperation with Europe has been much better," said Huang Hai, a professor at the Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics. "The biggest problem with the United States and China is that the two sides don't trust each other enough." He said some Chinese space experts had been refused visas to attend conferences in the U.S., and would often arrange to meet U.S. colleagues in Europe instead. U.S. antipathy stems in large part from the 1999 Cox Committee congressional report that alleged that China stole U.S. space technology, partly by launching U.S.commercial satellites, to help develop its nuclear missile program. Fears about China's intentions were exacerbated when it shot down one of its own weather satellites in 2007 to test its ballistic missile capability. President Obama tried to move past that when he met China's President Hu Jintao in Beijing in November last year and agreed that Gen. Bolden and his Chinese counterpart would exchange visits this year. A joint statement during Mr. Obama's visit included the line: "The United States and China look forward to expanding discussions on space science cooperation and starting a dialogue on human space flight and space exploration, based on the principles of transparency, reciprocity and mutual benefit." However, the letter ahead of Gen. Bolden's trip to China, from Republican lawmakers Frank Wolf of Virginia, John Culberson of Texas and Robert Aderholt of Alabama—all on the House Appropriations subcommittee responsible for the NASA budget—as well as Rep. Dana Rohrabacher of California, asked for his "personal assurance" that he wouldn't discuss cooperation on human space flights.

Plan Unpopular – Republicans (4/4)

Republicans oppose china space co-op- threatened by china’s technology and potential space dominance

China Times, 2011-01-06, US-China Cooperation May Not Reach Final Frontier: Report.://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?cid=1104&MainCatID=11&id=20110106000008//ZY

The prospect of US-China cooperation in space is fading with the White House's escalating wariness of Beijing's growing space power, according to an article from Reuters. China and the United States released a joint statement in 2009 to call for closer "cooperation in space exploration on the basis of mutual benefit and reciprocity" when US President Barack Obama met Chinese President Hu Jintao in Beijing. However, the idea of joint ventures in space including spacewalks and exploration has dimmed on both sides, says Jim Wolf, author of the analysis. One reason is the US government's grave concern over the unintentional transfer of technology through cooperation and exchanges. Another obstacle, according to the analysis, comes from the Republicans regaining control of the House of Representatives in the mid-term congressional elections in November. Frank Wolf, a Republican and chairman of the appropriation subcommittee that funds the US space agency, has faulted NASA's chief for meeting leaders of China's Manned Space Engineering Office in October. "As you know, we have serious concerns about the nature and goals of China's space program and strongly oppose any cooperation between NASA and China," Wolf and three fellow Republican congressmen said after NASA administrator's visit to China in October. China in 2008 became the third country to send astronauts on a spacewalk outside an orbiting craft and launched its second moon orbiter in October. Beijing's anti-satellite test in January 2007 further complicated possible cooperation on both sides when the Chinese government used a ground-based missile to knock out one of its inactive weather satellites in high polar orbit, an act which Wallace Gregson, assistant US secretary of defense for Asian and Pacific security affairs described as "destabilizing." "It has become increasingly evident that China is pursuing a long-term, comprehensive military buildup that could upend the regional security balance," according to Gregson. The Heritage Foundation, a conservative US thinktank, called on members of the incoming Congress to be wary of any space cooperation with China on the grounds it could bolster Beijing's knowledge and harm US security, the analysis said. In a sense, [space] cooperation would be more of a political project than a technical one, said Gregory Kulacki, China project manager for the Union of Concerned Scientists, a group often at odds with US policy. "We need to get past the idea that the Chinese need us more than we need them," he said.

Plan Unpopular – Wolf

Frank opposes clean tech

By Matthew Robertson, a Canberran and a student of China. He was educated at the Australian National University and the National Chengchi University in Taipei, Taiwan. He is now based in Washington, D.C., where he works for the international newspaper The Epoch Times as reporter, and sometime editor and translator, of China news. He also reads and reviews books, Jun 14, 2011 “Wolf’s Clause Imperils (Some of) Administration’s China Plans Bill blocks U.S.-China cooperation on science, space” http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/united-states/bill-keeps-nasa-technology-out-of-china-57689.html//ZY
While none of that is new to Rep. Frank Wolf, the straw that broke the camel’s back was the suggestion by the Obama administration—first made when the president went to Beijing in November 2009, and reiterated when Chairman of the Communist Party Hu Jintao visited Washington in January—that the United States cooperate with China in human space flight.
The scope of the cooperation would have extended to “hands-on, bilateral, human space flight technology sharing, training sharing, and critical national secrets or expertise, giving that to the Chinese,” according to Wolf’s staff member, who was not authorized to speak publicly. “We look at this and say: 'How does that administration not get this?'”Wolf made his position clear in his testimony to the U.S.-China Commission in May: “The U.S. has no business cooperating with the PLA to help develop its space program.”
Cooperation with China on human space flight, would, according to Richard Fisher, an analyst and author on the Chinese military, “In essence … constitute a free transfer of technology.”
The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) leads China’s space efforts, and there is no real difference between China’s military and civil space programs, experts say. Wolf thus asserts, “There is no reason to believe that the PLA’s space program will be any more benign than the PLA’s recent military posture.”

Wolf hates the plan – he’s in charge of NASA funding

Marcia Smith, President of the Space and Technology Policy Group, Space Policy, “Rep. Wolf Reaffirms Opposition to Space Cooperation with China”, 5/11/11, http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/pages/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1563:rep-wolf-reaffirms-opposition-to-space-cooperation-with-china&catid=91:news&Itemid=84//jchen

Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), chairman of the House appropriations subcomittee that funds NASA, restated his well known opposition to U.S. space cooperation with China at a hearing of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission today. The commission was created by Congress in 2000 to report on the national security implications of the trade and economic relationships between the two countries. It held a hearing today about the implications of China's military and civil space activities. Witnesses included DOD's Greg Schulte and Rep. Wolf as well as two panels of experts. Rep. Wolf's statement was circulated by his staff. He began by expressing disappointment that NASA declined to participate in the hearing and that it was "reflective of this administration's abysmal record on American leadership in space."

Plan Popular – Political Capital

Co-op is politically better for Obama

Faith 10 (G. Ryan G. Ryan Faith is an independent technology consultant and Adjunct Fellow for Space Initiatives at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, (CSIS). CSIS is a private, tax-exempt institution focusing on international public policy issues) 4/26/ “President Obamas vision for Space exploration (part 2)” http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1616/1 RM

Although neither President Bush’s nor President Obama’s plan for space exploration particularly emphasized international cooperation, a cooperative approach could potentially yield greater political and budgetary sustainability, albeit at the risk of higher global project costs. In examining the programmatic tradeoffs associated with international cooperation, it is important to recognize that items which are contributed or procured by other partner nations are subject to different political trends, election cycles, and budgeting constraints, which in and of itself acts as a form of political and budgetary risk portfolio diversification. In addition to moving specific programs out of the purview of the American political cycle, international cooperation makes the decision to cancel a major program, such as the International Space Station, a potential diplomatic liability, strengthening the political safety of American programs involving foreign partners

Plan Popular – Republicans

Republicans support China space cooperation- unrecognized support brought out by Obama pushing

Jeffrey Manber is an adviser to organizations and companies on international space issues. Manber is also the author of "Selling Peace" on the successful campaign by Russians to impose a commercial space market on the NASA of the 1990's, Northwestern University, BA in Psychology, 4/20/2009 10:00 AM CDT. “Republican Support for China Cooperation” http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/space/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3A04ce340e-4b63-4d23-9695-d49ab661f385Post%3Abf5781ee-f79c-4f91-a289-e8a0dc2ac444//ZY

Republican Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama told a recent editorial meeting at the Huntsville Times that the United States should engage China on space cooperation. Though acknowledging the concerns, the highly partisan Senator, who is also a fierce defender of Marshall Spaceflight Center, said the opportunities were too great to just “push them in the corner.” I found a video of some of his remarks on China. . Times reporter Shelby G. Spires in an April 14th print story, covered more of the Senator's comments. He quotes the Republican leader as suggesting that “because NASA is facing shrinking budgets to achieve its goals, it may be necessary to expand and look for other nations to join the station program. Shelby said it would be in the United States' interest to work with China on a station partnership.” What would have once been an impossible comment from a southern Republican politician is yet another sign of the emerging new world order for NASA. Or what should be a new opportunity for NASA. We have entered a period where politicians are now most engaged on issues of trade and jobs. It is a balancing act where trade considerations have far more weight than the once triumphed political symbolism of our space program. And with each new program triumph from India and China, the concerns of technology transfer also lessen. The motivation for the Senator is not difficult to understand. Consider that China is now the number four export destination for Alabama products, with a total market value of over $800 million dollars. The only markets that are more vital for Alabama jobs are those in Germany, Canada and Mexico. That represents a lot of jobs. This is the new reality utmost in the minds of politicians. Shelby did speak of the technology transfer dangers, specifically mentioning the support the Chinese received from satellite manufacturers in the mid 1990’s, but he clearly supports inviting China into NASA programs. Nor will this new willingness of NASA supporters to engage more aggressively with trading partners begin and end with China, I have a hunch. Looking through a table of Alabama exports, I was startled to discover that Alabama exports to Russia leaped a staggering 830% last year, from a paltry $33 million to $300 million. Michael J. Brooks at the Alabama International Trade Center broke the numbers down further for me, explaining that two thirds of that growth was due to Russian buying of Alabama frozen poultry, and one third for what seems to be modifications of existing Russian aircraft. Here’s the bottom line: I have this feeling that there is untapped political support for NASA to reach out to China and continue engagement with Russia. The untapped support is in a geographical band that stretches from the deep South to the entire breadth of the West Coast, reflecting the huge trade with China that exists in those states. If President Obama and the new space team choose to think of NASA less as political symbolism and more as a trading opportunity, his administration will find bi-partisan support from a new generation of space supporters.

*****Election Politics*****

***Space – Generic***

Election Issue – NASA

NASA budget big issue in elections

Scott J. Cameron (irector of Grant Thornton LLP, works with government agencies to help them improve the effectiveness and efficiency of their organizations. He is a principal of the Council for Excellence in Government.) 5/23/11 “Managing an unsettled environment” http://www.nasa.gov/offices/oce/appel/ask/issues/42/42i_managing_unsettled_environment.html RM

More than half the fiscal year had elapsed before Congress and the president finally came to closure on annual funding on April 8, 2011. Unprecedented debate over how deep budget cuts needed to be this year represented a break in a pattern that goes back at least half a century, which saw presidents typically requesting less money than Congress eventually appropriated. While the debate over the FY2012 funding level has barely gotten started, House leadership is talking about cuts on the order of $6.2 trillion over the next decade, while the president is also beginning to signal an interest in further reductions after FY2012. Even the Senate is talking about freezing some FY2012 spending at the FY2011 level. Given increased costs due to inflation, even a freeze constitutes a cut in real dollars. At NASA, these fiscal challenges are compounded by programmatic changes. The Space Shuttle program is coming to an end. Constellation is slowly winding down, using precious financial resources in its last months that could be used productively elsewhere. The year 2012 will see the return of a presidential election race and its focus on politics and political advantage. Preoccupation with politics will be heightened by the divided party control in Congress, with the Democratically controlled Senate and the Republican-controlled House each looking for ways to score political points. In such situations, sound, public policy-making can be impeded by political considerations, which often lead to stalemate and inaction.

Hurts Obama

Pressure on the budget good

Amy Klamper (reporter for space news) 11/5/10 “Election Result could increase pressure on NASA budget” http://www.spacenews.com/policy/101103-election-brings-new-leadership-nasa-oversight-committees.html RM

WASHINGTON — The takeover of the U.S. House of Representatives by Republicans promising a new era of fiscal restraint has spawned concerns that NASA’s budget will suffer, but lawmakers poised to assume key committee chairmanships next year have been strong supporters of the space agency. As of press time, the Republicans had picked up 60 seats in the House as a result of the Nov. 2 elections, well above the 39 needed to regain the majority when the new Congress convenes in January. While the Senate will remain under Democratic control, Republicans picked up seats in that chamber as well. Opinions vary on what the House leadership change means for NASA, although there is some agreement that the agency, already struggling with a mismatch between the programs it is charged with executing and the funding it has available, will face additional downward pressure on its budget. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), for example, the presumptive speaker of the House, has pledged to cut domestic federal spending to 2008 levels, a move that could put the $19 billion authorized by Congress for NASA in 2011 in jeopardy. Boehner voted against that measure, which ultimately passed and was signed into law by U.S. President Barack Obama Oct. 11. “We’re ready to cut spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels, saving taxpayers $100 billion almost immediately,” Boehner said in a weekly Republican address Oct. 30. “And we’re ready to put in place strict budget caps that limit spending from here on out, to ensure that Washington is no longer on this spending binge.” In a written response to a Space News question, Bill Adkins, a former professional staff member on the House Science and Technology Committee, said in previous years NASA’s budget was spared from freezes while other nondefense agencies saw their budgets held flat. “But the game is changing,” said Adkins, now principal with the Center for Strategic Space Studies here. “The current [2011] budget may be NASA’s high-water mark for a while.” Adkins said if NASA’s budget is pared back to 2008 levels — effectively a 10 percent cut to the $19 billion authorized for next year — the agency could be forced to address fundamental questions about the size and scope of its mission. Such cuts might be a harder sell in the Senate, Adkins said, but he noted that budget hawks there are emboldened. Adkins said the specter of looming spending cuts is not all bad for NASA. “It may be counterintuitive, but a little budget pressure may actually provide clarity to the choices the agency faces and hasten the process of focusing on solutions, but it’s a delicate balance,” he said. “Cut too deep and the country risks losing irreplaceable capabilities.” Marcia Smith, a space policy consultant here and editor of SpacePolicyOnline.com, was more blunt in her assessment. “The Republican takeover of the House is not good news for NASA,” Smith said in a written response to a question from Space News. “It’s not that Republicans don’t like NASA. … But they love NASA more in good economic times than in bad, and these are really bad economic times.”

Popular-Public(1/2)

NASA missions popular with Public

Jones 9 (Jeffery, Gallup Polls, “Majority of Americans Say Space Program Costs Justified” July 19 2009 < http://www.gallup.com/poll/121736/majority-americans-say-space-program-costs-justified.aspx>

PRINCETON, NJ -- On the eve of the 40th anniversary of the U.S. moon landing, a majority of Americans say the space program has brought enough benefits to justify its costs. The percentage holding this view is now at 58% and has increased over time. Notably, those old enough to remember the historic moon landing are actually somewhat less likely than those who are younger to think the space program's costs are justified. Among Americans aged 50 and older (who were at least 10 years old when the moon landing occurred), 54% think the space program's benefits justify its costs, compared with 63% of those aged 18-49.

74% of Americans Approve of Nasa

Moore 3 (David, “Support for NASA Shuttle Flights Remains Firm” Gallup Polls. < http://www.gallup.com/poll/7807/support-nasa-shuttle-flights-remains-firm.aspx>)

PRINCETON, NJ -- A new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll conducted a week after the shuttle Columbia broke apart during re-entry into earth's atmosphere finds that Americans continue to give widespread support to the NASA program. Support for funding is actually somewhat higher than what was measured 3 years ago, and a slim majority of Americans favor a continued focus on manned rather than unmanned missions. The poll also shows that about 3 in 10 Americans would themselves like to take a space shuttle flight sometime in the future, slightly fewer than wanted to be a shuttle passenger 12 years ago.

The poll, conducted Feb. 7-9, finds that 25% of Americans would like funding for the U.S. space program increased and another 49% would like it maintained at current levels. About one in four Americans (24%) prefer decreased spending, including 7% who say spending should be ended altogether.

Obama spared NASA huge cuts – winning back some support

Althea Fung (Althea A. Fung is a staff reporter for National Journal) 5/25/11 “Obama grounding space program, astronauts say” http://www.nationaljournal.com/obama-grounding-space-program-astronauts-say-20110525 RM

The American voyage into the unknown territories of space is over with President Obama’s failure to fund the space program, according to an USA Today opinion piece by astronauts Neil Armstrong, Jim Lovell, and Gene Cernan. According to the three, each of whom commanded missions to the moon, previous administrations have kept in line with former President Kennedy’s vision to explore the deepest pockets of our universe by funding various programs throughout the years. In 2005, NASA launched the Constellation program, which sought to send another astronaut to explore the moon and eventually Mars. But in his 2011 budget proposal, Obama failed to include funding, which would virtually end the program. “Obama’s advisers, in searching for a new and different NASA strategy with which the president could be favorably identified, ignored NASA’s operational mandate and strayed widely from President Kennedy’s vision,” the astronauts said. While Congress passed a bill that would allow NASA to develop rockets capable of carrying humans to the moon, Obama’s 2012 budget reduced the program's funding significantly, Armstrong wrote. In 2010, Obama predicted his plans for the space program would put an astronaut on Mars by the 2030s, promising $6 billion over five years to the agency. Though the astronauts feel Obama has hacked up the space program, NASA was largely spared big cuts in Obama’s budget proposal. The president’s plan matched the 2010 funding of $18.7 billion but lacked the $2 billion promised to the space operation program.

Popular-Public(2/2)

Obama meeting resistance with cuts – changing peoples views

Jim Abrams (Associated press writer) 9/30/10 “Congress backs Obama plan on NASA’s future” http://www.physorg.com/news205043051.html RM

(AP) -- Congress approved a blueprint for NASA's future Wednesday that extends the life of the space shuttle program for a year while backing President Barack Obama's intent to use commercial carriers to lift humans into near-Earth space. The bill passed by the House on a 304-118 vote brings major changes to NASA's space agenda: It dismantles the Constellation program under which former President George W. Bush sought to return astronauts to the moon, and extends the life of the International Space Station from 2015 to 2020. The Senate passed the measure last month. The bill relies mainly on the still-nascent commercial space industry to transport astronauts to the space station over the next five years. But in a nod to lawmakers concerned about NASA employees being laid off, it also continues to fund the shuttle program through the end of the current budget year a year from now. That would allow one last space shuttle mission following the mission planned for February. NASA administrator Charles Bolden Jr. said the bill, which approves more than $58 billion in spending over the next three years, would foster the president's goals of extending the life of the space station, launching a commercial space transportation industry, fostering new technology and creating thousands of new jobs. Obama, in pushing for the end of the Constellation program, said it was implausible under current budget restraints and that NASA was siphoning off funds from other programs. He told NASA workers at Cape Canaveral, Fla., in April that he was committed to manned space flight and envisioned sending astronauts to near-Earth asteroids in the near future as a prelude to trips to Mars in the coming decades. His plan met resistance from the space industry, former astronauts and lawmakers who said it was risky to put too much reliance on commercial flights while NASA develops a next-generation heavy-lift rocket to carry people to those asteroids and Mars. The compromise bill approved by the Senate last month goes along with most of Obama's goals while extending the life of the shuttle and directing NASA to move immediately to develop the next heavy launch vehicle. Article

Popular- Florida

NASA is massively popular in Florida- a state key to Obamas reelection

St. Petersburg Times, April 21, 2011 ,TAMPA BAY; THE BUZZ: ON FLORIDA POLITICS; Pg. 7B, Lexis //ZY

President Barack Obama and his family will attend the space shuttle launch April 29 at Kennedy Space Center, the White House said. Obama is already scheduled to be in the state to deliver a commencement address at Miami-Dade College. The two-fer gives Obama added exposure in a state key to his re-election. The launch of Endeavour is NASA's next-to-last shuttle flight. The mission will be led by Mark Kelly, husband of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, who may attend as well, her first public appearance since being shot in January

Unpop- Public (1/2)

No support for space exploration- public lost passion

The Economist, Jun 30th 2011 “The end of the Space Age Inner space is useful. Outer space is history”, http://www.economist.com/node/18897425?Story_ID=18897425//KJ

The reason for that second objective is also the reason for thinking 2011 might, in the history books of the future, be seen as the year when the space cadets’ dream finally died. It marks the end of America’s space-shuttle programme, whose last mission is planned to launch on July 8th (see article, article). The shuttle was supposed to be a reusable truck that would make the business of putting people into orbit quotidian. Instead, it has been nothing but trouble. Twice, it has killed its crew. If it had been seen as the experimental vehicle it actually is, that would not have been a particular cause for concern; test pilots are killed all the time. But the pretence was maintained that the shuttle was a workaday craft. The technical term used by NASA, “Space Transportation System”, says it all. But the shuttle is now over. The ISS is due to be de-orbited, in the inelegant jargon of the field, in 2020. Once that happens, the game will be up. There is no appetite to return to the moon, let alone push on to Mars, El Dorado of space exploration. The technology could be there, but the passion has gone—at least in the traditional spacefaring powers, America and Russia. The space cadets’ other hope, China, might pick up the baton. Certainly it claims it wishes, like President John Kennedy 50 years ago, to send people to the surface of the moon and return them safely to Earth. But the date for doing so seems elastic. There is none of Kennedy’s “by the end of the decade” bravura about the announcements from Beijing. Moreover, even if China succeeds in matching America’s distant triumph, it still faces the question, “what next?” The chances are that the Chinese government, like Richard Nixon’s in 1972, will say “job done” and pull the plug on the whole shebang. No bucks, no Buck Rogers With luck, robotic exploration of the solar system will continue. But even there, the risk is of diminishing returns. Every planet has now been visited, and every planet with a solid surface bar Mercury has been landed on. Asteroids, moons and comets have all been added to the stamp album. Unless life turns up on Mars, or somewhere even more unexpected, public interest in the whole thing is likely to wane. And it is the public that pays for it all. The future, then, looks bounded by that new outer limit of planet Earth, the geostationary orbit. Within it, the buzz of activity will continue to grow and fill the vacuum. This part of space will be tamed by humanity, as the species has tamed so many wildernesses in the past. Outside it, though, the vacuum will remain empty. There may be occasional forays, just as men sometimes leave their huddled research bases in Antarctica to scuttle briefly across the ice cap before returning, for warmth, food and company, to base. But humanity’s dreams of a future beyond that final frontier have, largely, faded.

Unpop- Public (2/2)

Space exploration has lost it’s appeal with the public- recent poll shows, neglect and professor confirms

Congressional Quarterly, written by Keith Perine,legal affairs reporter for Congressional Quarterly., Apr 25, 2011 “Grounding an American Dream”, http://origin-www.congress.org/news/2011/04/25/grounding_an_american_dream //ZY

Government programs rarely die. But they do fade away. Look no further than NASA’s human spaceflight venture, a perennially underfunded enterprise noteworthy for being high up on public opinion survey lists of optional government expenditures for years. Nobody’s ready to declare that the U.S. manned spaceflight program is over for good. But it’s about to take a break that could last for years. The scheduled April 29 launch of the space shuttle Endeavour is the next-to-last voyage for the aging shuttle fleet. This fade-away took its own sweet time — more than three decades. Indeed, even as the public watched in wonder as the first shuttle shook the earth, lifted off and reached orbit exactly 30 years ago this month, policy makers were questioning the basic purpose, the value and especially the cost of the human spaceflight program. The old doubts did not sideline the program. Instead, it suffered from benign neglect at the hands of Republican and Democratic presidents and Congresses alike, as well as the public. But, now, while the program may be fading, the fights over it will not, as members of Congress cling to shuttle-related projects in their districts, and as politicians continue to see manned space flight as a source of national pride and economic competitiveness. Ever since the Apollo program ended almost 40 years ago, NASA’s spaceflight efforts have been hamstrung by tight budgets, buffeted by competing political priorities and twice marred by catastrophes from which the agency took years to recover. The agency’s budget has been fading away, too. It peaked in the mid-1960s, when it constituted about 4 percent of the overall federal budget. But it fell quickly after that, and it has hovered at around 1 percent of the total budget since the mid-1970s. “I think public fascination with spaceflight has fallen off, but I think that is a natural process,” says Michael Robinson, a history professor at the University of Hartford in Connecticut. Robinson said that during American exploration of the polar regions in 1850s, the first expeditions were “unbelievably popular, and the first explorers were superstars; they were celebrities as popular as Neil Armstrong. But over time, like anything, when you’re exposed to anything over and over, you become kind of desensitized to it. So that interest falls off.” But even though the public is half-hearted at best about the spaceflight program, it would be tough for lawmakers to end it completely. While the program has been allowed to languish, its bipartisan supporters in Congress feel more passionately about maintaining it than other lawmakers do about ending it. Much as it has for the last 40 years, that argument, an equal mix of national security and national prestige, will insulate NASA’s human spaceflight program from outright elimination. But a tough fiscal climate and a lack of sustained public interest in the program will leave the program where it has languished for decades: without a sustainable vision, and a shadow of its former self.

Unpopular- Public Opinion- Spending

NASA unpopular with the public- perceived to be 22% of governments budget

Jeremy Hsu,New York City–based science and technology writer for space.com, 13 January 2011 “The Myth of America's Love Affair with the Moon”, http://www.space.com/10601-apollo-moon-program-public-support-myth.html //ZY

Budget Myths Still, polls also show a huge misconception regarding the cost of the U.S. space program. Public opinion has wrongly put NASA's budget at about 22 percent of the government's spending over the years, when in fact NASA's budget only reached 4.3 percent of the federal budget at its peak in 1965. Since the 1970s, the U.S. space agency's budget has hovered below 1 percent of government spending. "My suggestion is that NASA is so visible and the space shuttle is such a powerful icon that people believe this stuff must cost an enormous amount of money," Launius said. As for 2010, NASA's budget came in at just six-tenths of 1 percent of all government spending. Neither side of the political aisle seems to have any real interest in boosting NASA's budget, according to Launius. NASA also seems unlikely to get a dramatic budget boost in the near future. While an October 2010 NASA authorization bill signed by the president called for a slight increase in the space agency's funding, that money has yet to be appropriated. Instead, NASA and all other non-military government agencies have been frozen at their 2010 funding levels by a Congressional continuing resolution (a stopgap until a full budget can be agreed upon) that holds until March 4.

Public lukewarm about space exploration

By Mark Strauss, U.S. journalist and senior editor at Smithsonian Magazine. Previously, he was the editor of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists,Smithsonian.com, April 15, 2011 “Ten Enduring Myths About the U.S. Space Program”, http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Ten-Enduring-Myths-About-the-US-Space-Program.html?c=y&page=2 //ZY

Throughout the 1960s, public opinion polls indicated that 45 to 60 percent of Americans felt that the government was spending too much money on space exploration. Even after Neil Armstrong’s “giant leap for mankind,” only a lukewarm 53 percent of the public believed that the historic event had been worth the cost. A 2007 poll conducted by a Houston-based consulting company found that Americans believe that 24 percent of the federal budget is allocated to NASA. That figure is in keeping with earlier surveys, such as a 1997 poll that reported the average estimate was 20 percent.

Public k2 agenda

Public’s key to the agenda

Eshbaugh-Soha 5 (Ph.D., Professor of Political Science – Texas A&M University, “The Politics of Presidential Agenda”, Political Science Quarterly, 58)

Public Approval. Presidential approval may also influence the content of the president's agenda. Despite evidence to the contrary (Bond and Fleisher 1990; Collier and Sullivan 1995), presidents, Washington insiders, and some researchers perceive public approval to be an important means of achieving legislative success (Edwards 1997; Neustadt 1990; Rivers and Rose 1985). Given the pervasiveness of public opinion polling in the White House (Edwards 1983) and high public expectations (Waterman, Jenkins-Smith, and Silva 1999), presidents are bound to be aware of their public standing. More popular presidents should be inclined to offer more long-term and important policies than less popular presidents, if only because they think that a stronger public standing gives them greater leeway to pursue such policies. In other words, H3: Higher approval ratings will lead to a larger legislative agenda, including more major and incremental policies. Approval is the yearly average of the presidents Gallup approval ratings.

Media

Media means the plan’s unpopular with the public

Brooks 7 (Jeff, Space Advocate and Writer – Movement for a New Renaissance, “Putting NASA’s Budget in Perspective”, The Space Review, 7-2, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/898/1)

When space advocates hear this argument, it is difficult not to become irritated or even a little angry. When something that one cares about a great deal is treated with such disparagement, getting upset is a natural reaction. However, responding with irritation and anger does not help and, if anything, merely strengthens the other person in his or her belief that space exploration is not something that should be a national priority. It’s important for space advocates to understand that this opinion is held by people not because they are hostile to space exploration, but because they lack sufficient information about it. Thanks to the media, which generally covers space-related stories only when something goes horribly wrong, a general impression has been created that space exploration does nothing more than produce a rather small amount of scientific information, of no practical use to anybody, at enormous cost to the taxpayer. Once people have settled into a comfortable belief about something, getting them to change their opinion is far from an easy task. It is obvious to those who are knowledgeable about the potential of a robust space program that, far from diverting resources away from efforts to solve Earth’s problems, the answers to many of our problems are to be found in space. However, for the purposes of this essay, we shall limit ourselves to examining how the funding for NASA stacks up when compared to the various programs that are often cited as more deserving than the space agency.

Nasa- Unpopular (1/2)

Budget means nasa’s unpopular

Mike Pallante Writer 11

Questional, “NASA In Jeopardy: Has Presidential Policy Killed NASA?” http://questional.com/blog/157-nasa-in-jeopardy-has-presidential-policy-killed-nasa/ 2/17/2011

Currently limited use of space shuttles will continue; however, for Discovery the end is near. The Discovery is coming apart at the seams and NASA's future is uncertain. Unanswered questions still remain regarding private sector space travel. Will private industry succeed in manned space flight? When? President Obama's plan extends the orbit of the International Space Station until 2020 but potentially leaves us without a means to get there. During the Constellation Program days NASA canceled many contracts for replacement shuttle parts. The wisdom and expense of continual repair on shuttles like Discovery is in question. If President Obama is serious about the future of NASA he will have to do what President Bush did not: Follow through with his vision and create the infrastructure needed to accomplish his goals. That will require allocation of funds, a potentially unpopular move in a budget-heavy political climate. The next year will be an important one for NASA and space travel in general. How it will end remains to be seen.

Space isn’t a priority

Clara Moskowitz Senior Writer for space.com 11

MSNBC, “NASA stuck in limbo as new Congress takes over,” 1/7/2011, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40967788/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/nasa-stuck-limbo-new-congress-takes-over/#

With a new Congress now in charge, NASA is stuck in a political limbo, waiting for the funding needed to carry out a new objective approved by the last Congress. Lawmakers in October passed — and President Obama signed — a NASA authorization bill that gave America's space agency the go-ahead to abandon its previous moon-oriented human spaceflight program and take aim at new targets: visiting an asteroid and Mars. That bill called for NASA to receive $19 billion in 2011 — a boost from the 2010 NASA budget of $18.3 billion. But that promised funding was not appropriated, since the outgoing lawmakers, along with the president, could not agree on a federal budget. Instead they enacted a continuing resolution — a kind of placeholder law until a full budget can be agreed upon — that froze the federal government , including NASA, at 2010 spending levels through March 4. "Clearly the big issue with NASA in this Congress is money," said Henry Hertzfeld, a professor of space policy and international affairs at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. "The details of the budget really hadn't been fully resolved with the old Congress, which left us with a continuing resolution and nothing more. The question is what happens when they begin to start debating NASA." Based on claims by new House Speaker John Boehner (R–Ohio), who said his party will aim to cut non-military discretionary spending back to 2008 levels, the space agency could be in for some serious budget cutbacks. "There's going to be a lot of hard negotiations," said space policy expert Roger Handberg, a political scientist at the University of Central Florida. "NASA's problem is it's not a priority. When they start slicing and dicing, NASA may be the one that gets to 'contribute to the cause.' I think it could be a disaster for the government part of the program."

Nasa- Unpopular (2/2)

A majority of people don’t like the plan

Rasmussen 10 (Rasmussen Reports – National Polling, “59% Favor Cutting Back on Space Exploration”, 1-15, http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/january_2010/50_favor_cutting_back_on_space_exploration)

Fifty percent (50%) of Americans now say the United States should cut back on space exploration given the current state of the economy, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Just 31% disagree with cutting the space program, and 19% more are not sure. The new findings mark a six-point increase in support - from 44% last July - for cutting back on space exploration. Still, Americans are almost evenly divided when asked if the space program should be funded by the government or by the private sector. Thirty-five percent (35%) believe the government should pay for space research, while 38% think private interests should pick up the tab. Twenty-six percent (26%) aren’t sure which is best. (Want a free daily e-mail update ? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on
Twitter or
Facebook. Sixty-four percent (64%) of adults have at least a somewhat favorable view of NASA, including 18% with a very favorable opinion of the government’s chief space agency. Just 20% have a somewhat or very unfavorable opinion of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, which celebrated its 50th anniversary in 2008. But that marks a sizable drop in support for NASA from a survey last May. At that time, 81% had a favorable view of NASA, including 24% with a very favorable opinion. The May findings, however, were a 23-point rebound for the space agency from July 2007 when just 58% had a favorable opinion. But, at that time, NASA was suffering some bad publicity, including reports about drunken astronauts. In the budget President Obama proposes in early February, NASA is hoping for $22 billion for the coming fiscal year, up $3 billion over the current year. This funding, according to news reports, will keep the agency on track for projects including landing on one of Mars’ moons in the next 15 years and further exploring the Earth’s moon. Women and Americans ages 18 to 29 are more strongly in support of cutting back on space exploration than are men and older adults. Democrats are more likely to agree than are Republicans and adults not affiliated with either party. Women also feel more strongly that the space program should be funded by the private sector. But unaffiliated adults and those in both political parties are narrowly divided over whether the space program is a government or private business responsibility. Investors are evenly divided on the question, while non-investors lean slightly more toward private sector financing. Only 27% of Americans believe the current goals of the space program should include sending someone to Mars. Fifty percent (50%) oppose such a mission, with 24% undecided. The findings on this question are unchanged from last July. The feelings are virtually identical about sending someone to the moon. Twenty-six percent (26%) like the idea, but twice as money (52%) are opposed to sending someone to the moon as one of the current goals of the space program.

Nasa-Popular

NASA is popular with the public

The Associated Press, July 7, 1997, NASA's Mars Web site proves wildly popular, http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/MPF/press/cnn/index.html AC

The NASA Pathfinder Web site, which is running pictures, video and audio "live from Mars," may be approaching a popularity record. The site, which has topped 100 million "hits" since July 4, has proven so in-demand that NASA had to set up 20 "mirror" pages around the world, running the same information from different addresses, said Rich Pavlovsky of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. The JPL and NASA have made real-time images of almost all of their greatest astral hits available online, including the Hale-Bopp Comet's sparkling Earth fly-by and the spectacular show when Comet Shoemaker Levy slammed into Jupiter's atmosphere in 1994. The numbers have swelled almost -- dare we say it -- astronomically since the Galileo probe orbited Jupiter in December 1995 and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory Web site got 5 million hits in one week.

Nasa popular- public

NASA remains popular

Matthew C. Nisbet, is an associate professor at the School of Communication at American University. He received an at A.B. Dartmouth College (Government), M.S. at Cornell University (Communication); Ph.D. at Cornell University (Communication), he is a social scientist who studies strategic communication in policymaking and public affairs, focusing on debates over science, the environment and public health, November 1, 2007, Gallup: Public Approval of NASA Remains High, http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/2007/11/gallup_public_approval_of_nasa.php

Gallup has released its latest tracking data on American views of NASA. As Gallup describes, according to the Sept. 14-16 poll, 56% of Americans rate the job NASA is doing in positive terms, with 16% saying it is doing an "excellent" job and 40% a "good" job. Meanwhile, just 8% say it is doing a poor job, with most of the rest describing NASA's performance as "only fair." According to Gallup, NASA has had less-than-majority positive evaluations just twice since 1990, when Gallup first asked this question. The initial 46% rating in July 1990 came shortly after a flaw in the Hubble telescope was discovered. Gallup measured the historical low rating of 43% in September 1993 after a series of mishaps, which included the loss of contact with the Mars Orbiter and a couple of last-second decisions to scrub planned space shuttle missions. The high point in NASA's ratings came in November 1998, shortly after Sen. John Glenn -- one of the earliest U.S. astronauts -- made a much-heralded return trip to space.

**SPS**

Energy=election issue

Solar Cell Update May 2011, http://solarcellssale.info/news-solar-cells/manufacturers-solar-wind-power-preparing-post-2012.html,//ZY- this ev is about Japan?

The new president of the Renewable Energy Association is taking action in the forthcoming presidential. Speaking for the first time since his election the new president of the Renewable Energy Association (SER) Jean-Louis Bal immediately adopted a political tone. “The energy issues will be among the major themes of the next presidential election, he said Tuesday. The energy and environmental context has changed dramatically, “he said, implicitly referring to the catastrophe of the Japanese nuclear power plant in Fukushima and thus supporting a number of criticisms expressed about industrial policy”green “government. Publication of a White Paper This change in tone from his predecessor who refused to clear any political considerations, will culminate in the forthcoming publication of a White Paper on renewable energy summarizing the recommendations of companies to exceed the 23% renewables in 2020. A form of “green “industrial pact for post-2012 “which is reminiscent of what had been more broadly and directly political Nicolas Hulot in 2007 with its ecological pact. “After the presidential election will go through the legislative box, “said Jean-Louis Bal desired. From there to ask the organization of a new Grenelle environment there is not. If the president has not crossed, it nevertheless laid out some steps, including requiring the relaxations of regulations governing wind power and photovoltaics, without hesitating to move to sharply criticize the way that “the authorities have mishandled the extremely Photovoltaic crisis. “A real change of tone, you do we say!

Energy=not election issue

Energy won’t be a win for Obama- republicans ensure he gets the green vote regardless of legislation

Glenn Hurowitz, is a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, 32 Jun 2011 “Has Obama lost environmental voters?”, http://www.grist.org/politics/2011-06-23-has-obama-lost-environmental-voters1//ZY

Of course, the White House is still betting that despite their carping, environmentalists have nowhere to go: No matter how much Obama concedes to the oil and coal industries, or how many times the White House rebuffs environmentalists on important symbolic issues like solar panels on the White House, or how many times they push off clean air regulations, the Republican presidential nomineee is bound to be worse. This dynamic was on display last night when I debated the Center for American Progress’ Dan Weiss (defending the administration) and the American Enterprise Institute’s Ken Green (defending polluters) on PBS News Hour, moderated by Gwen Ifill:

There’s no question- Republicans will use the election to attack climate legislation.

The Hill , 01/30/11 “GOP sees looming 2012 elections as key to blocking climate rules”, http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/141125-gop-sees-looming-2012-elections-as-key-to-blocking-climate-rules//ZY

Republicans are banking on the looming 2012 election to provide a political boost for their efforts to undercut the Environmental Protection Agency's pending climate change rules this year. While a bill blocking EPA’s climate authority is likely to pass the House, the legislation faces an uphill battle in the Democrat-controlled Senate, as well as a potential veto from President Obama.

Hurts Obama

Solar energy loses Obama’s popularity with blue collar electorate

Atlantic 6/30 (Josh Kraushaar, 6/30/11, " Why Obama's Team Is Worried ", http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/06/why-obamas-team-is-worried/241306/)//ZY

Doubling down on manufacturing. The latest White House effort to wring good news out of a bad economy focuses on successes in the manufacturing sector: the auto bailout that put GM and Chrysler on sounder footing, as well as green initiatives. Politically, it's a puzzling message. While there has been a small uptick in manufacturing jobs, it's hardly enough to be felt by the blue-collar electorate, who have been bearing the brunt of the recession and never viewed Obama too favorably in the first place. The latest Gallup weekly tracking poll shows Obama's approval with college graduates at 51 percent, with a 40 percent approval among nongraduates. The president's emphasis on green jobs doesn't help. It's tough for many steelworkers to see themselves producing solar panels. Clean-energy jobs may be the future, but they're not seen by displaced workers as a panacea.

Helps Obama (1/2)

Renewable legislation is key to the environmental and democratic vote- viewed as job creation

Glenn Hurowitz, is a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, 32 Jun 2011 “Has Obama lost environmental voters?”, http://www.grist.org/politics/2011-06-23-has-obama-lost-environmental-voters1//ZY

More broadly, Obama’s failure to create large investments in the green economy will severely damage him at the ballot box: Clean energy and ecological restoration create more than twice as many jobs as investments in coal, oil, and nuclear. Every time Obama tries to buy off the oil or coal industry with a new concession or delay of an EPA regulation, he is not only putting more money into the hands of industries broadly committed to his defeat, but he’s also wasting billions on ineffective job-creation strategies in established, polluting industries. Case in point: News today that European consortium Airbus just trounced Boeing at the Paris Air Show, landing orders for $72 billion worth of new aircraft, compared to Boeing’s $22 billion. According to the Associated Press, the European planes won the global competition because of “airlines’ desire to reduce sky-high fuel costs and cut their carbon dioxide emissions.” That’s $50 billion worth of jobs not going to the United States because of our failure to win the race for efficiency and clean energy. This is not winning the future. This type of frustration is going to be deeply felt not just by environmentalists, but other parts of a Democratic coalition already frustrated with Obama’s unwillingness or inability to stand up to corporations and force them to do better, or already angry that he would cut taxes for the ultra-rich while education is being slashed. All in all, Obama’s failures have put the Democratic Party, the country, and the planet in a very risky, high-stakes position for 2012 and beyond. Al Gore is once again issuing the national call to action we need to rescue ourselves from this mess. It’s now up to President Obama to act on it—and environmentalists to keep up the pressure to make sure that he does.

Green approach wins

Daily Score 6/30 (6/30/11, " Want Votes? Go Green on Climate ", http://daily.sightline.org/2011/06/30/want-votes-go-green-on-climate/)//ZY

The wording used in the survey makes no bones of casting the “green”; approach to climate change as a no-brainer (at least that's how it reads to me). That might come across as stacking the deck. But, the takeaway is that candidates should use this kind of wording—the no-brainer is a winning proposition: In the not-green position, the science of climate change was described as a hoax on the American people, and support was given to sticking with coal and oil as the dominant energy sources with no government controls on emissions. In the green position, there was a statement that global warming has been occurring over the past 100 years mainly because of the burning of fossil fuels, and it should be stopped with a switch from oil and coal to renewables such as wind and solar and more energy-efficient cars. Or maybe it's just the universally sexy, and yet at the same time commonsense, appeal of efficient cars that seals the deal? Anyway, it remains to be seen whether the general election will bring out a “green” side of even the most climate-shy candidates on American ` emissions actually ever lead to policy solutions.

Renewable energy key to public vote- they recognize the dangers of nonrenewables

Sidewalk Social, April 2011 Attention Obama 2012: We Need Green Energy Now, not 24 Years Down the Road//ZY

The sidewalks of America are full of talk about Barack Obama’s bid for re-election in 2012. One of the vital platforms he will have to tackle is the impeding energy crisis the United States and the world has been on the brink of. One day, not far down the road, the world is going to run out of the oil and coal they so heavily rely on to get through everyday life. Whether it is gas for a car, or electricity and heat for homes and businesses, natural resources are the lifeline of worldly ways. During Wednesday’s Georgetown University address, Obama spoke about “renewing the call for 80 percent of the nation’s electricity to be generated from renewable sources by 2035”. This call for making most of our energy from renewable sources is an outstanding one, but what about the here and now? This shouldn’t be a 24-year plan; this should be a 3-5 year plan at the most. The need for renewable energy sources is now, not a few decades down the road. Obama did make a valid point, stating that “We cannot keep going from shock to trance on the issue of energy security, rushing to propose action when gas prices rise, then hitting the snooze button when they fall again.” This statement just reiterates the point that there is a high precedence for this now, and not waiting 24-years down the road to have just 80 percent from renewable sources. Twenty-four years from now the world should have had ALL energy coming from renewable energy.

Helps Obama (2/2)

Pushing energy legislation will lose Obama the election

National Journal Daily, February 15, 2011, “Odds Stacked Against Obama’s Clean-Energy Wager”, http://www.nationaljournal.com/daily/odds-stacked-against-obama-s-clean-energy-wager-20110214 //ZY

And in the often heated and partisan budget process, the House and Senate Energy-Water Appropriations panels, which determine spending levels for the Energy Department, have traditionally been a surprising oasis of bipartisanship. No more. In the current political environment, particularly in the House, the tea party-fired zeal for paring government spending makes any increase ripe for attack. And the new energy spending stands out all the more in a budget request that trims and freezes funds for almost everything else. It stands out, too, because President Obama has made clean-energy spending central to his vision for economic recovery—very close to the start of the 2012 election cycle. And linking clean-energy spending to the partisan issue of climate-change mitigation suddenly turns what was once a politically neutral backwater corner of the annual appropriations process into a high-profile partisan target. So moderates who might once have quietly cast their votes for a $100 million research program for electric-car battery development will probably pull back and toe the party line rather than risk handing Obama a major victory ahead of a presidential election. “The variable this go-around is that this is no longer a neutral conversation,” said Mike McKenna, a GOP strategist and expert on energy policy. “It used to be a conversation between both sides on, ‘Do we feel like spending $4 billion or $5 billion or $6 billion on renewable energy?’ We’re in a new environment—where every piece is tested against the need to cut the government. For everybody who refuses to rule out [supporting a clean-energy standard] there [are] five or six guys who came to Washington to reduce federal spending. That’s why the president’s energy budget is DOA.” McKenna noted that the emphasis the White House has put on clean energy may be the very thing that dooms it. “By making such a big thing of this, [the administration has] put off any Republican who may have been inclined to do everything from enthusiastically support this stuff to look the other way and vote for it,” he said. “Whatever the merits are, it’s now colored by partisan preferences. It didn’t used to be a party-line vote, but now it will be.” Among those onetime moderates now toeing the party line is House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., who has long supported renewable energy but has tacked hard to the right since taking up a gavel during this Congress. The energy-policy point man for House Republicans slammed the president’s proposal. “I am particularly disappointed to see the White House continuing its efforts to manipulate free enterprise—whether on energy or health care or technology, this budget continues to advance policies in which the federal government picks winners and losers, rather than letting the American people and the power of competition identify the most efficient, effective investment of resources,” Upton said in a statement. In the end, the Obama energy proposal appears more likely to have a future as a political talking point—or punching bag—than as actual policy, at least in the next two years.

Helps Obama-Liberal Vote

Energy legislation has political backing- get liberal vote

Nicholas R. Goebel, , author, and free lance writer, Jul 12, 2010 “Obama’s Agenda: How He Can Win in 2012”, http://www.thepragmaticcenter.com/essay/obama%E2%80%99s-agenda-how-he-can-win-2012 //ZY

Obama’s legislative strategy was just as brilliant as his campaign strategy. He took on the heavy lifting, most difficult issues first and won. An enormous stimulus package was enacted to stabilize the economy which will change America’s landscape and priorities for decades to come. Comprehensive Health Reform was passed which took a huge chunk of political capital out of Obama’s stock, but he got it done. And he is on the verge of passing the largest overhaul of the nation’s financial industry since the Great Depression. These are three transformational legislative accomplishments. But during these debates the president’s critics successfully branded him as a radical, socialist, and even worse. While the president won the policy battles his opponents won the political war. In order to win in 2012 he must regain his status as a candidate that is mainstream and appealing to independents. He must push an agenda that attracts the support of moderates and independents. His agenda should include comprehensive energy legislation, immigration reform, deficit reduction, political reforms to change Washington corruption and culture, and education reforms. The president should use the remaining time before the midterms to push for energy legislation. A bill has already been drawn up by Republican Lindsey Graham, Independent Joseph Lieberman, and Democratic Senator John Kerry. Obama should put all of his energy into passing this legislation or a similar bill now. Liberals argue it’s not good enough, but this is their best chance of passing this type of legislation. Instead of waiting to improve it they should pass it before it’s too late. As Benjamin Franklin once said “politics is the art of the possible.” This is what is possible right now.

Popular-Public

SPS popular with the public

Collins 2k (Patrick, Writer, Science direct, researcher: Azabu University, Sagamihara City, Kanagawa, Japan. “SPS — time for a pilot plant” < http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0265964600000102#sec3>

3.6. Public support Public opinion polls suggest that an SPS pilot plant project is likely to be popular with the general public, who have expectations of some promising new initiatives to give them confidence that the 21st century is going to bring improvements in global living standards and lifestyles world-wide — and not growing constraints and stresses from an increasingly crowded and divided world. It is very unfortunate that, more than 30 years after its inception, the SPS concept is still little known outside professional circles. For example, very few public exhibitions concerning energy at science museums even refer to energy from space — although they always have sections relating to nuclear fusion, research on which has received many tens of billions of dollars of government funding without becoming a realistic energy option. The total amount of government support for SPS research to date has not reached even 1/1000 of the amounts provided to various nuclear power generation technologies. This ratio does not reflect public opinion, which is increasingly unfavourable towards nuclear power generation and favourable towards the use of solar energy in its various forms, the uses of which are growing steadily despite disproportionately little government support. The public, particularly the young, are also broadly interested in space, and so it is very likely that, if given the opportunity, the public would strongly support the use of public expenditure on an SPS pilot plant project

Popular Florida- swing state

Space funding will win Obama Florida, controls 20,000 votes - swing state in the election

The Hill 04/29/11 “Obama's visit to Florida shows need to mend fences over NASA”, http://thehill.com/blogs/transportation-report/tsa/158425-obamas-visit-to-cape-canaveral-highlights-floridas-importance?page=3#comments //ZY

President Obama’s decision to visit Cape Canaveral on Friday even after NASA postponed the space shuttle launch highlights the need for the president to mend fences in a state stung by proposed cuts to the space program. Florida is a swing state with a high employment rate that strongly identifies with the soon-to-be ending space shuttle program, and Obama has come under attack from Florida Republicans on the issue. “Short of drinking orange juice while walking on our state’s beautiful beaches wearing a Mickey Mouse hat, there are few things more associated with the state” than the space program, a Florida Democratic strategist told The Hill. “That’s why it’s important to show he’s here and get the facts out about his innovative approach to space travel.” Keeping the trip on Friday also allowed Obama to visit Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, the Arizona Democrat shot by an assailant in January. Her husband is one of the astronauts on Endeavour, the shuttle that was set to launch on Friday. Central Florida, where Cape Canaveral is located, is the swing part of one of the biggest swing states in the nation. In 2008, Obama became the first Democratic presidential candidate since Bill Clinton in 1996 to carry the state. Despite sweeping Republican victories in Florida last year, Democrats think he can turn it blue again in 2012. Obama carried Florida by 236,450 votes in 2008. Republicans hope that the end of the space shuttle foreshadows a reversal of those numbers for Obama next year. “The community there is not happy,” former Republican Party of Florida chairman Al Cardenas told The Hill. “They believe the White House has not respected NASA’s budget or the assets of that community,” Cardenas said. Florida state Senate President Mike Haridopolos (R), who is from the Brevard County where Cape Canaveral is, has said he is partly challenging Democratic U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson next year because the Obama administration is presiding over the end of the space program. The lone Democrat to hold a statewide office in Florida, Nelson has made a 1986 trip he took on a space shuttle as a member of Congress central to his political identity. The White House sees Nelson’s prospects as tied to the president’s. “As goes Bill Nelson in Florida, go Barack Obama and Joe Biden in Florida,” Vice President Joe Biden said at a March fundraiser for Nelson. Cardenas estimated that 7,500 NASA employees who make an average of $75,000 per year would lose their jobs when the space shuttle program concludes after the final scheduled flight June 28. Those people might choose the Republican nominee next year over Obama, Cardenas said. “Most of us see this as a very close race,” he said. “If it costs (Obama) 10, 15 or 20,000 votes, that’s a lot of votes in a state that’s going to have as close election as we’re going to have.” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla) sharply criticized Obama this week, writing that Obama’s visit would not bring back jobs that will be lost when the shuttle program ends. “While it is an opportunity to celebrate Endeavour’s history and the brave people who have made it a proud one, it is also a bittersweet occasion,” Rubio said in an op-ed in the Orlando Sentinel of Obama’s planned visit. “The president’s space policy is jeopardizing America’s longstanding commitment to manned space exploration. This has serious consequences for Florida.” Rubio noted that Obama’s proposed 2012 budget cuts NASA funding by $1.2 billion. He called the proposal “a full retreat from America’s long-standing commitment to space exploration.” But perhaps illustrating the political problem Obama faces in Florida with the end of space shuttle flights, the NASA technician who gave the first family their tour Friday is scheduled to be laid off when the shuttle program comes to end in June.

**Space Mil**

Public-support

Americans want colonization- manifest destiny

David Rivkin and Diana McCaffrey, Rivkin is a Washington D.C. lawyer who advised on space policy and served in several Republican Administrations. McCaffrey is a Washington-based writer and analyst, 02/22/10, U.S. no longer a space-faring nation, http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/82727-us-no-longer-a-space-faring-nation

The way forward is to anchor manned space flight into a broader goal of space exploration and colonization, a vision firmly rooted in the unique American character and history. As American historian, Frederick Jackson Turner, presciently pointed out in 1893, the frontier has been the driving force in American history. The frontier has helped America grow. It has served as a unique social and political role, functioning as a magnet for individuals who wanted to control their own destinies. Within this distinctive American context, space should be treated as the new frontier, to be explored and colonized in a targeted fashion. Just-discovered methane concentrations in the Martian atmosphere furnish evidence of life there and bolster the case for a mission to the Red Planet by 2020. This goal to land an American on Mars can be met with existing technology, provided we proceed with the same boldness and determination that led to America to land the first man on the Moon. We should also revisit the Outer Space Treaty, which declares the moon and terrestrial bodies to be a “common heritage of mankind” and bars any nation from asserting sovereignty over them. If such a dysfunctional legal regime existed in the 1500s, the New World would have never been settled.

Unpopular-public

Public opinion favors eliminating space weapons

Gallagher 8 (Nancy - Associate Director for Research at the Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland “US and Russian Public Opinion on Arms Control and Space Security” Disarmament Diplomacy, Issue 87 2008)

We found that the American and Russian publics remain surprisingly interested in security cooperation and supportive of efforts to negotiate legally binding treaties with effective verification. Whether the question involved general attitudes, specific items on the current arms control agenda, or more visionary proposals for eliminating nuclear weapons and averting space weapons, respondents usually favoured cooperation by large margins. This held true across party lines in the United States, providing evidence of public support for change regardless of which party wins the election. These findings could give courage to future US and Russian leaders who would need to overcome entrenched bureaucratic resistance to the negotiation of new security accords and legislative opposition to their ratification. Leaders and diplomats from other countries that want to see much more vigorous multilateral action on shared security problems might also find some useful insights from the polls as they think about how to make progress during this transition year.

At the low end 63% of Americans approve of NASA

Gallup Polls 4 (Public Opinion About Space Exploration - Should Space Travel Be A National Priority? Read more: Public Opinion About Space Exploration - Should Space Travel Be A National Priority? - Gallup, Budget, Program, Poll, Nasa, and Organization http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/2878/Public-Opinion-About-Space-Exploration-SHOULD-SPACE-TRAVEL-BE-NATIONAL-PRIORITY.html#ixzz1Qo9R2BMo)

In June and July 2004 Gallup asked 1,000 adults their thoughts about government spending on space exploration. Poll participants were reminded that NASA's budget request for the next year would be less than 1% of the federal budget and would amount to an average of approximately $55 per taxpayer. In response, 37% said that NASA's budget should remain at its current level, while 26% thought it should be increased. Another 23% thought NASA's budget should be decreased, and 13% wanted no NASA funding at all. (See Figure 9.4.) Gallup has been asking this same poll question since 1984. The percentage of people wanting to increase NASA's budget has varied between 10% and 27% over time. Consistently, the largest group of people (37% to 51%) has advocated maintaining the agency's budget at its existing level. There are many programs competing for funding in the federal budget. During a 2003 survey, Gallup asked poll participants if money should be taken away from the space program and devoted to other programs instead. The answers varied widely, depending on the program against which space travel was paired. Read more: Public Opinion About Space Exploration - Should Space Travel Be A National Priority? - Gallup, Budget, Program, Poll, Nasa, and Organization http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/2878/Public-Opinion-About-Space-Exploration-SHOULD-SPACE-TRAVEL-BE-NATIONAL-PRIORITY.html#ixzz1Qo8pGzp1

**constellation**

Hurts Obama

Obama going to become unpopular with constellation situation

Mark Whittington (Yahoo news contributor) 6/10/10 “Obama to Kill NASA’s Constellation Program, Despite Congressional Approval” http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5474104/obama_to_kill_nasas_constellation_program.html?cat=15 RM

The Obama administration may have found a back door way to kill the Constellation space exploration program, even while Congress is mulling over ways to continue it. The move to kill Constellation involves the 120-year-old Anti-Deficiency Act. According to the Orlando Sentinel: "At issue is the federal Anti-Deficiency Act that requires all federal contractors to set aside a portion of their payments to cover costs in case the project is ever cancelled. "New NASA calculations say contractors are $991 million short of what they must withhold - and the agency has ordered the companies to find that money from the roughly $3.5 billion they're budgeted to get for Constellation projects this year. "In a letter to Congress released Wednesday, NASA Administrator Charlie Boldensaid: 'Given this estimated shortfall, the Constellation program cannot continue all of its planned ... program activities [this year] within the resources available. Under the Anti-Deficiency Act (ADA), NASA has no choice but to correct this situation.'" NASA contractors had hitherto expected NASA to cover termination costs for Constellation. The Obama space budget proposal allocates over $2 billion for that purpose. The immediate effect of the order is that all but certain parts of the Constellation program that are slated to be preserved under the Obama space plan will be effectively canceled. Those parts of Constellation that would remain "--include advanced technology work on the Orion space capsule, the J2X rocket engine that was to power the Ares I second stage and any hardware that could be used for other programs." Also, incidentally, five thousand aerospace contractors in states stretching from Florida to Utah will be terminated within the next 30 days. The move by the Obama administration to invoke the Anti-Deficiency Act represents a kind of high stakes poker move, with the administration betting that it can, for all intents and purposes, kill the Constellation program before Congress can find a way to preserve it. It sets up a strange situation in which Constellation must continue by law, thanks to legislative language inserted last year, but has no money to continue.

Obama facing criticism

Stephanie Condon (writer for CBS news) 4/15/10 “Obama : NASA agenda should be more ambitious” http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002626-503544.html RM

Facing criticism for cancelling NASA's Constellation program, a project that intended to put Americans back on the moon, President Obama said today at the Kennedy Space Center that "the bottom line is, nobody is more committed to manned splace flight, to human exploration of space, than I am." He added, "But we've got to do it in a smart way, and we can't keep on doing the same things we've been doing." The likes of Neil Armstrong, the first man to walk on the moon, have criticized Mr. Obama for scrapping a plan that has already cost the government more than $10 billion. The president said today, however, that Constellation was over budget and behind schedule. More bluntly, he added that its mission was outdated. "We've been there before," Mr. Obama said with respect to plans to return to the moon. "There's a lot more of space to explore and a lot more to learn when we do." The administration's new plans, the president said, including ramping up robotic exploration of the solar system, extending the life of the International Space Station and working with private companies to develop new spacecraft -- to "make getting to space easier and more affordable," Mr. Obama said. The president has proposed increasing the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's budget by $6 billion over the next five years to accomplish all of this. "What we're looking for is not just to continue on the same path, we want to leap into the future," Mr. Obama said. "We want major breakthroughs, a transformative agenda for NASA." NASA should accelerate its pace of innovation, the president said, specifically citing research on a new heavy-lift rocket for eventual manned flights. The administration wants the space program to finalize a rocket design no later than 2015, which is at least two years earlier than previously planned. Furthermore, Mr. Obama said, the rocket's designers should have the highest standards possible. "We want to look at new designs, new materials, new technologies that will transform not just where we can go, but what we can do when we get there," he said. But unlike the programs of the past administration, Mr. Obama said, "we are setting a course with specific and achievable milestones." Those include sending astronauts to an asteroid for the first time, he said. And by the mid-2030's, he said he expects NASA to send astronauts to orbit Mars and return home safely. "And a landing on Mars will follow, and I expect to be around to see it," the president added. The space program is an essential part of the fabric of American society, Mr. Obama said, responsible for inspiring generations of scientists and pioneers. He shared a personal anecdote of an early memory, of sitting on his grandfather's shoulders and waving an American flag at astronauts visiting Hawaii. "Ultimately, if we fail to press forward in pursuit of discovery we are ceding our future," he said. While a number of lawmakers have raised concerns about the job losses that could result from cancelling Constellation, Mr. Obama insisted today that his plan will create more jobs. But to address the concerns, he announced a new initiative to develop a plan for regional job creation.

Unpopular-Public

14% of Americans Support your plan … devastating

Gronstal 10 (Aaron, 3/29. Editor: Astrobiology Magazine. “A Public Opinion on Mission Planning”. < http://www.astrobio.net/index.php?option=com_retrospection&task=detail&id=3447>

Bottom of the pack NASA sent men to the surface of the Moon 6 times during the Apollo era. Credit: NASA Rounding out our reader poll in the third, fourth and fifth places are the Moon (14%), Titan (13%) and 'an asteroid' (8%). Our readers seem to be fairly in line with current priorities at NASA. The Moon has been a relatively constant target of NASA science, with the most famous efforts being the Apollo missions of the 1960s and 1970s. During the Bush administration, lunar exploration received a huge boost when it was announced that NASA was going to concentrate efforts on returning astronauts to the lunar surface. Recent developments, however, see NASA committing more resources to support commercial development of the launch technologies needed for human exploration. The Constellation program, which was an umbrella program for lunar exploration that included the development of a new launch vehicle, was recently cancelled. We're still planning on a return to the Moon, but NASA's role will now be much different. Even with schedule changes in access to space for human missions to the Moon, NASA is still forging ahead with developing technologies to support astronauts once they get there. NASA is developing robotic rovers and studying mission scenarios for exploring the lunar surface. Missions like the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and the recent LCROSS impactor are helping us understand our closest celestial neighbor in new detail. Future missions like LADEE and GRAIL are in the planning stages and will provide essential information about the lunar environment and the potential to support long-term human habitation.

Popular- Florida

Constellation popular in Florida

Political Fact Check- Florida, Rep. February 14th, 2011 in “Bill Posey criticizes Obama for underfunding NASA projects”, http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/feb/23/bill-posey/rep-bill-posey-criticizes-obama-underfunding-nasa-//

Posey press secretary George Cacela said the congressman's statements about funding for a new rocket-design were based on the troubled Constellation project. The law that Posey is citing is the 2010 NASA Authorization Act, which mandated that the space agency build a heavy-lift rocket called Ares by 2016 with an $11.5 billion budget.
Constellation started in 2005 under former President George W. Bush's administration. With the space shuttle being phased out after 30 years, Constellation's goal was to return to the moon by 2020 and set up a base camp there in future years. A series of Ares rockets and the Orion crew capsule were part of the original Constellation plan. However, the project, as described in this Jan. 14, 2004, speech by Bush, never received the full $100 billion funding it was originally promised, resulting in delayed work and mounting costs.
A 2007 report by the Government Accountability Office, before Obama was elected, also criticized the way funding was being handled for the Constellation project and other goals outlined in Bush’s 2004 space policy.
"The need for NASA to implement the vision in a fiscally prudent and effective manner cannot be overemphasized given the competing fiscal demands facing the federal government and an already troubling funding profile projected for human spaceflight activities," the report notes. "We have issued a number of reports that touch on various aspects of retiring the space shuttle and transitioning its assets and people to exploration activities. These reports have questioned the affordability of the exploration program, NASA’s acquisition strategy for the development of new space vehicles, agency-wide contract management and workforce planning for current and future agency needs.

**Asteroid **

Unpopular-public

8% of Americans Support your plan … devastating

Gronstal 10 (Aaron, 3/29. Editor: Astrobiology Magazine. “A Public Opinion on Mission Planning”. < http://www.astrobio.net/index.php?option=com_retrospection&task=detail&id=3447>

Bottom of the pack NASA sent men to the surface of the Moon 6 times during the Apollo era. Credit: NASA Rounding out our reader poll in the third, fourth and fifth places are the Moon (14%), Titan (13%) and 'an asteroid' (8%). Our readers seem to be fairly in line with current priorities at NASA. The Moon has been a relatively constant target of NASA science, with the most famous efforts being the Apollo missions of the 1960s and 1970s. During the Bush administration, lunar exploration received a huge boost when it was announced that NASA was going to concentrate efforts on returning astronauts to the lunar surface. Recent developments, however, see NASA committing more resources to support commercial development of the launch technologies needed for human exploration. The Constellation program, which was an umbrella program for lunar exploration that included the development of a new launch vehicle, was recently cancelled. We're still planning on a return to the Moon, but NASA's role will now be much different. Even with schedule changes in access to space for human missions to the Moon, NASA is still forging ahead with developing technologies to support astronauts once they get there. NASA is developing robotic rovers and studying mission scenarios for exploring the lunar surface. Missions like the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and the recent LCROSS impactor are helping us understand our closest celestial neighbor in new detail. Future missions like LADEE and GRAIL are in the planning stages and will provide essential information about the lunar environment and the potential to support long-term human habitation.

Popular-Public

Private-public partnerships want lunar-asteroid mining- Moon Express proves

Moon Express, June 30, 2011, Moon Express Announces First Successful Flight Test of Lunar Lander System Developed With NASA Partnership, http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/moon-express-announces-first-successful-flight-test-of-lunar-lander-system-developed-with-nasa-partnership-124783794.html,

-- Moon Express, Inc. today announced a successful flight test of a prototype lunar lander system being developed in partnership with NASA. Controlled flight tests of the Lander Test Vehicle (LTV) allow Moon Express to assess lunar vehicle design, including guidance, navigation and control software and new landing leg concepts designed by Moon Express engineers. The company signed a Reimbursable Space Act Agreement with NASA last year to invest over $500K into the commercialization of technology developed by the agency. The flight test marks an important milestone in the collaborative agreement, demonstrating that innovative public-private partnerships can be utilized to establish new capabilities of mutual benefit to commercial space companies and NASA. Moon Express plans to send a series of robotic spacecraft to the Moon for ongoing exploration and commercial development focused on benefits to Earth. "I believe in the long term economic potential of the Moon to produce resources essential to Earth's energy future," said Naveen Jain, Co-Founder and Chairman of Moon Express. "The recent discovery of abundant water on the Moon is the key we needed to economically liberate valuable lunar resources such as Helium-3 and platinum group metals to improve life here on Earth."

Support- Businesses want asteroid mining- profit

Ian O'Neill, June 29th, Mining Asteroids: Not At Those Overheads, http://www.astroengine.com/2009/06/mining-asteroids-not-at-those-overheads/,

Naturally, we assume it’s going to be businesses (not governments) wanting to mine asteroids, and we assume mining/spaceflight technologies that could possibly be available within the next few decades (and no, we didn’t consider nanotech; I’m thinking rock-eating nanobots wont be available in stores for a long while yet). We also assumed these space mining companies will want to make a profit

Helium 3- popular- public

American people want helium-3 for nuclear fusion

Terence P. Jeffrey, May 26, 2011, Former Moon Astronaut and Senator: U.S. Should Settle Moon and Mars, http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/former-moon-astronaut-and-senator-us-sho,

“Its primary focus--almost single-minded focus--should be on building the space launch vehicles, the spacecraft, and the operational capability to work at the moon, distances of the moon, and ultimately to Mars and beyond,” he said. Schmitt says that in the long-term the moon “would be another location for the forces of freedom to, I think, grow and prosper.” In the nearer term he believes that the U.S. could retrieve Helium-3 from the moon, an isotope that is abundant on the lunar surface and that Schmitt says is an ideal fuel for nuclear fusion reactors that could create electricity without creating radioactive spent fuel. “More immediately such a [lunar] settlement would be able to supply the Earth with very important clean energy in the form of a light isotope of Helium called Helium-3,” said Schmitt. “That is a literally ideal fuel for nuclear fusion reactors.”

****Internals****

Modern dems k2 debt ceiling

Moderate democrats needed to raise debt ceiling

Nazworth 11 (Napp Christian post reporter) 6/25/ “Pelosi seeks more influence in debt ceiling negotiations” http://www.christianpost.com/news/pelosi-seeks-more-influence-in-debt-ceiling-negotiations-51576/ RM

Nancy Pelosi, leader of the House Democrats, would like a seat at the table during deliberations over raising the nation's debt limit. After Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and Sen. John Kyl (R-Ariz.) pulled out of negotiations with a bipartisan group led by Vice President Joe Biden on Thursday, the task fell to the Republican's top official in the Senate, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and the Democrats top leader in the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid. McConnell and Reid are scheduled to meet with Biden in separate meetings on Monday. Pelosi ((D-Calif.) demanded to also have a meeting to share the concerns of her caucus. House Democrats have expressed frustration with the White House for not consulting more with them. House Democrats were also left out of negotiations last year between the White House and the Senate that extended the Bush tax cuts through 2012. Some Democrats ended up voting for the bill to prevent a government shutdown, though they had no role in crafting the bill. Pelosi's move could be an attempt to avoid a repeat of that scenario. Now that House Democrats are no longer in the majority, their role in the policy process is even more diminished. The minority party has less influence in the House than in the Senate. House rules more severely limit the minority party's ability to bring their own bills to the floor, or modify bills during floor debate, than in the Senate. Pelosi argues, however, that House Republicans do not have enough votes in their own caucus to pass a bill that would raise the debt limit. Since Democratic votes are needed, Pelosi reasons that she should be part of the negotiations. The national debt currently stands at more than $14 trillion. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geitner has warned that the debt ceiling needs to be raised by August 2, 2011, to prevent a default on the nation's debt obligations.

PC k2 debt ceiling

Obama’s political capital is key to pass debt ceiling.

Tomasky 2010 Michael Tomasky (born 1960) is a liberal American columnist, journalist and author. He is the editor in chief of Democracy, American editor-at-large at Guardian America, a contributing editor for The American Prospect, and a contributor to The New York Review of Books. 12/22. http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2010/dec/22/obamas-second-act/

However, we should not think that Republicans and Democrats alike have now discovered the joys of bipartisanship and will transfer these happy habits to the next Congress, which will convene on January 5. Matters will, alas, revert to normal. Atbest. A huge fight over the budget and spending awaits the next Congress. This week, the Senate passed (and the House was expected to pass) a “continuing resolution” to keeping funding the operations of the federal government at current levels through March. And that is when the guns will be drawn. The Republicans will push for deep spending cuts, especially to social programs and entitlements; Democrats will push for as many cuts to defense spending as they can. There will be a vote on raising the debt ceiling—the threshold set by Congress beyond which the government is forbidden from borrowing money—around then as well. This vote will give Republicans leverage—no sitting president can afford a failed vote on that, because of the potential economic consequences for the global economy—wreaking havoc, for instance. No one would ever have thought before that Congress would refuse to raise the debt ceiling, but the nature of the incoming, tea-party-inflected GOP legislative membership is such that the possibility now has to be taken at least semi-seriously. Eyes will be on Obama as the new year begins. What kinds of cuts will he offer first, in an effort to take control of the debate? What will he say on Social Security? How far will he go toward accepting the premise of the Washington establishment that deficits and spending must be reined in above all else? Liberals fear a sell-out. Scuttlebutt has already begun on what we will and will not hear in the upcoming State of the Union address, which will certainly be Obama’s most important and might arguably be the most important such address since George W. Bush’s 2002 “axis of evil” speech. The hope among Democrats will be for Obama to lay out his agenda, try to shape the coming debate with Republicans, and draw a few lines in the sand. He cannot count on a continuation of this fortnight’s burst of bipartisanship, but the recent victories have probably replenished his capital with his own party, and to some extent with independent voters, putting him in a stronger position as he prepares for battle.

Compromises k2 debt ceiling

This infighting destroys the Senates ability to raise the debate ceiling- brink of compromise now

Roll Call By John Stanton and Steven T. Dennis April 12, 2011, Midnight, “Debt Limit Battle Begins Now”, http://www.rollcall.com/issues/56_109/Debt-Limit-Battle-Begins-Now-204842-1.html //ZY

Democrats and Republicans wasted no time drawing stark battle lines for the coming fight over raising the debt limit as a top Republican dismissed out of hand the White House’s calls for a simple increase to the nation’s borrowing authority. “We are not going to vote to raise the debt limit unless we see some guarantees” on mandatory spending caps and entitlement reform, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said Monday. Carney argued that Obama has demonstrated a willingness to deal with the debt and called on Congress to quickly pass a clean extension. “His agreement on Friday to enact the deepest discretionary spending cuts in history has shown that he is committed to deficit reduction, and we do not need to play chicken with our economy by linking the raising of the debt ceiling to anything. We should do that right away,” Carney argued. Almost immediately after Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Obama agreed to a six-month continuing resolution with $38.5 billion in spending cuts, Democrats and Republicans alike looked ahead to the bigger debt limit fight. “It’s been interesting to see the pivot here, particularly in the context of the week that the president has decided to step up,” Cantor said, pointing to Obama’s planned deficit-reduction speech Wednesday. The shift in rhetoric for Democrats has been particularly jarring. Obama voted against a debt limit increase as a Senator, but Carney told reporters Monday that the president “regrets that vote and thinks it was a mistake. He realizes now that raising the debt ceiling is so important to the health of this economy and the global economy that it is not a vote that — even when you are protesting an administration’s policies — you can play around with, and you need to take very seriously,” Carney said. Carney also took the first steps Monday toward painting Republicans as putting partisanship ahead of the nation’s economic needs. “The economic impact of holding hostage the debt ceiling vote to other considerations would be catastrophic, so I think the need to move on this is quite clear,” Carney said. Other Democrats were staking out equally strong positions. Rep. Peter Welch (Vt.) — one of the chamber’s most liberal Members — over the weekend began circulating a letter with other Democrats calling on their leadership to hold a special Caucus meeting to discuss the debt limit and urged them to stand behind the demand for a clean extension. “The debt ceiling vote is about one thing: affirming that America pays its bills. It does not authorize new taxpayer obligations; it affirms to the world our commitment to pay obligations already incurred,” Welch wrote in the letter, which as of Monday had been signed by more than 20 Democrats. But Republicans, who have successfully forced Democrats into a fight on their turf of fiscal conservatism, weren’t buying Democrats’ insistence. Cantor said whether the debt limit needs to be raised is not the question for the bulk of Republicans. “Most of my Members would say, ‘Look, the American people are expected to pay their bills, and the federal government is expected to pay its bills,’” he said. But “we are in such a fiscal mess. America is broke, and we’ve got to demonstrate some leadership here.” Cantor and Boehner, who are expected to lead the GOP charge on the debt limit, already appear to have succeeded in shifting the debate away from whether GOP infighting would sink a debt limit vote and onto what kind of spending cuts, if any, should be attached to the final deal. Senate Republicans see the debt limit increase as a golden opportunity to force Democrats up for re-election next year to cast tough votes, particularly on a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution and a separate spending cap proposal from Sens. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.). Reid spokesman Jon Summers said Democrats would continue to work with Republicans on responsible ways to cut spending while protecting the economy. But he warned the GOP against more brinkmanship. “If we have learned anything from the budget negotiations, it’s that the American people didn’t like the GOP’s threats to shut down the government and they won’t take too kindly to threats of putting America into default, which would have a devastating effect on the global economy,” he said. But Reid also will feel pressure from within his own party, particularly Budget Chairman Kent Conrad. The North Dakota Democrat has already said he will support only short-term increases in the debt limit to keep up the pressure to reach a broader deficit-cutting deal. Conrad is part of the “gang of six” — three Republicans and three Democrats — trying to hash out a compromise to slash $4 trillion from deficits over the next decade with a combination of tax reform, entitlement cuts and discretionary spending caps.

Coal lobbies=powerful (1/2)

Coal lobbies are forceful- massive budget increases and public outreach

The Washington Post, Jan. 18, 2008; D0,” Coal Mounts New Campaign To Head Off Climate Legislation”, Coal Industry Plugs Into the Campaign//ZY

A group backed by the coal industry and its utility allies is waging a $35 million campaign in primary and caucus states to rally public support for coal-fired electricity and to fuel opposition to legislation that Congress is crafting to slow climate change. The group, called Americans for Balanced Energy Choices, has spent $1.3 million on billboard, newspaper, television and radio ads in Iowa, Nevada and South Carolina. One of its television ads shows a power cord being plugged into a lump of coal, which it calls "an American resource that will help us with vital energy security" and "the fuel that powers our way of life." The ads note that half of U.S. electricity comes from coal-fired plants. The group has also deployed teams on the campaign trail; about 50 people, many of them paid, walked around as human billboards and handed out leaflets outside Tuesday's Democratic debate in Nevada with questions for voters to ask the candidates. "In Iowa, there is a saying that you don't get to be president unless you go through Iowa. We'd like to say that you don't get to be president unless you understand how complicated this issue is," Joe Lucas, the group's executive director, said Wednesday night during a stopover en route from Nevada to South Carolina. The group's message -- that coal-fired power plants can be clean, and that more of them are needed to meet the growing demand for electricity -- comes when opposition to new coal plants is mounting because they generate greenhouse gases. In Kansas , where a state agency rejected a permit for two proposed coal plants, opinion polls show that roughly two out of three people opposed the plants. That sentiment, plus soaring construction costs and uncertainty about federal climate change legislation, last year prompted U.S. companies to abandon or postpone plans to build dozens of new coal plants. The coal mining industry is fighting back. It increased the budget of the National Mining Association, the industry's main lobbying group, by 20 percent this year, to $19.7 million. Last September, the industry also boosted the budget of Americans for Balanced Energy Choices more than fourfold. The roster of backers includes 28 companies and trade associations such as Peabody Energy, Arch Coal,Duke Energy, Southern Co. and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association. The controversy over coal has been especially heated in Nevada, where environmental groups and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid, who represents the state, have opposed construction of three new coal-fired power plants. "They're all dirty," Reid said last fall. He urged utilities to rely on energy efficiency and solar and wind power. (Last year, according to a report issued yesterday by the American Wind Energy Association, wind made up 30 percent of all new electricity generating capacity.) On Tuesday night, the issue came up during the debate among the three leading Democratic presidential candidates. Former Sen. John Edwards said, "I believe we need a moratorium on the building of any more coal-fired power plants unless and until we have the ability to capture and sequester the carbon in the ground." Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) said, "I have said we should not be siting any more coal-powered plants unless they can have the most modern, clean technology. And I want big demonstration projects to figure out how we would capture and sequester carbon." Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) did not commit himself on coal plants but said Americans had to make their buildings, lighting and appliances "more efficient." "Yes, we do need to be more energy efficient," Lucas said. "But even as we become more efficient, we're plugging more things into the wall." The ads being run by Americans for Balanced Energy Choices talk about "clean coal." New power plants are cleaner than they used to be because they must meet more stringent federal regulations limiting such pollutants as nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide. But climate change is linked to carbon dioxide emissions, which are not yet regulated; those emissions have dropped more modestly as plants have become more efficient. The group's newspaper ads avoid that distinction. They say that today's carbon-fired plants are "70 percent cleaner based on regulated emissions per unit of energy produced." That does not refer to carbon dioxide. New coal-plant technologies that might capture carbon dioxide and store, or sequester, it underground are expensive, experimental and not in commercial use. But Lucas says carbon capture and storage "is no longer a pipe dream. It's nearing a point where it's real." Many environmentalists argue that until that time, the United States should focus on renewable energy such as solar and wind. Coal advocates say those energy sources cannot be relied on 24 hours a day and, so far, the energy they produce cannot be easily stored. ABEC's ads, produced by the same firm that made "what happens here stays here" ads to promote Las Vegas to tourists, also talk about "affordable" energy. The group says in a TV ad that the price of coal is one-third that of other fuels. But coal prices have risen, albeit not as much as oil. And environmentalists and economists argue that the price of coal does not include substantial environmental costs. "We welcome a vigorous debate about our energy future and solving global warming. Unfortunately ABEC is spending millions of dollars on misinformation about our energy choices . . . instead of engaging in a real debate about the true costs of coal and clean energy alternatives," said Bruce Nilles, director of Sierra Club's national coal campaign. Environmentalists are also worried that the ads aired by ABEC so far are just the beginning of what could be a much bigger offensive once Congress gets down to work on a climate change bill sponsored by Sens. Joseph I.

Coal lobbies=powerful (2/2)

{continued no text deleted}

Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John W. Warner (R-Va.). An ad targeting that bill is currently being shown on video monitors at the baggage carousels at Dulles International Airport. In 1993, an ad campaign by the health-care industry featuring a fictional couple named Harry and Louise helped torpedo the Clinton administration's health-care proposal. Now, some supporters of the Lieberman-Warner bill fear that the coal industry may use a similar strategy to kill legislation aimed at slowing climate change by stressing potential consumer costs and not the societal benefits. "Big coal may launch a 'Harry and Louise'-style disinformation campaign to sink global warming solutions in Congress," said Daniel J. Weiss, senior fellow and director of climate strategy for the Center for American Progress. One of the coal industry group's radio ads hints at those themes. A woman asks: "How can we become less dependent on foreign resources? What fuels will keep power bills reasonable and be environmentally responsible?" A man responds, "We have many questions for our candidates, and coal has to be part of the discussion." Lucas is working on that. Last year, he wrote letters that appeared in a dozen newspapers. On Tuesday, he appeared on Nevada public radio. On Wednesday, the group's views were quoted approvingly in an editorial in the Las Vegas Review-Journal . "We're getting the message out," Lucas said.

Solar lobbying powerful

Solar lobby has influence

ERIN KELLY,reporter at Gannett's Washington Bureau Jun. 26, 2011 12:00 AM, Solar power funding threatened by Congress, Federal grants, loans in jeopardy, http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2011/06/26/20110626solar-power-congress-funding-cuts.html//ZY

Solar advocates say they believe they can change some minds about solar in the House when they point out that there are solar companies in every state in the nation and in many congressional districts. That doesn't always work, though, as Schweikert's opposition to the loan-guarantee program shows. First Solar is based in his district. "I think solar is sometimes mistakenly thought of as a small, niche industry when it actually creates jobs all across the country," Caperton said. "It's not just California and Arizona - there are manufacturing companies in Mississippi, Alabama, Michigan, all over the place."

Fossil Fuel lobby= no power

Clean renewable energy thrives despite fuel lobbies best efforts

Clean Technica, U.S. Military Vaults into Clean Energy Future Despite Fossil Fuel Lobby, July 17, 2010, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=us-military-vaults-into-clean-energ-2010-07//ZY

There they go again: right when the U.S. military completes yet another project to reduce CO2 emissions, the fossil fuel industry plays Debbie Downer. This week’s matchup involved our own U.S. Air Force, which has just announced its latest solar power installation with cheery pride, versus an industry group called “CO2 is Green,” which has just launched a new campaign proclaiming that more C02 is good because “it supports all plant life.” Hey, whose corner should we be in?

Throughout the last century, the U.S. achieved global military advantage primarily due to fossil fuels, but energy technology changes over time and sooner or later fossil fuels are destined to give way to new energy sources and energy storage solutions that serve modern military purposes far more effectively, and far less expensively. The fossil fuel industry may be entitled to fight for its life but meanwhile the U.S. military is going full steam ahead into a cleaner, safer renewable energy future. Renewable Energy and National Security The military isn’t pushing clean energy just to needle the fossil fuel industry. Based partly on its considerable collection of hard data on climate change, the military has been right up front in stating that climate change is a national security risk, that continued reliance on fossil fuels puts our troops needlessly at risk in military operations, and that clean renewable energy is vital to a strong national defense strategy. Baby Talk from the Fossil Fuel Industry In contrast to the hard data, research, and policy offered by the U.S. military, the fossil fuel industry is serving up pablum. The CO2 is Green website is one example. In its effort to weaken public support for federal climate legislation that would support CO2 reduction, the website descends to a reading level more appropriate to elementary school than serious adult conversation. Observations like “more CO2 results in a greener earth” and “man-made CO2 contributes to plant growth” are just a couple of examples. Another example of this condescending attitude is the “Faces of Coal” campaign, in which, mountaintop coal mining (literally, blowing up mountains right here in the U.S.) is touted as something that improves mountains that used to be “straight up and down” and makes the landscape “more visually pleasing.” Grown-Up Action from the U.S. Military While the fossil fuel industry is busy talking down to the public, the military is taking action on every clean energy front, from high tech energy efficient office buildings to the largest solar power installation in North America. That’s where our tax dollars should be going – to support a strong, modern national defense policy, and not to continue providing billions in tax breaks and subsidies for fossil fuels that have outlived their time

Reid- no clout

Reid has no political influence- tax compromise failure and near shutdown prove

Las Vegas Sun 6/25 (Karoun Demirjian, 6/25/11, " Deadlines may shelve renewable energy projects ", http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/jun/25/deadlines-may-shelve-renewable-energy-projects/)//ZY

It’s past time for gangs of five or six,” Reid told reporters this week. “With what Kyl and Cantor have done, I think it’s (the budget) in the hands of the speaker and president, and sadly, probably me.” It’s a role Reid has to have gotten used to over the past few months, after haggling through a tax compromise in December and barely circumventing a government shutdown in April. But then he was mainly trying to preserve programs that exist, not drum up new ones. Stimulus programs are not popular fare among Republicans. As Nevada’s Republican Sen. Dean Heller has explained, it’s not necessarily the government’s role to buoy every industry, and although one stimulus project may create a few hundred jobs, the number of jobs the economy has lost during the recession is in the tens of thousands.

Reid- yes clout

Providence Journal 6/27 (John E. Mulligan, 6/27/11, " Tribal leaders push for 'Carcieri fix' bill ", http://www.projo.com/news/content/carcieri_fix_06-27-11_LPOR9NM_v13.402ea.html)

In the Senate, opponents of the Carcieri fix include leaders with a lot of clout. Without the support of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., it could be difficult for Akaka and his allies to schedule an up-or-down vote on the Carcieri fix bill. Reid has never taken a specific position on the measure, but he has been a strong opponent of using federal land trusts to create gambling casinos outside the boundaries of Indian reservations.

Jack Gerard Powerful (1/2)

Gerard is incredibly politically connected and can easily sway legislation-empirically proven

CNN MONEY June 21, 2011 \ Big Oil's big man in Washington http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/20/news/companies/jack_gerard_oil_lobby.fortune/index.htm?source=yahoo_quote //ZY

FORTUNE -- Jack Gerard has pretty much been in crisis mode since taking over as president and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute in November 2008. Shortly after he arrived at the powerful oil-industry lobbying group, President Obama and a wave of Democrats swept into office, promising to fund alternative energy sources and take action on climate change. Last year the BP disaster poured more than 200 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, and Gerard spent the summer prepping his members for more than 50 congressional hearings and eight separate investigations related to the spill and its aftermath. Then, in mid-May, executives from five oil companies appeared before a committee of the U.S. Senate and defended their earnings, which could hit record highs in 2011. "Don't punish our industry for doing its job well," Chevron (CVX, Fortune 500) CEO John Watson said. The performance was, by all accounts, a public relations disaster. And yet Gerard, a 53-year-old professional lobbyist whose last gig was running a chemical trade association, thinks he can get Americans to support, even root for, Big Oil. As he was putting out fires on Capitol Hill and at the White House, he also reached out to left-leaning groups that haven't been traditional allies, such as the AFL-CIO and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and has even hired the Nature Conservancy's top grass-roots organizer to mobilize a citizen activism campaign for API. Gerard believes he can protect his industry by reminding an increasingly prickly and vocal public -- think Tea Party -- about how many people his members and affiliates employ. (API says it is responsible for supporting some 9.2 million jobs.) Eventually he hopes to have a presence on the ground in every congressional district in the country, so when a policy proposal hits the industry's bottom line, lawmakers from Seattle to Savannah will hear complaints about it from voters back home. The gambit is showing signs of success. A series of API-organized rallies last summer helped derail the "spill bill" Democrats aimed to enact in the wake of the BP (BP) disaster. Now he is hoping the prospect of new jobs will stoke popular zeal for hydraulic fracking -- a practice that is raising safety and environmental concerns. Wooing the American public is just one prong of Gerard's strategy for preserving his members' tax breaks and expanding their access to energy reserves. A lobbyist is only as good as his relationships, and Gerard, a devout churchgoer with eight children, including twin boys adopted from Guatemala, is quite adept at using his personal life to forge bonds with important allies on the Hill. At the same time he's gained unprecedented direct and regular access to the CEOs of his most important member companies, including Exxon's (XOM, Fortune 500) Rex Tillerson and ConocoPhillips' (COP, Fortune 500) James Mulva. Gerard often seems clinical, almost professorial, when he talks about the issues he lobbies for. (He asks four times during one interview whether he is boring me, and in a follow-up session in his downtown Washington office he is surprisingly equivocal on the subject of climate change.) But rivals shouldn't mistake his professionalism for lack of passion. Gerard loves a challenge, and nothing could be more of a battle than revamping Big Oil's image. "If I'm playing basketball," the 5-foot-9 Gerard explains, "I want to take on the team who's got the 7-foot-3 guy as opposed to the team that's got the 6-foot-5 guy. Why? Because he's tougher to beat." Making the right connections Before Gerard agreed to take the job at API two years ago, he made an unusual stipulation for a trade association director. He didn't want to be just a hired gun; he wanted to be a strategic partner with a direct line to the industry's CEOs. He got it -- and he isn't shy about using it, keeping in constant contact with his bosses over the phone and by e-mail, much to the chagrin of the oil companies' in-house lobbyists, who don't enjoy the same access. "This can make or break a trade association, having that relationship at the top and having the ability to pick up the phone and talk to someone," he says. Gerard also regularly flies to Houston for meetings with oil executives, and he has found a way to get particularly close to Exxon's Tillerson, who heads API's biggest member company and happens to serve as national president of the Boy Scouts of America. Gerard has been active in the leadership of the D.C.-area organization. "You sit down for dinner and start talking to somebody, and you find you've got a passion for something similar," Gerard says. "A remarkable thing about humanity is to come together and find those common bonds, and Scouts happens to be one I share with Rex." Tillerson credits Gerard with doing "an exceptional job leading the industry at a very challenging time" by assembling "an effective grass-roots and issue education program that has significantly increased the industry's voice in the national energy discussion." Indeed, few of Gerard's good deeds go unexploited. He is an active presence in the Mormon church as the equivalent of an archbishop, which gives him ties to Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch -- the top GOP member of the Senate's tax-writing committee -- and presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Last summer Gerard joined Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu and a U.S. delegation on a weeklong trip to London and Ethiopia that focused on international adoptions. Landrieu has always been a reliable friend to the oil industry -- Louisiana is one of the biggest oil-producing states -- but just two weeks after returning from her travels with Gerard she stunned the White House by placing a hold on Obama's nominee to be his next budget director, employing a Senate maneuver to block the appointment. Landrieu explained the move was intended to pressure the administration to lift the moratorium on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico imposed after the spill. The White House blasted Landrieu's ploy as "unwarranted and outrageous," but it relented, lifting the moratorium seven weeks before it was set to expire. Landrieu says the hold was her idea, and she asked Gerard to support her only after placing it. "I'm proud of it," she says, and as for the trip, "when Jack and I travel, we just talk about

Jack Gerard Powerful (2/2)

{continued no text omitted}

adoption issues." Last summer, after the House passed a tough bill to boost safety standards for offshore drilling and remove a liability cap for oil spills, Gerard mounted a round of rallies in regions far from the oilfields. At one, in suburban Chicago, more than 500 union workers assembled for a slick corporate production stage-managed to look like a working-class event. A parade of industry and labor leaders spoke, crediting the oil business for creating American jobs. The rally concluded with a speech by former Chicago Bears coach Mike Ditka, who blended stories of his own hardscrabble upbringing with an appeal for energy independence. The protest -- one of seven that API organized last summer -- sufficiently spooked the Senate. "In those smaller media markets, it's a big deal," says retired Sen. George Voinovich, a moderate Ohio Republican. The spill bill barely got a second look when the Senate returned from its August recess. And when Obama in September proposed funding a new $50 billion infrastructure program by repealing Big Oil tax breaks, Voinovich told the President that the industry's on-the-ground vigor would be a major obstacle. Recalls Voinovich: "I told him, 'You've got as much chance as a snowball in hell.'" he fight for fracking Though API is seen as the lobbying arm of some of the world's largest companies (Exxon, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips are Nos. 2, 3, and 4, respectively, on the Fortune 500 ranking of companies by revenue), it also includes dozens of small suppliers, and Gerard has started to enlist those companies and other allies in his effort to show how vital the industry is to the economy. During consideration of the spill bill last summer, API reminded liberal members of Congress of the small vendors that sell everything from boots to helicopter parts to the oil and gas business. Across the country farm bureaus, truckers, grocers, cattle growers, and union locals also got in on the act, piping up in defense of Big Oil. "Jack has done very well at expanding the allies we have in this so people understand how important we are to their industry," says Marathon Oil (MRO, Fortune 500) CEO Clarence Cazalot.

Pelosi pushing partisanship

Pelosi pushing creates sharp party division- not cooperation

NYT October 29, 2009, Pelosi: Influence and Home State Popularity, Inversely Related?http://bayarea.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/29/pelosi-influence-and-popularity-inversely-related//ZY

“What has happen over past eight months is a turning away from Nancy Pelosi, not in the Bay Area but in other parts of California,” said Mark DiCamillo, director of the Field Poll.

“When she takes stands on issues that are perceived to be partisan, that’s when you are going to get much sharper divisions of opinion between Democrats and Republicans,” he said. “Most of what we are seeing now is related to health care but that could continue as we move to other issues like climate change and immigration.”

Chu k2 agenda

Chu controls Obamas agenda

Energy.gov “Dr. Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy”, http://www.energy.gov/organization/dr_steven_chu.htm

As United States Secretary of Energy, Dr. Steven Chu is charged with helping implement President Obama's ambitious agenda to invest in clean energy, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, address the global climate crisis, and create millions of new jobs

Florida k2 election (1/4)

Florida determines the election- 29 state votes and the tie breaker in 2012

Bloomberg, Apr 29, 2011, “Obama Bids Farewell to Space Shuttle as Florida to Lose Thousands of Jobs”, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-29/obama-to-watch-shuttle-launch-as-space-coast-sees-jobs-lost.html //ZY

Florida Republicans have criticized Obama’s approach. While today’s launch “is an opportunity to celebrate Endeavour’s history and the brave people who have made it a proud one, it is also a bittersweet occasion,” Senator Marco Rubio wrote in the Orlando Sentinel on April 26. “The president’s space policy is jeopardizing America’s longstanding commitment to manned space exploration. This has serious consequences for Florida.” The job losses in the space program will add to the woes of a state that has struggled to recover from the recession. While the Bloomberg Florida Index (BFLX) of stocks has gained 9.8 percent over the past year, the state’s unemployment rate is at 11.1 percent, compared with the national average of 8.8 percent. Florida, the fourth-biggest U.S. state by population, has been a swing state in national elections and is a target for both parties in 2012. Political Prize Obama won Florida with 51 percent of the vote in 2008. Republican Bush claimed it in the two prior presidential elections, including the contested -- and pivotal -- balloting in 2000. In 2012, Florida will have added importance because population gains will add two more Electoral College votes, giving whoever wins the state 29 of the 270 votes that are required for victory in the presidential election.

Space funding controls Cape Kennedy which tips the balance in Florida

Lexington institute on Tuesday, May 17th, 2011, “Obama Mis-Steps on Aerospace & Defense Could Lose Election”, http://www.defencetalk.com/obama-mis-steps-on-aerospace-defense-could-lose-election-34230/ //ZY

Mr. Obama is by no means a shoo-in for reelection, because his election in 2008 was largely the result of a promise to end the unpopular war in Iraq and his approval ratings since being elected have seldom managed to rise above 50 percent. Personally, I think he made the right calls on bailing out Detroit and reforming healthcare. But he can't afford to offend any of the swing states that will probably decide the outcome of the 2012 election -- states like Florida, Iowa and Ohio -- and lately his subordinates seem to be working overtime to do just that. Or take the administration's inept handling of NASA's human spaceflight program. Thousands of NASA employees in the critical swing state of Florida are losing jobs because the Space Shuttle is retiring and the White House decided to cancel a successor program called Constellation. Voters in Florida's central region around Cape Kennedy hold the electoral balance of power between the state's conservative north and more progressive south, so wiping out thousands of jobs there with a poorly conceived plan to restructure the manned spaceflight program could kill Obama's prospects in the Sunshine State. Is it possible that White House political operatives don't recall how a few thousand votes in Florida delivered the White House to Bush in 2000?

Florida k2 election (2/4)

Obama trying to win over Florida for 2012 elections

STEWART M. POWELL(Writer for chron) 3/8/10 “Analysts point to politics over Obama’s NASA conference” http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/space/6903694.html RM

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama is scrambling for political cover in the electoral battleground of Florida by staging a White House conference next month to explain and defend a scaled back vision for the nation's marquee manned space program that threatens thousands of jobs, political analysts say. Obama is banking that officially designating Mars the nation's next destination in space before a high-profile gathering of top administration officials, local elected officials and aerospace contractors will spark inspiration, assuage an anxious, space-reliant work force and cement the allegiance of Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., a crucial political ally heading the Senate panel with jurisdiction over NASA and the highest ranking Democrat elected statewide in Florida. Nelson took to the Senate floor late Monday to welcome Obama's April 15 visit and praise his plans to seize leadership of the space program, even as he went on to excoriate unnamed presidential aides and “the budget boys from OMB” for allowing the chief executive to create “the perception that the president had killed the manned space program.” Nelson added pointedly: “There is outright hostility (in Florida) toward President Obama and his proposals for the nation's human space program.” Florida's Kennedy Space Center, like Houston's Johnson Space Center and Alabama's Marshall Space Flight Center, face thousands of threatened layoffs from Obama's decision to end space shuttle operations at the end of the year and scrap NASA's $108 billion back-to-the-moon Constellation program. But it is the swing state of Florida that is getting the president's attention, not perennially GOP states like Texas and Alabama. “The Obama administration could care less about offending Texas politically,” says Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia. “Texas is guaranteed to go Republican in 2012, whereas Florida will be highly competitive. It makes perfect electoral sense for the president to travel to Florida to discuss his vision for space,” Sabato said. U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said he was not concerned that Obama would be discussing the future of the space program in Florida rather than in Texas, home of the astronaut corps and where JSC has quarterbacked every manned space flight mission over the last five decades. “I think we're going to have the votes to beat” the Constellation cancellation, Cornyn told the Houston Chronicle. “This is an area where the president is going to receive a substantial bipartisan pushback.” Partial optimism U.S. Rep. Pete Olson, R-Sugar Land, whose district includes Houston's JSC, said he was encouraged that Obama would be addressing “questions still unanswered in their budget proposal,” adding: “I'm highly skeptical that this will be an opportunity to stand up for Constellation, but that is exactly what should be discussed.” ‘New course' for NASA The without fanfare Sunday The president will be White House announced that Obama would convene and attend the conference in Florida to describe “the new course the administration is charting for NASA and the future of U.S. leadership in human spaceflight.” working from the no-frills blueprint he outlined in his fiscal 2011 budget in early February that called for ending Constellation, extending the life of the space station to 2020, boosting earth science missions and spending $6 billion over five years to encourage private companies to develop the capability to rocket astronauts and cargo to the orbiting space station.

Obama needs to win over Florida for elections

Jeffrey Kluger (reporter for time.com) 4/16/10 “Has Obama’s NASA strategy Fizzed at Launch” http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1982475,00.html RM

Never mind the tropical sun. Visit Florida and dis the space program, and the reception you'll get is going to be awfully cool. Nobody knew that better than President Obama on Thursday, when he toured the Kennedy Space Center and then spoke to a roomful of 200 VIPs about his plans for NASA after the shuttle program ends later this year. The President had to know that more than the agency's future could be on the line. In Florida — the ultimate presidential swing state — his could be too. So how was the temperature in the room? Chilly — and not without reason. Obama's take on space has never been an easy thing to track. During the campaign, he targeted NASA as a likely area for budget-balancing cuts. Electoral arithmetic made that position untenable, and he quickly backtracked, pledging a robust future for the space agency, albeit one that would take it in a different direction from the one the previous Administration had pursued. That direction had involved mothballing the shuttles by this year and replacing them with what was known as the Constellation program, a collection of projects that involved building new spacecraft for both orbital flight and trips to the moon, as well as two new boosters — one for humans and a powerhouse version to lift heavy cargo.

Florida k2 election (4/4)

Obama aiming to win over the swing state Florida – key to elections

Huston Chronicle (news agency) 6/6/10 “Playing politics : President’s NASA policy could haunt his party at the polls in Harris county” http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/7039839.html RM

Recent reports that the White House used federal appointments as bait to try to dissuade challengers from running in primaries against Democratic incumbents have called into question President Barack Obama's campaign pledge to pursue a new — and cleaner — brand of politics. As the administration prepares to revamp the manned space program by canceling the Constellation moon missions, mothballing the space shuttles and turning to private companies to develop new spacecraft, crass political considerations also seem to be influencing the distribution of assistance to NASA workers who will be laid off during the transition. Last week, Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis visited the Kennedy Space Center in Florida to announce a $15 million grant to aid aerospace workers in finding new employment. According to Solis, “These hardworking Americans need and deserve our support.” A parade of administration officials, starting with the president, has gone to Florida to promise federal assistance. In a speech at KSC, where some 20,000 NASA and contract workers are affected, Obama pledged an additional $40 million in job assistance. No such consideration has been shown toward other NASA facilities around the country, including the Johnson Space Center in Clear Lake. It stands to lose up to 7,000 NASA and contractor jobs. We smell the stench of political favoritism in the consideration lavished by the administration upon Florida, a presidential swing state, while facilities in Alabama and Texas, two reliable GOP strongholds, are ignored. Houston Mayor Annise Parker says she's “very concerned that the president is focused on Kennedy Space Center in Florida and has not indicated that he is paying attention to Johnson Space Center.” The head of the Bay Area Economic Partnership, Bob Mitchell, called the Solis grant announcement a political statement by the White House. Playing politics can cut both ways. Houston and Harris County went for Obama two years ago, in the process boosting Democrats to victory in countywide races for the first time in more than a decade. If NASA's Texas workforce continues to get the cold shoulder, the president's party may get some payback at the polls come November.

Whoever wins over Florida, has the best chance of winning the elections

Hans Nichols ( writer for Bloomberg BusinessWeek) 3/29/11 “Obama to Watch Shuttle Launch as Space Coast sees jobs Lost” http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-04-29/obama-to-watch-shuttle-launch-as-space-coast-sees-jobs-lost.html RM

April 29 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama is set to bid a personal farewell to America’s manned space shuttle at Cape Canaveral today, as Florida’s “space coast” prepares to say goodbye to thousands of NASA jobs in a state crucial to Obama’s re-election. Obama is scheduled to watch the Endeavour’s final lift-off, the second-to-last shuttle launch in the program’s 30-year history. Also in the audience will be U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords, who is still recovering from a head wound she suffered in a mass shooting in Tucson, Arizona, on Jan. 8. Her husband, Navy Captain Mark Kelly, will be commanding the Endeavour on its 14-day mission to the International Space Station. “At the Cape they stand to lose seven or eight thousand jobs in the next year because of the shuttle program ending,” said Bretton Alexander, the president of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, a Washington-based trade association of companies promoting commercial human spaceflight. Obama and Senator Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat who in 1986 flew one shuttle mission as a payload specialist, “are taking a lot of heat for that, but that was going to happen no matter what,” he said. The shuttle’s demise was set in motion by President George W. Bush in 2004, and Obama’s plan to retool NASA’s mission kept the decision in effect. The president has directed the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to focus on developing rocket systems that might eventually take humans into deep space, while relying on private companies to build spacecraft to ferry astronauts -- and potentially tourists -- to the space station. Rocket Competition On April 18, NASA announced $269 million in contracts to four companies competing to build commercial spaceships, with Chicago-based Boeing Co. receiving $92.3 million and Sierra Nevada Corp., based in Sparks, Nevada, winning $80 million. Space Exploration Technologies Corp. in Hawthorne, California -- whose chief executive officer, Elon Musk, gave Obama a tour of his launch facility last year -- received $75 million. Kent, Washington-based Blue Origin got $22 million. “The space shuttle is coming to an end and it’s really pretty far past its sell-by date,” said Musk, whose company has a $1.6 billion NASA contract to deliver cargo to the space station. “It’s an amazing work of engineering, but it sort of architecturally is very expensive.” The goal of the new system should be to lower the cost per mission and the improve safety, he said, noting the catastrophic failures aboard two shuttles that resulted in the deaths of 14 astronauts. The space shuttle costs an average of about $450 million per mission, according to NASA. Musk estimates that SpaceX flights will cost $140 million. New Era “The public should see this as a dawning of a new era, which will hopefully be a significant improvement in the technology of space travel,” he said. For some former astronauts, the end of the shuttle program should be an opportunity to revitalize space exploration. “If we had evolved it, instead of just using it, we could have got the launch cost down and made it a safe vehicle,” said Loren Acton, a former astronaut and currently a professor at Montana State University in Bozeman. “It’s a tremendous spacecraft,” he said. “I will be sorry to see it go.” In his fiscal year 2012 budget, Obama proposed $18.7 billion for NASA, $1.5 billion less than his request last year. He also has ended NASA’s Constellation program, developed during the Bush administration, which would have built spacecraft for a return to the moon by 2020. Instead, he is seeking to focus NASA on exploring deep space and sending humans to Mars by the mid- 2030s. Consequences for Florida Florida Republicans have criticized Obama’s approach. While today’s launch “is an opportunity to celebrate Endeavour’s history and the brave people who have made it a proud one, it is also a bittersweet occasion,” Senator Marco Rubio wrote in the Orlando Sentinel on April 26. “The president’s space policy is jeopardizing America’s longstanding commitment to manned space exploration. This has serious consequences for Florida.” The job losses in the space program will add to the woes of a state that has struggled to recover from the recession. While the Bloomberg Florida Index of stocks has gained 9.8 percent over the past year, the state’s unemployment rate is at 11.1 percent, compared with the national average of 8.8 percent. Florida, the fourth-biggest U.S. state by population, has been a swing state in national elections and is a target for both parties in 2012. Political Prize Obama won Florida with 51 percent of the vote in 2008. Republican Bush claimed it in the two prior presidential elections, including the contested -- and pivotal -- balloting in 2000. In 2012, Florida will have added importance because population gains will add two more Electoral College votes, giving whoever wins the state 29 of the 270 votes that are required for victory in the presidential election. Planning to watch the launch with the president is Giffords, who made the trip to Florida from the Houston facility where she is undergoing rehabilitation. The Arizona Democrat was shot in the head during the attack in which six people were killed and 13, including Giffords, were wounded. She has begun to speak and is standing on her own, according to the Arizona Republic. Before arriving in Florida, Obama stopped in Alabama to view the damage from some of the tornadoes that tore through the U.S. Southeast. Almost 300 people were killed in six states, according to an Associated Press tally, with the heaviest toll in Alabama. “I’ve never seen devastation like this,” Obama said in Tuscaloosa. “We are going to do everything we can to help these communities rebuild.

AT: Already losing Florida

Central Florida Political Force, March, 31 2011, “PPP: Florida’s split on Obama’s performance and his re-election”, http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_politics/2011/03/ppp-floridas-split-on-obamas-performance-and-his-re-election.html //ZY

Voters in Florida are pretty much evenly divided over president Barack Obama’s performance in office. And while he leads a half-dozen would-be Republican challengers, the margins are more than close enough to further justify Florida’s status as the nation’s largest swing state. So says PPP, the Democrat-affiliated polling firm. Its latest numbers show that 48 percent of Florida voters (and 81 percent of Democrats) approve of his performance, and 47 percent (including a whopping 85 percent of Republicans) disapprove. Among independents, Obama’s rating is 49/44 positive. Against likely Republican challengers, Obama leads former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, by just 46-44 — compared to his 48-45 margin over former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. He leads Rudy Giuliani by 6 points at 48-42, Mike Huckabee by 7 at 50-43, Newt Gingrich by 8 at 50-42, and Sarah Palin by 13 at 52-39.

Flip Flops drains pol cap

Flip flops hurt politicians-campaigns prove

Reuters 7 (Holland, Steve. “It’s It's the year of the flip-flop in U.S. politics”. June 2007. http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/06/10/us-usa-politics-flipflops-idUSN0836055720070610)

But is changing positions, or flip-flopping, all that bad? "Most of the people who we regard as our greatest presidents have made massive turnarounds in their careers," said Bruce Schulman, a political history professor at Boston University, who has studied flip-flops. A prime example would be Abraham Lincoln. He ran for president in 1860 with no intention of doing anything about slavery in places where it existed, only to issue the Emancipation Proclamation banning slavery in 1863. But there is a difference between changing your mind to reflect changing circumstances and naked pandering for votes, which many analysts say is driving this year's cross-fire. Romney's switch from governing the fairly liberal state of Massachusetts to presidential candidate seeking support from the Republican conservative base has left him exposed to months of criticism from, in particular, Arizona Sen. John McCain. First Romney was in favor of a woman's right to choose an abortion, but now he is against it. CONSISTENCY, RELIABILITY, PREDICTABILITY "There are several things people are interested in when they're picking somebody to be president -- consistency, reliability and predictability," said a McCain senior adviser, Charlie Black. "You can't be sure what he's going to do when he's president when he has a history of changing positions," Black said of Romney. The Romney campaign is tired of McCain's attacks. "They can keep doing it if they want, and Romney just keeps getting stronger and stronger in the polls," said his adviser, former Missouri Sen. Jim Talent. "I've got to tell you, I'm a Romney guy, but I don't think it's working, these people making all these accusations." It seems that every major candidate has faced charges of switching positions based on the political winds. Besides her stance on Iraq, New York Sen. Clinton is accused of opposing government supports for ethanol, a big issue in the corn-growing and key presidential caucus state of Iowa, before she was for them. One of her Democratic opponents, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, is accused of having voted for and against storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, and believed Americans were safer against terrorists, but now thinks they are not as safe. Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, who has only been in the Senate for two years, in May voted against a $100 billion Iraq war funding bill, saying it was time to change course in the war. But in April he vowed not to cut funding for U.S. troops. Schulman said the reason flip-flops are of such

Winners Lose (1/3)

Obama’s political capital is finite- prove by Latin America FTA

Harvard Political Review, January 14, 2011,” President Obama’s Political Capital”, http://hpronline.org/hprgument/president-obamas-political-capital/ //ZY

Indeed, as the 112th Congress kicks off, our President and the Democratic Party he leads is headed down a grim road for passing any major legislation on its short-term and long-term policy agenda. The pause in harsh rhetoric and fierce contention borne of the tragic, horrifying events of Tucson is unfortunately going to be short-lived, by many accounts. Even as legislators’ efforts for unification might bring together the parties for symbolic purposes such as the State of the Union address, House and Senate Republicans are largely seeking to exercise their mandate to check the perceived Democratic excesses of the last two years. The President of Change is going to have to grapple with the ways of the past, if the House GOP intends to keep its promise to implement the Pledge to America. Inherent in all of these impending political firefights is the realization that President Obama’s intelligent utilization of his quickly diminishing political capital is going to play a larger role than ever in our national political process over the next two years, and may very well determine the outcome of the 2012 presidential race. Every move our president takes with respect to advancing his domestic and foreign policy agenda in the halls of the 112th Congress will be heavily scrutinized – even more so than is normally the case – by virtue of the fact that the GOP controls the United States House of Representatives. Given this new status quo, will Obama pass any major Democratic legislation by the end of his first term? The chances are zero to none, even with calculated political moves on the part of the Administration such as the appointment of experienced outsider Bill Daley as the new White House Chief of Staff. In fact, it is apparent that many in the Administration implicitly acknowledge the quickly diminishing political capital Mr. Obama has; after all, campaign promises and pledges have been neglected in the name of political capital stinginess. For instance, as Bernard Aronson of the Washington Post points out today: Latin American free trade agreement advocacy, which President Obama undertook in last year’s State of the Union address, was quickly forgotten by the legislative pragmatists, those political capital Scrooges working in the White House’s West Wing – all in an ostensible effort to preserve what is left of Obama’s waning political capital.

Winners Lose (2/3)

Obamas political capital cannot be rejuvenated- steady drops after controversial legislation prove

Leo Hindery, Jr, Chairman of the US Economy/Smart Globalization Initiative at the New America Foundation and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Currently an investor in media companies, he is the former CEO of Tele-Communications, Inc. (TCI), Liberty Media and their successor AT&T Broadband. He also serves on the Board of the Huffington Post Investigative Fund, May 2011, “Obama’s Presidency: A Tale to Date of Missed Domestic Opportunities”, http://newmexicanvoice.com/2011/05/13/obamas-presidency-a-tale-to-date-of-missed-domestic-opportunities/ //ZY

It’s hard to find but one other President in our nation’s history who, on the day of his inauguration, was invested with more free political capital than was Barack Obama. That political capital was found in a near-commonly accepted national agenda, namely, to pull us out of the Great Recession of 2007 by helping create millions of jobs, and a near-commonly targeted national enemy, namely, the banks. Only Franklin Roosevelt started with as much capital, as he too was swept into office on the same near-consensus. Armies of progressives and conservatives alike believed that the “hope” which Mr. Obama so often eloquently offered them in his campaign speeches would be the reality of immediate large-scale job creation. Legions of the middle class who had lost or were about to lose their jobs said, “Go create jobs, Mr. President.” And millions more who were trying to bring the American Dream to their families said to him, “Mr. President, go get those bastards on Wall Street who did this to us.” The problem as I’ve argued and as to which a lot of respondents to my April 26 blog agree is that Mr. Obama never really embraced the jobs agenda with anywhere near the conviction and determination that he has shown, for example, regarding healthcare reform. This is beyond perplexing given our continued high rate of real unemployment – at 18% today it is a figure unprecedented in modern times – and especially given the polls which have consistently shown that ‘jobs, jobs and jobs’ are the three issues most on the minds of the American people. And it is this fear of job loss and economic stagnation that has undermined confidence in the direction our country is headed. As one respondent recently wrote me, “I think we projected on to Obama much more than is there. He isn’t up to the job [of creating jobs].” Of course Mr. Obama compounded the error of forsaking the agenda which his electoral victory mandated with his almost immediate toadying up to the big banks. This voluntary capitulation was pre-ordained by his selection of Timothy Geithner as Treasury Secretary, who as head of the New York Fed had a miserable record of protecting consumers. Geithner, along with Larry Summers, became the architects of the administration’s “financial reform” which just a year or so later left the big banks better positioned than before the crash and with a nary a bit of meaningful penalties. Sure, on that day in November 2008 when the nation chose Barack Obama as its 44th president, the voting public was so tired of George Bush and so afraid of John McCain’s unpreparedness, almost any Democrat would have been elected. That doesn’t mean, however, that the vast majority of Americans didn’t give Mr. Obama a clear mandate as well as a dragon to slay. Thus it is little surprise, with our economy mired in a near jobless recovery and real unemployment at 18% with a “Jobs Gap” of 21 million, that the latest McClatchy-Marist Poll (4-28-11) finds that only 40% of Americans now approve of how President Obama is dealing with the economy while fully 57% disapprove. And often mentioned by those millions of voters who disapprove is their view that the big banks and Wall Street are back acting with virtually the same disregard for consumers and for the health of the national economy as before the Recession began.

Winners Lose (3/3)

Political capital is finite

M&C News,Oct 27, 2010 “Obama's agenda at risk in US mid-term elections”, http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/usa/news/article_1594335.php/PREVIEW-Obama-s-agenda-at-risk-in-US-mid-term-elections//ZY

Yet each controversial and hard-won piece of legislation has further eroded Obama's political capital. Critics also argue the reforms have been at the expense of rescuing the world's largest economy from an ongoing slump that remains Obama's Achilles heel. Unemployment remains near 10 per cent despite massive spending that has pushed the US budget deficit to record levels. Obama argues his policies saved the country from a far worse economic slump, but Republicans have capitalized on early White House promises to keep the jobless rate below 8 per cent. It has hovered at 9.6 per cent for months. Facing an impatient electorate, Obama's failure to jump-start the economy has also reignited a broader distrust of government that is at the core of the conservative 'Tea Party,' a grassroots protest movement that exploded on the scene this election cycle. Matt Dallek, a visiting scholar with the Washington-based Bipartisan Policy Center, said Obama's supporters shouldn't expect any more major 'progressive' reforms championed by the left. The biggest casualties are likely climate change and energy and immigration reforms. 'It's highly unlikely that (Obama) will enact pieces of legislation on the scale of what he achieved during his first two years,' said Dallek. 'Expectations within the White House are going to have to be recalibrated.' The deep frustration among US voters has pushed Obama's approval ratings consistently below 50 per cent and sparked a broader disenchantment with all incumbent lawmakers. Approval ratings for Congress are near an all-time low of 20 per cent. Just two years after his meteoric rise to the presidency, Obama's own role in the mid-term election has been curtailed. Democrats in swing districts have been reluctant to campaign with the president or trump his biggest legislative accomplishments. Obama has instead stuck mostly to rallying voters in more reliably Democratic states and sent more popular 'surrogates,' including his wife Michelle, to convince the public in independent-minded states. Yet the looming Democratic losses on November 2 are also part of normal political headwinds running against the party. Presidents ranging from Republican Ronald Reagan to Democrat Bill Clinton suffered big electoral defeats two years after first being elected. This voter rebuke means presidents have typically been forced to scale back political agendas in the second half of their terms, according to Fred Beuttler, the House of Representatives' acting historian. 'The most productive time that a president will have is their first year of their first Congress,' Beuttler said. 'Youve got maybe that 15 months, perhaps, to get as much as your legislative agenda passed as possible.' Voters in the US have also long been wary of keeping one party in control of Congress and the White House, unlike in parliamentary systems in Europe and elsewhere. 'The American political system dynamic is not designed for a single party rule,' said Buettler. The divide can either lead to a stalemate or force the two parties to find common ground. While partisanship in the US Congress has reached a fever pitch in the last few years, Dallek believes Obama and Republicans could find deals on more limited issues, such as tax cuts for small businesses, and smaller elements of immigration and energy reform. 'Republicans may well decide that it is in their political interest to support legislative items ... that comport with their ideology,' Dallek said. 'The White House may want to to do that as well.'

Republicans K2 Agenda

Republicans have control over the agenda- diminishing public support

Harvard Political Review, January 14, 2011,” President Obama’s Political Capital”, http://hpronline.org/hprgument/president-obamas-political-capital/ //ZY

In a post 2010-midterm election world, Republicans not only functionally have the numbers to kill President Obama’s policymaking agenda, but American public support for the President and his party continues to diminish each day. Distress and discontent with a stagnant economy, flip-flops on campaign promises, uncontrollable and excessive spending, and incoherent foreign policy decisions have decimated Obama’s political capital amongst the American populace and especially amongst policymakers. With Republican congressmen vowing to obstruct at great cost, the GOP’s confidence and momentum following the midterms, and the surprisingly productive but ultimately ideologically unsatisfactory lame-duck session of Congress have made the situation impossible for President Obama to gain any meaningful political capital through bipartisanship. Quite frankly, through a pragmatic lens, Obama will undoubtedly be unable to yield or generate sufficient political capital to pass his agenda items at least in the next year. As one prominent liberal critic of the President, Roger Hodge, puts it, [President Obama] spent the last two years squandering his political capital on initiatives that did not put Americans back to work.

Republicans control Obama’s agenda- debt ceiling proves.

LA Times, June 30, 2011 “Obama administration tries to speed up deal to avert financial crisis”, http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/30/nation/la-na-debt-limit-20110701//ZY

The administration wants to resolve the standoff quickly to avoid pressing against the Aug. 2 deadline for avoiding a federal default, which would upend financial markets, according to a Democratic official familiar with discussions. The White House is seeking an agreement by July 22, said the official, who would describe internal administration thinking only on condition of anonymity. The White House and congressional Republicans are struggling to reach an agreement on cutting federal deficits in exchange for a vote to raise the nation's $14.3-trillion debt limit. The federal government has exhausted its borrowing authority, and financial experts warn that an unprecedented federal default would have devastating financial consequences.

The Senate canceled its July 4 recess next week to work toward a compromise. But Republican opposition to President Obama's agenda extended even to issues that normally have more bipartisan consensus. GOP senators blocked consideration of new U.S. trade pacts with South Korea and other nations in a dispute over the administration's inclusion of an aid package for workers who lose their jobs as a result of trade deals. GOP opposition to the pacts points to the difficulty Obama faces in trying to reach an accord on other issues, including the debt ceiling. The president this week demanded that lawmakers on both sides compromise on a "balanced" approach that cuts spending and also raises revenue to reduce deficits. Republicans, however, have insisted on spending cuts alone, opposing even largely symbolic Democratic proposals to raise revenue by eliminating specialty tax breaks for owners of yachts, corporate jets and thoroughbred race horses. Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Senate Republican leader, invited Obama to lunch with GOP senators at the Capitol "to hear directly from Republicans why what he's proposing won't pass." The White House declined, although Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the majority leader, said he expected Obama to visit senators next week. Talks between the administration and Congress broke off last week when the top negotiator for House Republicans dropped out, citing objections to White House tax proposals.

Democrats K2 Agenda

Democrats control the agenda- Obamas previous accommodations prove

Associated Press , July 14, 2010, “House Democrats agenda to get push from President Obama, AP source says”, http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/07/house_democrats_agenda_to_get.html//ZY

WASHINGTON — Facing criticism from House Democrats, President Barack Obama promised their leaders Wednesday night that he'll actively support their agenda and Democratic lawmakers as they head into tough midterm elections this fall, according to a congressional leadership aide. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer were among those in the Oval Office meeting. The aide, who was briefed on the meeting, spoke on condition of anonymity because the conversation was private. The meeting came as congressional Democrats, fearing disaster in the fall elections, have expressed frustration with the Obama team and its efforts to help Democrats. They also were angered when White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said over the weekend that enough seats were in play for Democrats to lose the House. Obama was told of the concerns of rank-and-file lawmakers, some of whom think the president hasn't been doing enough to use his bully pulpit on their behalf, considering that they are all up for re-election in November, the aide said. Obama won't face voters again until 2012. Obama said that he understood the criticism and promised full engagement and support on substance and message through the fall, the aide said. With high unemployment dragging down incumbents, a key focus will be on jobs and how individual congressional districts are helped by Democrats' policies. Pelosi told reporters it had been a "very productive meeting" and said that Gibbs' comment about Democrats possibly losing the House never came up. Congressional Democrats have pushed Obama's circle to do more. Many fret that the White House is ineffective in using the heft of the presidency to help elect Democrats to statehouses, the House and Senate. In private, several Democrats said they worry Obama's team is more focused on its own 2012 re-election bid than the midterm elections that would shape the final two years of the president's first term. Confidence in the White House political operation was shaken after Democrats lost the Massachusetts Senate seat in January, and governorships in New Jersey and Virginia last year. With Obama's popularity waning and voters frustrated with Democratic control of the White House and Congress, political aides have braced for a brutal election season. Hoping to stem losses, Obama's inner circle reviewed their schedules and have escalated their political travel. White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel has appeared at fundraisers for candidates such as Reps. Baron Hill of Indiana and Tim Bishop of New York. Emanuel's deputy, Jim Messina, spoke at a fundraiser for Senate hopeful Alexi Giannoulias in Illinois. And Education Secretary Arne Duncan has campaigned for Sen. Michael Bennet, a Colorado Democrat who faces a tough primary challenge.

Republicans not k2 agenda

Republicans can only take symbolic measures- democratic majorities

Washington Post, January 5, 2011, “In House, new Republican majority plans to act fast to undo Obama's agenda”, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/04/AR2011010406028.html//ZY

Much of what Republicans do will be symbolic, given that Democrats still control the Senate and the White House. But the quick action will allow Rep. John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), the incoming speaker, and House Republicans to follow through on campaign pledges and to try to establish their party as a bulwark against what they see as an out-of-control government. Recognizing the limits of their power, Republican leaders said they will follow their initial aggressive stance with efforts to force Obama into what they consider principled compromises. Those would most likely come with attempts to cut federal spending and spur job growth, two agenda items that both parties have set as priorities.

Emanuel K2 Agenda

Emanuel k2 Obamas agenda- successful persuasion

CNN, September 28, 2010Colorful 'Rahmbo' Emanuel helped shape Obama's agenda, http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/09/08/rahm.emanuel.profile/index.html //ZY

Emanuel is an aggressive political animal who has been known to punctuate his arguments with the F-bomb. Most agree it's not because he's an angry man -- it's just part of his foul-mouthed repertoire. His colorful reputation is regularly the subject of Obama's quips. Obama joked at the White House Correspondents Dinner this year that Mother's Day was a difficult holiday for Emanuel because "he's not used to saying the word 'day' after 'mother.' " His bigger-than-life personality, stuffed into a small frame, was honed in the notoriously cutthroat world of politics in his native Illinois. He was a senior adviser and top fundraiser for Daley, and he played a similar role in President Bill Clinton's early presidential bid and then later in the Clinton White House. He also ran his own successful campaign, becoming U.S. representative from Illinois' 5th District in 2002. It was a seat previously occupied by Rod Blagojevich, who has gone on to become the state's latest controversial political figure. And while he's considered a member of Obama's so-called "Chicago Mafia," unlike close friend David Axelrod, Emanuel was not in Obama's inner circle from the start. In fact, Emanuel indicated he would support then-Sen. Hillary Clinton long before she even threw her hat into the presidential race. So when the real race got under way, Emanuel found himself in a political jam. Should he go with Clinton, the candidate he once said he would back? Or, would hometown loyalty be too powerful to resist? Obama's eventual chief of staff, faced with an impossible choice, opted to stay neutral until after the final primary. Love him or hate him, everyone seems to agree that his role in shaping the president's agenda, from health care to economic proposals, cannot be understated. Emanuel makes frequent trips to Capitol Hill, where Democratic and Republican sources say he uses a mix of harsh reality and institutional knowledge to try to coax skeptics onboard. That is precisely why Obama hired the adviser some call "Rahmbo."

**Affirmative**

SPS- Link Non U

Obama already came out and supported solar power- your link is not unique

ERIN KELLY,reporter at Gannett's Washington Bureau Jun. 26, 2011 12:00 AM, Solar power funding threatened by Congress, Federal grants, loans in jeopardy, http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2011/06/26/20110626solar-power-congress-funding-cuts.html//ZY

Ally found in Obama

The solar industry has an ally in Obama, who has called for a national clean-energy standard with a goal of generating 80 percent of the nation's electricity from clean sources by 2035. Although there is little chance that Congress will approve that ambitious goal, the administration could take steps on its own to help the solar industry by allowing federal agencies to enter into long-term agreements to purchase solar power, Resch said.

Constellation- Link Non U

Obama cutting space programs, including constellation

Sunshine State News 6/25 6/25 (Gray Rohrer, /11, " Florida Capital Gets Peek at Future of Space Flight ", http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/floridas-capital-gets-peek-future-space-flight) RM

Part of the United States' next spacecraft, the Orion, is on display in Tallahassee at the Challenger Learning Center in Kleman Plaza this weekend. Orion's multipurpose crew vehicle (MPCV) resembles a space pod out of science fiction, and is designed to help transport astronauts into low Earth orbit as well as into deep space. Originally part of the defunct Constellation program to build a heavy-lift rocket to replace the retiring space shuttle, the Orion project was culled out of the program after President Barack Obama closed it over concerns of cost overruns. NASA astronauts Jeff Williams and Charles Hobaugh admitted the U.S. space program is poised for a rocky transition period, with the last shuttle mission two weeks away. But they said they're excited about Orion's potential.

China co-op Not an election issue

International issues out of the election- jobs at home more important

Huffington Post 6/30 (6/30/11, " Obama and Rising Powers: Foreign Policy in Tough Economic Times ", http://www.huffingtonpost.com/derek-shearer/obama-and-rising-powers-f_b_887910.html?ir=World) //ZY

A copy of the students' report was sent to the White House care of a member of the National Security Council staff, Samantha Power, who was the commencement speaker this May at Occidental. Samantha gave a well received speech, mixing idealism and realism in her remarks, and adding a dash of humor to her five rules for living a meaningful life. One student asked me why President Obama had not appointed more thinkers and doers like her to his foreign policy team. A new foreign policy team and new foreign policy ideas will have to wait until after the 2012 election. The Obama White House is in re-election mode, and almost every action he takes at home and abroad will be calculated as to its effect on the 2012 campaign. Foreign policy will not play much if any role in the presidential race. The American voting public is not very concerned with what is happening in most areas of the world. They are rightly concerned about the state of the American economy and the state of US society as they experience it in their daily lives. Of course, there is sometimes a connection between the what happens at home and what is happening abroad (especially with the amount of US tax payer dollars which is spent on foreign adventures or the size of US debt held by China), but most political leaders try to obfuscate the connections. Perhaps that is changing. The debate within the Republican party on the cost of the US effort in Afghanistan is new and interesting. The fact that President Obama used the phrase "nation building at home" in his recent speech on the draw down of troops which I had promoted in the Huffington Post last fall is mildly encouraging.) It remains to be seen if President Obama and his White House political team can craft a coherent narrative and a strong political message on economic policy, let alone on foreign policy. He certainly needs to do better job at explaining economic policy if he is to be re-elected.

Republicans support squo

Republicans support Obama’s space policy

Rand Simberg, is a recovering aerospace engineer and a consultant in space commercialization, space tourism and Internet security and he is the chairman of the Competitive Space Task Force, 06/17/11, The surprise space policy debate, http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/opinion-zone/2011/06/surprise-space-policy-debate,

Over at National Review Tuesday, I report on an unexpected question from the local press to former House Speaker and GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich on space policy last night. As I note over there, it caught all of the other candidates off guard, but Newt was happy to knock it out of the park, as no doubt the questioner hoped he would do. Newt is almost certainly the most informed candidate on this issue, having been personally interested in and involved with space policy for over three decades, though most don't realize it. He was a rare Republican voice of reason last year when he jointly published an op-ed with former U.S. Rep. (and chairman of the House Science Committee) Robert Walker (R-Pa.) supporting the Obama administration's new space policy.

Not Election issue

Election will not be affected by space policy

Rand Simberg, is a recovering aerospace engineer and a consultant in space commercialization, space tourism and Internet security and he is the chairman of the Competitive Space Task Force, 06/17/11, The surprise space policy debate, http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/opinion-zone/2011/06/surprise-space-policy-debate,

Despite last night's question, though, it's unlikely that the election will swing on space policy -- the last time space policy was important in a presidential election was over fifty years ago, when the nation was still panicked by Sputnik, and Democrat Senator John F. Kennedy ran against Vice President (under Eisenhower) Richard Nixon on the "missile gap" with the Soviet Union. Next year, most of the states in which space is locally important -- Alabama, Texas, Utah, California -- won't be battlegrounds. The only exception is the swing state of Florida, which the administration will almost certainly have to win again if it is to retain the White House. But it only affects a few thousand jobs on the so-called "Space Coast," in Brevard and Volusia counties, near Cape Canaveral and Kennedy Space Center. Despite the layoffs coming with the end of the Shuttle, the new policy will also create many new jobs, and ones less dependent on NASA budget levels, as new commercial markets start to be serviced by the new generation of space companies. In addition, even with the space jobs factor, Florida voters will remain much more concerned about the state of the economy, the housing crisis, and (for all the seniors there) Medicare.