camp files 1ncs

T

T vs STEM aff 1. Interp - To regulate is to adjust to meet a set standard. The affirmative must regulate not create. The aff is a reclassification of ESE. (Elementary and Secondary Education)Random House 16 Dictionary.com is the world's leading digital dictionary. We provide millions of English definitions, spellings, audio pronunciations, example sentences, and word origins. Dictionary.com’s main, proprietary source is the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, which is continually updated by our team of experienced lexicographers and supplemented with trusted, established sources including American Heritage and Harper Collins to support a range of language needs.. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/regulate Acc. Jun 12 TH

verb (used with object), regulated, regulating. 1. to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.: to regulate household expenses. 2. to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.: to regulate the temperature. 3. to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation: to regulate a watch. 4. to put in good order: to regulate the digestion. 2. Violation – The Aff established a framework in order to start the process of regulation. Their establishment of a framework doesn’t immediately increase regulations. The aff could be topical by increasing STEM regulations in already established frameworks.3. Standards –

A. Limits – There are hundreds of new frameworks that could be established that would eventually lead to regulations, this explodes the topic to allowing small councils or agencies to increase education which the Negative cannot prepare for.

B. Ground - Our disads are predicated off of increasing regulations. States Disads and CP cannot interact with an aff that established a framework within the federal government.

C. FX T – It takes the establishment of the framework and then further work done by that established framework to start to integrate and regulate STEM education. Means the plan text in a vacuum is not topical just the advantages.

4. T is a voter for Fairness and Education

DAs

Federalism DAUniqueness: Federalism is being rebalanced - Trump is currently reversing the educational policy federal-state dynamic, easing federal control over accountability and equity. Federal education policy wrecks the whole agenda.Wong 17 (Kenneth K. Wong, Walter and Leonore Annenberg Professor of Education Policy at Brown University. “Redefining the federal role in public education: The 1st quarter of the Trump “insurgent” presidency” Brookings. March 27, 2017. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2017/03/27/redefining-the-federal-role-in-public-education-the-1st-quarter-of-the-trump-insurgent-presidency/ Accessed: June 23, 2017 COB)

Historically, equity has been a key justification for federal involvement in K-12 education. Since the civil rights movement and the Great Society agenda, federal education programs have been designed to promote equal educational opportunities for all students . Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 was part of the president’s War on Poverty. Since the presidency of Reagan, the federal government has broadened its focus to include performance-based accountability . The Trump administration is ready to reverse the federal-state dynamic on both equity and accountability , and the Trump White House has an opportunity to do so in the current political climate . First, the 2015 iteration of ESSA rebalanced federal-state relations by granting states much more control over school accountability and improvement strategies compared to the No Child Left Behind era. Second, the Republican-controlled Congress recently used the Congressional Review Act to further reduce federal authority under ESSA by repealing the

“Accountability and State Plans” regulation published by the Obama administration. DeVos now has the opportunity to grant even more power to states as they implement ESSA. Third , the federal government may also choose to withdraw from some of the equity-oriented practices. DeVos is reviewing whether the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights will continue an effort that began in 1968 to collect biennial data on schooling opportunities and quality in public schools throughout the country.

Link: Establishing a curriculum framework is a state right - federal action undercuts federalism.Thomson Reuters 17 (Thomson Reuters Corporation is a multinational mass media and information firm with operational headquarters in Manhattan, New York City. “The Roles of Federal and State Governments in Education” http://education.findlaw.com/curriculum-standards-school-funding/the-roles-of-federal-and-state-governments-in-education.html MT)

When it comes to matters of policy, the public tends to look to the federal government to lead the way, but the local governments actually determine educational policy . Early in our nation's history, lawmakers passed the 10th Amendment to the Constitution which is the basis for making education a function of the states. Each school district is administered and financed by the community along with that district's state government. School districts with higher socioeconomic levels tend to give more resources to their schools. Standards and quality of education consequently vary widely from state to state, town to town, and even district to district. However, federal and state

government can still play some role in education policy, as this article explains. Federal Authority As stated above, the federal government has historically played a minor role in education , and in fact, the federal government did not issue any educational policy until the 1960s. The National Science Foundation published a report studying which educational techniques were effective that the Johnson administration used in its "Great Society" program. Federal involvement in education has only

increased since then. The federal laws with the most impact on education concern: Equal access to education Safeguarding students' constitutional rights Safeguarding teachers' constitutional rights. Education is not exactly a constitutional right, like free speech and assembly, but it is an important enough interest to warrant constitutional protection.

Students are therefore protected against discrimination based on race, gender, religion, or disability, or ethnicity through the 14th Amendment. Every Student Succeeds Act The federal government also influences education by allocating funding only to those school districts that follow certain federal guidelines. Roughly three percent of the federal budget is spent on education as of 2017 - a small proportion, of course, but in many years this amounts to

billions of dollars. Most of this money goes toward assistance programs for children with disabilities. The rest of the money is

distributed to school districts under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). The federal government plays a role in evaluating each school district by administering the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NEAP), also known as the Nation's Report Card. Finally, federal agencies such as the National Science Foundation and the Department of Education publish recommended teaching strategies and materials . States and local governments are free to adopt or ignore these recommendations as they see fit, although no funding will be awarded if the school district adopts these practices .

State Authority The states are the entities primarily responsible for the maintenance and operation of public schools. The states are also heavily involved in the establishment, selection, and regulation of curriculum, teaching methods, and instructional materials in their schools . Consequently, each state has different standards and policies which may impact the quality of education offered. Each state's constitution requires it to provide a school system where

children may receive an education. Many state constitutions also contain express provisions for creating educational curricula. Some state constitutions even empower state authorities to select textbooks and educational materials.

Besides constitutional authority , state governments also have authority to legislate in this area, or they can authorize officials to establish, select, and regulate curriculum. State legislatures have also set mandatory

requirements for students to graduate. In cases where state rules and regulations for courses do exist, they must be followed. Local school districts may, however, offer courses and activities in the instructional program beyond those required by state statute. Other states delegate more of their authority. They usually prescribe a model curriculum framework, allowing local authorities to develop their own curricula based on the general state goals.C. Internal Link - The Philippines models US federalism – Duterte is currently moving away from a decentralized government but has no solid agenda yet – maintaining the current balance is key to avoid drastic measures and tyranny. Rood 16 (Steven Rood, representing the views of the Asia Foundation. “Finding federalism in the Philippines” East Asia Forum. October 1, 2016. http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2016/10/01/finding-federalism-in-the-philippines/ Accessed: June 30, 2017 COB)

It’s all happening in the Philippines these days — a raging war against drugs, an ‘independent’ foreign policy that may fracture relations with the United States , and the prospect of hosting Miss Universe (and ASEAN) in 2017. But the proposed constitutional revision to shift from unitary to federal government has remained a steady background issue. Hardly a day goes by when there are not ‘federalism 101’ dialogues discussing its pros and cons. The Philippine Congress is currently busy passing the 2017 budget but as 2016 comes to a close they will be turning their attention to constitutional change. This is all due

to the convictions of one man: President Rodrigo Duterte. Advocacy for federalism has its centre of gravity in the Mindanao region. From the perspective of a Davao — the region’s largest city — Manila is overbearing. In Mindanao, federalism is seen as a way of satisfying the aspirations of its local Muslim population by adding to the powers that have already been devolved to the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao. Federalism was discussed briefly in the Constitutional Commission that drafted the 1987 Constitution, but was rejected due to fears of fragmentation. As part of the post-dictatorship thrust towards democracy, a degree of decentralisation was instituted under the 1991 Local Government Code, which introduced local-level responsibility for health, environment, social services and agriculture. Some have argued that local governments have not fulfilled these mandates. Others have suggested that insufficient power and funds were devolved in 1991. By the end of the decade, arguments were being made that federalism was the next step in bringing democracy to communities throughout the country. In 2005, then president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo convened another Constitutional Commission and appointed Jose Abueva as chair, a leading federalism advocate. But the Commission’s recommendations did not include federalism. Instead it recommended an indefinitely long process of instituting ‘autonomy’ in different areas. Opposition from the Commission’s members and elected provincial politicians stymied the move. Following this the focus of the debate shifted to instituting a parliamentary system of governance rather than the current presidential form — this may have been a maneuver to secure another term for

Macapagal-Arroyo who was the president at the time. Advocates of a shift to federalism often pair it with a desire to change to a parliamentary form of government. But this is unpopular with the average citizen. Surveys have repeatedly found that Filipinos want to vote for their leaders instead of having members of the

legislature decide who heads the executive branch. Surveys also show that while there is little knowledge about federalism among the population, people generally favour greater autonomy of regions and localities. This vague endorsement by citizens is unsurprising given that even their elected leaders seem uncertain on the topic. In an interview, Duterte argued for a federal parliamentary system , similar to that seen in Singapore and Malaysia. But he also added that the Philippines could look into adopting the model used by the United States. Singapore, as an island-state, is not federal. The US is federal but also presidential. And while it is true that Malaysia has a parliamentary government with federalism, it is described as centralised. As the national legislature begins to consider ways to amend the constitution — possibly after another round of recommendations — Duterte’s direction of change is not at all clear. This lack of purpose can be seen throughout much of Duterte’s administration. It is perhaps best to describe the President as a populist, whose ‘thin-centred ideology’ does not provide detailed answers. His economic team announced early a standard ten-point program to accellerate growth, but also put leftists in charge of the labour and agrarian reforms. In terms of the environment, Duterte was sufficiently taken by the passion and reasoning of an anti-mining activist to name her head of the department. But he then hired a pro-mining colleague as her undersecretary in charge of the Mining and Geosciences Bureau. One of the main motivations for federalism, at least in Mindanao, is the belief that it will help meet the legitimate demands of Muslims in the Philippines. But Duterte has failed to convey any clear future direction for the issue, sometimes saying that passing the failed Bangsamoro Basic Law would be a template for

federalism and sometimes saying that federalism would solve demands for a better rule by Philippine Muslims of their own affairs. All this

activity begs the question of whether federalism is a good idea for the Philippines. It is a complex process with many doubters. A shift to parliamentary governance would leave the Philippines in uncharted territory — political scientist Gene Pilapil points out that this has never happened in any country during peacetime. President Duterte has repeatedly stated that the Philippines is at war with crime, so he certainly believes drastic measures are necessary .

D. Impact: Modeling stronger federal control pushes Duterte even further right, inciting government infighting between parties despite peace talks and extending martial law, destroying the civil and human rights of his citizens.Casiño 17 (Teddy Casiño, served as the party-list representative of Bayan Muna for 3 terms, from 2004 to 2013. Prior to his stint in Congress, he was secretary-general of the Bagong Alyansang Makabayan and a columnist for BusinessWorld. “After one year, Duterte veers ever more to the right” Rappler. June 30, 2017. http://www.rappler.com/thought-leaders/174364-duterte-rightist-one-year Accessed: July 3, 2017 COB)

After a year in office, the first self-proclaimed Leftist and Socialist president of the Philippines has become more rightist and fascist than ever . Swept to office last year on the promise of sweeping changes, President Rodrigo Duterte and his government are proving to be a hindrance to the country's most urgent political and socio-economic reforms. Worse, with the recent declaration of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in Mindanao and possibly elsewhere, he is

threatening to bring the country back to the Marcosian days of martial rule. Human rights catastrophe If there is any

accomplishment that President Duterte can rightly claim his own, it's the deaths of more than 8,000 suspected drug users and pushers at the hands of the police, police assets and police-backed vigilante death squads. This was his campaign promise, and he is doing it with flair. The unbelievable frequency and impunity by which these extrajudicial killings (i.e. summary executions at the hands of state security forces) are committed have become the hallmark of his “war on drugs.” It is targeted mainly at the poor, who neither have the clout nor the resources to defend themselves from such an onslaught by the very government that is supposed to protect their rights. The drug-related killings have earned widespread condemnation from human rights advocates here and abroad. And by comparing himself to Hitler, Duterte has singlehandedly cemented his image on the world stage as a proponent of genocide and mass murder . Just like the EJKs of petty criminals in Davao City when he was then mayor, the killings due to the drug war cannot be directly attributed to President Duterte. He has never pulled the trigger or ordered the killing of specific individuals. But by giving his men the go-ahead to shoot drug suspects, repeatedly condoning the killings and assuring those involved of protection and even a presidential pardon, and with authorities under him failing or refusing to investigate or prosecute numerous cases of EJKs, then he becomes accountable. It's not only the poor drug users and pushers that get killed. In the last year, human rights groups have documented at least 55 extrajudicial killings of peasants and indigenous peoples suspected of being members or sympathizers of the New People's Army (NPA). Almost all victims were

involved in land disputes involving large plantations or in campaigns to stop large-scale mining in their communities. Independent investigations

almost always point to government soldiers or members of military-backed paramilitary groups as perpetrators. Whether drug related

or counterinsurgency related, whether one or 8,000, such killings target the poor and are utterly condemnable. It represents the darkest side of the Duterte presidency . Peace talks on the brink In contrast, the resumption of the peace talks between the government and the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP) can be considered the Duterte presidency's silver lining. His appointment of 3 NDFP nominees to his cabinet, the release of NDFP consultants involved in the negotiations, and his commitment to honor all previously signed agreements between the two parties have established much confidence and goodwill in the talks. The peace talks with the NDFP are key to his campaign promise of bringing peace to the whole country . The talks are meant to address the root causes of the 50-year old armed conflict. It's agenda includes the entire gamut of economic, social, cultural, political and constitutional reforms. Moreover, Duterte's background as a Kabataang Makabayan activist and claims of being a leftist and socialist endears him well to the NDFP. There have been four rounds of formal talks in the last year, the most number of any administration. Major gains have been achieved in forging a substantial agreement on social and economic reforms, including a consensus on free land distribution as the key principle in agrarian reform. Drafts have been exchanged on political and constitutional reforms, and discussions started on the eventual cessation of hostilities and disposition of forces. Unfortunately, Duterte's insistence, on the prodding of his military and defense officials, on a bilateral ceasefire prior to any substantial agreement has snagged the talks. At this stage in the negotiations where no substantial agreement has yet been signed, the NDFP considers such a bilateral ceasefire agreeement as a virtual document of surrender and capitulation. As in previous regimes, the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) want the rebels to enter into a ceasefire but insists on its right to operate in NPA strongholds and areas where the rebels operate. The rebels know that this is to their disadvantage and so insists that the talks proceed even as both sides fight it out in the battlefield. In previous negotiations, substantial agreements between the two parties – like the Comprehensive Agreement on the Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL) and the Joint Agreement on Safety and Immunity

Guarantees (JASIG) – were negotiated and signed despite the absence of a ceasefire. As a compromise , the NDFP has agreed to entering such a ceasefire simultaneous with the signing of an agreement on social and economic reforms , hopefully within the year . But the security cluster led by former generals National Security Adviser Hermogenes Esperon and Defense Sec. Delfin Lorenzana is against this . This was what basically caused the collapse of the 5th round of negotiations scheduled last May. But it is the issue of martial law that has put the peace talks in a most precarious situation . On the day that martial law was declared in Mindanao, Sec. Lorenzana identified the NPA as among the targets. This compelled the Communist Party to order the NPA to fight back through intensified

offensives. Later, after the 5th round of talks had collapsed, Duterte said that he would order the arrest of NDFP consultants and negotiators .

Although Lorenzana has recalled his statement and military officials insist that martial law is intended only to address the threat of ISIS-inspired groups, the National Interfaith Humanitarian Mission held in Mindanao last June 13-17 reported that under martial law, military operations and aerial bombings have increased in NPA strongholds and mass bases in the island. If martial law is extended and leads to massive human rights violations and the curtailment of civil and political rights, and if Duterte makes good his threat to arrest the NDFP officials, the talks might just reach a dead end.

And, Dehumanization is the root cause of genocide, war crimes, and rights violations. It strips both the victims and the perpetrators of their humanity.Maiese 3 (Michelle Maiese is a graduate student of Philosophy at the University of Colorado, Boulder and is a part of the research staff at the Conflict Research Consortium: Beyond Intractability Version IV Copyright © 2003-2007 The Beyond Intractability Project: Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess, Co-Directors and Editors. July 2003. http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/dehumanization Accessed: Many Times)

Once certain groups are stigmatized as evil, morally inferior, and not fully human, the persecution of those groups becomes more psychologically acceptable . Restraints against aggression and violence begin

to disappear. Not surprisingly, dehum anization increases the likelihood of violence and may cause a conflict to escalate out of control . Once violence break over has occurred, it may seem even more acceptable for people to do things that they would have regarded as morally unthinkable before . Parties may come to believe that destruction of the other side is necessary, and pursue an overwhelming victory that will cause one's opponent to simply disappear. This sort of into-the-sea framing can cause lasting damage to relationships between the conflicting parties, making it more difficult to solve their

underlying problems and leading to the loss of more innocent lives. Indeed, dehum anization often paves the way for human rights violations, war crimes, and genocide. For example, in WWII, the dehumanization of the Jews ultimately led to the destruction of millions of people. [9] Similar atrocities have occurred in Rwanda, Cambodia, and the former Yugoslavia. It is thought that the psychological process of dehumanization might be mitigated or reversed through humanization efforts, the development of empathy, the establishment of personal relationships between conflicting parties, and the pursuit of common goals.

Politics DA Uniqueness: Trump’s agenda is failing massively. He desperately needs a win in order push any of his policies. Rucker June 27th 2017 (Philip Rucker is the White House Bureau Chief for The Washington Post. He previously has covered Congress, the Obama White House, and the 2012 and 2016 presidential campaigns. He joined The Post in 2005 as a local news reporter.  Who’s afraid of Trump? Not enough Republicans — at least for now. June 27th, 2017 https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/whos-afraid-of-trump-not-enough-republicans--at-least-for-now/2017/06/27/cee56720-5b57-11e7-9b7d-14576dc0f39d_story.html?utm_term=.4acc20310346) Scrambling to line up support for the Republican healthcare bill, President Trump got on the phone Monday with Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and urged him to back the measure. The president’s personal plea was not enough. On Tuesday, Lee said he would vote against the bill. Senate GOP leader s later postponed the planned health care vote because too many other Republican senators also opposed — for now, at least — legislation that would deliver on Trump’s campaign promise to scale back the law known as Obamacare. Trump had hoped for a swift and easy win on health care this week. In stead he got a delay and a return to the negotiating table — the latest reminder of the limits of his power to shape outcomes at the opposite end of Pennsylvania Avenue. History suggests that presidents who have governed successfully have been both revered and feared. But Republican fixtures in Washington are beginning to conclude that Trump may be neither, despite his mix of bravado, threats and efforts to schmooze with GOP lawmakers. The president is the leader of his party, yet Tr ump has struggled to get Republican lawmakers moving in lockstep on health care and other major issues, leaving no signature legislation in his first five months in office . The confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Neil M. Gorsuch is his mostcited achievement to date. “This president is the first president in our history who has neither political nor military experience, and thus it has been a challenge to him to learn how to interact with Congress and learn how to push his agenda better,” said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who opposes the current healthcare bill. The Senate could pass a revised version of the bill once lawmakers return from their July 4 recess and pick up deliberations. Still, some Republicans are willing to defy their president’s wishes — a dynamic that can be attributed in part to Trump’s singular status as a disrupter within his party. “The president remains an entity in and of itself, not a part of the traditional Republican Party,” said Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.), a moderate who represents a district Trump lost by 16 percentage points. “I handle the Trump administration the same way I handled the Obama administration. When I agree, I work with them. When I oppose, I don’t.” In private conversations on Capitol Hill, Trump is often not taken seriously. Some Republican lawmakers consider some of his promises — such as making Mexico pay for a new border wall — fantastical. They are exhausted and at times exasperated by his hopscotching from one subject to the next, chronicled in his pithy and provocative tweets. They are quick to point out how little command he demonstrates of policy. And they have come to regard some of his threats as empty, concluding that crossing the president poses little danger. “The House healthcare vote shows he does have juice, particularly with people on the right,” Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (RS.C.) said. “The Senate healthcare vote shows that people feel that health care is a defining issue and that it’d be pretty hard for any politician to push a senator into taking a vote that’s going to have consequences for the rest of their life.” Asked if he personally fears Trump, Graham chuckled before saying, “No.” Rep. Darrell Issa (RCalif.), who has distanced himself from Trump on various issues, said few members of Congress fear permanent retaliation from the president. “He comes from the private sector, where your business partner today isn’t always your business partner tomorrow,” Issa said. “Just because you’re one way today doesn’t mean you’re written off. That’s the ‘Art of the Deal’ side.” One senior Republican close to both the White House and many senators called Trump and his political

operation “a paper tiger,” noting how many GOP lawmakers feel free “to go their own way.” “Members are political entrepreneurs, and they react to what they see in the political marketplace,” said the Republican, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid alienating the White House. John Weaver, a GOP consultant and frequent Trump critic, was blunter in explaining why Trump has been unable to rule with a hammer. “ When you have a 35 percent approval rating and you’re under FBI investigation, you don’t have a hamme r,” he said, referring to the probe of possible connections between the Trump campaign and Russia. Trump’s approval rating in Gallup’s daily tracking poll stood Tuesday at 39 percent, with 57 percent of Americans disapproving of his performance. But a significant portion of those supporters, particularly in red states and districts, still strongly back Trump. White House officials contest the suggestion that Trump does not instill fear among fellow Republicans in Congress, though argue that their strategy is not one of fear. “Our legislative strategy isn’t to scare people into passing bills,” principal deputy White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in an email. “That doesn’t work for any president. We helped negotiate and facilitate the major breakthroughs on health care in the House and are doing the same in the Senate.” The president’s political shop, meanwhile, is laboring to force more Republicans to bend to his wishes. America First Policies, a Trump allied super PAC staffed by former aides, launched a negative advertising effort against Sen. Dean Heller (R--Nev.) after he spoke out against the bill Friday. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) complained about the ads to White House chief of staff Reince Priebus, and the super PAC said Tuesday that it would pull the spots after Heller said he was open to further negotiations, according to two people familiar with the decision. America First Policies has been mulling similar ads against other Republicans who have broken ranks, hoping to make lawmakers believe they will pay a price for betraying Trump and imperiling his agenda. The super PAC also is considering grassroots campaigns across the country to mobilize Trump supporters in key states during the July 4 recess, as a way to ratchet up pressure on wavering lawmakers. Trump allies have encouraged major GOP donors to reach out to senators who oppose the bill. Las Vegas casino moguls Sheldon Adelson and Steve Wynn have both spoken by phone with Heller to prod him along, according to people familiar with the discussions. Trump has been hungry for a legislative policy victory on Capitol Hill, and he and his advisers see health care as the best chance for one this summer. The president is playing a less public role advocating for the legislation than he did leading up to this spring’s vote on a House bill, when he used his relationship with conservative members of the House Freedom Caucus to eventually bring them to the table. In the Senate talks, Trump has been working largely behind the scenes to lobby senators, with personal phone calls and other entreaties. Unlike the House, where rank and file Republicans may be likely to follow Trump’s lead, the Senate naturally is a more independent institution. Many senators fashion their own political brands and have outsize egos, and some Republicans ran away from Trump in their reelection races last year. Chris Whipple, author of “The Gatekeepers,” a new history of White House chiefs of staff, said the tumult inside Trump’s White House — and the president’s lack of a coherent message or vision for his policy agenda — inhibits his ability to enforce party discipline in Congress. “Nothing instills fear on Capitol Hill like success, and all this White House has been able to do is one failure after another,” Whipple said. “There are just zero points on the board so far. Who’s going to be afraid of that?” In the early years of Barack Obama’s presidency, Democrats on Capitol Hill largely stayed in line — in part because they saw Obama as a powerful political force and believed there were risks in breaking with him. During negotiations over the Affordable Care Act, Rahm Emanuel, then the White House chief of staff, served as the enforcer, reminding Blue Dog Democrats that they owed him their loyalty because he helped recruit and elect them as head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Early in President George W. Bush’s tenure, fellow Republicans in Congress saw his White House as a finely tuned machine that could not be crossed. “You never wanted to get on the wrong side of the Bush White House because the staff was disciplined, dedicated and extremely loyal to the president,” said Ryan Williams, a Republican operative. “If you crossed or undermined the president or his administration, the Bush diehards would remember it forever.” Trump’s lieutenants, by contrast, have struggled to force Republicans into line. In March, when House Republicans were slow to rally behind the healthcare bill, White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon told Freedom Caucus members that they must stop waffling and vote for the legislation. Bannon was immediately rebuffed by Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.), who has been in the House for more than three decades. Barton icily told Bannon that the only person who ordered him around was “my daddy” — and that his father was unsuccessful in doing so, according to several Republicans with knowledge of the meeting. In an interview Tuesday, Barton smiled wryly when asked about the incident. “I will admit on the record that I took exception to a comment that he made,” Barton said. “There is a separation of powers, and the president has a role and the Congress has a role. That’s all I’ll say.”

Link: Win will give Trump momentum to push rest of agendaZelizer 17 (Julian Zelizer is a history and public affairs professor at Princeton, “Don't count President Trump out just yet,”4/2/17, http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/31/opinions/dont-count-trump-out-zelizer/)

(CNN)It would be a big mistake to count President Trump out too soon. Although he has experienced a difficult two months, it is important to remember that other presidents have survived incredibly rocky starts and gone on to enjoy two-terms . Without question, President Trump has been making an enormous number of serious mistakes and miscalculations. He has allowed his political capital to go out the window with sloppily crafted executive orders banning refugees, by badly mishandling the negotiations over repealing the Affordable Care Act, and by making almost no progress on the legislative front. His wild tweets and irresponsible statements are contributing to his low national approval ratings (other presidents have had similarly low approval ratings). The courts and Congress have been able to check the President on several occasions, while a grassroots opposition movement called Indivisible succeeded at shaking legislators in both parties, forcing them to think twice about quickly throwing their support behind the President. The investigation into Russia is the most serious threat that he faces. When former National Security Adviser Mike Flynn asked for immunity in exchange for his testimony, every American with a historical memory could not help but ask if he would become this administration's John Dean. And yet it is important to remember that other presidents, two-term presidents, have been able to survive rocky and controversial starts to their presidency. Republican Ronald Reagan, who ended up remaking American politics by pushing the national debate sharply to the right, struggled during his first few months in office. His proposed cuts to the budget were met with a fierce resistance as Americans discovered what his rhetorical attacks on government would actually mean if implemented into law. The laggard state of the economy made it difficult for Reagan to expand his public support especially as his economic package stalled in a Republican-dominated Senate Budget Committee. He didn't sign his first bill -- cutting back dairy price supports -- until March 31 at George Washington University Hospital the morning after he was shot in an assassination attempt. President Bill Clinton had trouble through his first summer in the White House. A series of controversial and problematic cabinet appointments, including a series of missteps with his Attorney General (Janet Reno, his third choice, was not confirmed until March) left him looking incompetent and stifled progress on his legislation. His watered-down compromise over whether gays and lesbians could serve in the military, "don't ask, don't tell" left many mad with him and few particularly pleased with the outcome. Clinton also stalled on his legislative agenda while moving away from a middle-class tax cut that he had promised in the campaign. His approval ratings fell from 64% in February 1993 to about 37% in May 1993. One month later, Time magazine ran a cover story calling Clinton the "Incredible Shrinking President." One of his more experienced advisers, Vernon Jordan, complained that "There's nobody over there that's ever worked in the White House before." But Clinton and Reagan recovered and each went on to have pretty successful runs in Washington. Reagan bounced back following his physical recovery from the assassination attempt by pushing a historic supply-side tax cut through Congress in the summer of 1981. It energized Republicans and created a foundation for him to move forward with other policies including massive increases in defense spending. While he would continue to experience difficult moments, such as the large Democratic gains in the 1982 midterm elections and the Iran-Contra scandal, he went on to become an iconic president. It took Clinton longer to recover. His budget in the summer of 1993, which increased taxes on corporations and the wealthy, was a long-term policy success in terms of reducing the deficit, but caused enormous turmoil as conservatives labeled him as a big government liberal in hiding. Like Trump's, Clinton's initial health care plan failed. The blow helped Republicans retake control of both chambers of Congress in 1994 for the first time in 40 years. During his second term, the House voted to impeach him in December 1998 for perjury over an extramarital affair. Yet Clinton did survive and enjoyed two terms with skyrocketing approval ratings and achievements on issues such as deficit reduction, counterterrorism and health care that remain central. Can President Trump do the same? Clearly it is possible that he could end up more like Herbert Hoover or Jimmy Carter, meaning that the problems he is experiencing will not go away and that he will be a one-term president -- at most. With a major scandal looming over the White House involving possible collusion between his campaign and Russia, the possibilities for this presidency to spin out of control remain very real. An emboldened House Freedom Caucus and Democratic minority, is not going to make things any easier for this President, and it seems that the investigation into Russia-gate is about to ramp up. Constituents opposed to Trump, who have a taste of victory after protesting Republican town hall meetings, will have that much more determination to take on the rest of his agenda. But his opponents should also be cognizant that Trump does have the ability to rebound. The Russia scandal could easily turn out to be more like Iran-Contra, where an explosive and devastating investigation never quite reaches the president himself and where the targets of the investigation are able to frame the issue as being about overly partisan inquisitors undermining national security. Democrats might also conclude that any attempt to remove Trump from office through impeachment would be self-defeating, since Vice President Mike Pence is very conservative and is more likely to work well with the Freedom Caucus on policies the left would strongly oppose. If Trump can get his act together, he could push for legislatio n , such as some kind of bold infrastructure plan, that would make it much more difficult for all Democrats and non-

Freedom Caucus Republicans to oppose. This would create the potential for a bipartisan victory , remaking himself into an independent and breaking through some of the partisan allian ces that have thus far held firm . Trump, whose tweets this week went after the Freedom Caucus, has the potential to weaken the group, a key source of obstruction in Congress since 2010, and that could appeal to Democrats. A crafty Trump could do this while continuing to move forward with his very aggressive deregulatory agenda, combined with a Reaganesque supply side tax cut, that keeps Republicans as a whole happy with having him in the White House. This would be a one-two punch that would quickly put Democrats on the defensive. Trump, who is still doing well in polling with Republicans, can continue to offer his base of supporters red meat with renewed attacks on illegal immigrants and a push for "law and order" in the cities. The conservative part of his populism has been a big selling point and he has proven to have the capacity to play to the darkest elements of the right wing. Trump can still, in the words of Steve Bannon, "deconstruct the administrative state." It's untrue that Obamacare will "explode" on its own, but Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price can do enormous damage to this fragile program, making it less effective and less appealing in the coming years. For instance, he could lower the cost-sharing subsidies that insurers have relied on, a step which would create instability in markets. Trump can slowly build a stronger coalition for change by making the Affordable Care Act seem worse to most voters. As Steve Rattner wrote, "if the effectiveness of the A.C.A is diminished . . . Rest assured that the Republicans will try to blame Obamacare's supporters." This is really an "it can go either way" moment for Trump. His next step is crucial. The problems he faces are very real, while the progress that he has made on certain issues and the potential to break through the current challenges are equally significant. Part of the answer to the story will rest, not so much with Trump, but with what his opponents do in the coming months and whether they are able to capitalize on the vulnerabilities and instabilities that have been exposed in the White House as a result of the ACA fiasco. His opponents should be aware, however, that just as big loss in politics sets the groundwork for more losses by allowing opponents to see all your vulnerability, one big win can create the political momentum that gives presidents a chance to move on with other issues and even win re-election.

Internal Link: The replacement for the Affordable Care Act will devastate the economy. Newkirk 6/17 (Vann R. Newkirk II is a staff writer at The Atlantic, where he covers politics and policy. “How the AHCA Could Cause an Economic Downturn.” https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/the-ahca-recession-report/530322/)

If there’s any single binding policy narrative for the first five months of Donald Trump’s presidency, it’s that the president is against regulations that kill jobs. In his June 1 Rose Garden speech announcing the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement, Trump bemoaned it as a policy that “could cost Americans as much as 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025.” He’s touted his success in making deals to keep factory jobs in the country, and has claimed that his work “includ[es] a record number of resolutions to eliminate job-killing regulations.” So how would Trump and his job-creating party feel about a law that costs a million jobs over the next decade and decreases total business activity by hundreds of billions over the same time period? They have a chance to decide just that as the Senate deliberates a reconfigured American Health Care Act, the Republican plan to replace Obamacare. A new report from the Commonwealth Fund and George Washington University researchers Leighton Ku, Erika Steinmetz, Erin Brantley, Nikhil Holla, and Brian K. Bruen finds that the AH CA would slash total jobs by about a million, total state gross domestic products by $93 billion, and total business output by $148 billion by 2026. Most of those jobs would be shed from the health-care industry , which would contract severely over that frame. Most of the losses in economic activity would come in states that have expanded Medicaid to low-income adults under the Affordable Care Act. The structure of the House bill that

passed in May would lead t o an interesting whirlwind of economic effects , according to this report. The AHCA repeals most of the taxes that supported the Affordable Care Act just about immediately, which might even act as a short-term stimulus. Between 2018 and 2020, authors predict the economy would actually grow by over 800,000 jobs, which notably would buoy jobs reports for two straight elections. The health-care industry , however, would begin sloughing jobs immediately . Things get dicier after 2020. Reductions in federal funding for coverage through massive cuts to Medicaid and reduction of private-insurance subsidies all but reverse those gains by 2021, and begin what the researchers call “a period of economic and medical hardship in the U.S.” after that. Federal Medicaid funds and under the ACA themselves currently act as a stimulus to state governments, and the AHCA would cut those funds even below pre-ACA levels, and cap them. Since that stimulus has multiplicative effects on busin esses and total output, the AHCA slashes state outputs by amounts far greater than the amount of federal funds divested. In New York alone, the Commonwealth Fund report indicates the state gross domestic product would decrease by $10.5 billion by 2026 over current projections, and total business output by $16 billion. And similar losses would come across every state in every sector. Of course the most dramatic effects would be in the health-care industry. Per the Congressional Budget Office estimates, 23 million fewer people are expected to be insured under the House’s draft of the AHCA. The industry will simply have to contract in the face of such losses of eligible patients, and in the face of increases in uncompensated care. This report suggests a net loss of about 700,000 jobs in the health-care sector alone. And while the president and his allies have worked hard to ensure the job security of rather small numbers of factory and coal-mining jobs in the Midwest and Appalachia, losses in the health-care industry (which employs millions of blue-collar workers) would hit those areas hard too. Kentucky and West Virginia would lose 16,000 combined jobs in the health-care sector alone. Through their amendments, House Republicans have pulled off a rare policy feat: Their version of the AHCA invests much more federal money than the pre-Obamacare government ever did to insure fewer people and cuts taxes for small business owners and the wealthy while also killing jobs and economic activity. Their program is neither entirely austere nor a big-government boondoggle, yet manages to incorporate the pitfalls of each approach. Those contradictions might not matter for the prospects of the law’s passage, though, since it is front-loaded with economic sweeteners that should benefit Republicans in the all-important next two elections. The version of the AHCA currently being advanced under a shroud of secrecy in the Senate is expected to be different from the House version, and might include provisions like a delay of Medicaid cuts and a restructuring of tax credits that will soften the long-term economic blow of the law. But, as previous analyses by Ku and others suggest, any repeal of Obamacare that leads to coverage losses and large-scale reductions in Medicaid will have larger direct economic effects and “feedback effects” on the economy and jobs . Some clever maneuvers in the Senate might delay the cliff and make the AHCA more politically palatable, but if it does pass the chamber and Trump’s desk, the losses will come.

Impact: Economic decline causes global nuclear war Stein Tønnesson 15, Research Professor, Peace Research Institute Oslo; Leader of East Asia Peace program, Uppsala University, 2015, “Deterrence, interdependence and Sino–US peace,” International Area Studies Review, Vol. 18, No. 3, p. 297-311

Several recent works on China and Sino–US relations have made substantial contributions to the current understanding of how and under what circumstances a combination of nuclear deterrence and economic interdependence may reduce the risk of war between major powers. At least four conclusions can be drawn from the review above: first, those who say that interdependence may both inhibit and drive conflict are right. Interdependence raises the cost of conflict for all sides b ut asymmetrical or unbalanced dependencies and

negative trade expectation s may generate tensions leading to trade wars among inter-dependent states that in turn increase the risk of military conflict (Copeland, 2015: 1, 14, 437; Roach, 2014). The risk may increase if one of the interdependent countries is governed by an inward-looking socio-economic coalition (Solingen, 2015); second, the risk of war between China and the US should not just be analysed bilaterally but include their allies and partners. Third party countries could drag China or the US into confrontation; third, in this context it is of some comfort that the three main economic powers in Northeast Asia (China, Japan and South Korea) are all deeply integrated economically through production networks within a global system of trade and finance (Ravenhill, 2014; Yoshimatsu, 2014: 576); and fourth, decisions for war and peace a re taken by very few people, who act on the basis of their future expectations . International relations theory must be supplemented by foreign policy analysis in order to assess the value attributed by national decision-makers to economic development and their assessments of risks and opportunities. If leaders on either side of the Atlantic begin to seriously fear or anticipate their own nation’s decline then they may blame this on external dependence, appeal to anti-foreign sentiments, contemplate the use of force to gain respect or credibility , adopt protectionist policies, and ultimately refuse to be deterred by either nuclear arms or prospects of socioeconomic calamities. Such a dangerous shift could happen abruptly, i.e. under the instigation of actions by a third party – or against a third party. Yet as long as there is both nuclear deterrence and interdependence, the tensions in East Asia are unlikely to escalate to war. As Chan (2013) says, all states in the region are aware that they cannot count on support from either China or the US if they make provocative moves. The greatest risk is not that a territorial dispute leads to war under present circumstances but that changes in the world economy alter those circumstances in ways that render inter-state peace more precarious. If China and the US fail to rebalance their financial and trading relations (Roach, 2014) then a trade war could result, interrupting transnational production networks, provoking social distress, and exacerbating nationalist emotions. This could have unforeseen consequences in the field of security, with nuclear deterrence remaining the only factor to protect the world from Armageddon, and unreliably so. Deterrence could lose its credibility : one of the two great powers might gamble that the other yield in a cyber-war or conventional limited war, or third party countries might engage in conflict with each other, with a view to obliging Washington or Beijing to intervene.

CPs

States CP Text: The fifty states and all relevant territories will fully fund all early college high school programs in respect to each individual state and their laws.

Education authority resides with the statesGleason 15Shane Gleasson, Political Scientists, Idaho State, Robert Howard, Political Scientists, George State, Albany Law review, State Supreme Courts and Shared Networking: The Diffusion of Education Policy, Albany Law Review, State Supreme Courts and Shared Networking: The Diffusion of Education Policy, p. 1486-7

State court decisions play a prominent role in many policy areas. In our federalist system, many policy domains are left predominantly to the states, including such areas as marriage, divorce, and, perhaps most prominently, education. n4 Particularly since San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, n5 state supreme courts are often the final authority on education finance law . n6 However, while the decisions of state supreme courts are final within their jurisdictions, state high courts often look to the decisions of other courts for guidance. n7 Education finance reform is a matter of policy, and while scholars have long recognized the diffusion of policy between state legislatures, no study has, as of yet, studied the diffusion of policy change through the use of state supreme court citations as a diffusion mechanism Traditionally, the literature on state courts holds that judicial decisions are a function of attitudes or policy preferences, constrained by institutional considerations and the separation of powers system inherent in each state. n8 Much of this literature assumes that decisions reached by state courts of last resort are largely independent of other state courts of last resort. n9 Each state court has its own preferences; laws; particular set of institutional constraints; and confronts different governors, publics, and state legislatures in rendering decisions. In addition, legal factors such as precedent within the state, state legislative history, and state constitutional and statutory language also play a role. However, this literature largely assumes that the decisions of one state supreme court are independent of decisions reached by neighboring state supreme courts. n10 We contend that this assumption misses the judicial dialog between state high courts. n11 A small, but growing, literature finds state supreme courts often turn to each other for citations. This literature contends that state supreme courts look to their peers or other courts for guidance, particularly when dealing with a new area of case law. n12 Specifically, state supreme courts tend to cite their peers that are more professional and have specialized case law. n13 Thus, if a court is deciding a securities case, they may turn to the New York Court of Appeals since that court has developed an extensive specialized case law in that area. n14 While this literature is informative to the present study, it does not speak to the diffusion of policy, only the presence of citations. In this article, we wed this literature to that analyzing state policy change The diffusion literature shows state legislatures often adopt policy that has previously been adopted by neighboring states. Recent scholarship on policy diffusion has reached beyond the simple concept of geography by focusing on how states and nations learn from or emulate other states or nations, looking for leadership in a particular policy domain. n15 Emulation does not depend upon neighboring geographic lines but, rather, upon whether or not the policy has been adopted by a similarly situated state or nation and whether or not the policy worked. n16

Executive Order CP Text: The president of the United States should issue an executive order to increase funding for a sustained research agenda on STEM practices to implement an integrative STEM framework in secondary education in the United States of America.Executive action solves - spurs legislative and NGO collaboration - ESSA proves Executive Office, ’15 (The Executive Office of the President, December 2015, “Every Student Succeeds Act: A Progress Report on Elementary and Secondary Education”, http://www.parentcenterhub.org/wp-content/uploads/archived-resources/ESSA_Progress_Report.pdf) CG; AD: 6/17/17Administration Action to Improve Education Under the Obama Administration, we’ve seen tremendous efforts to improve education from cradle to career, with substantial progress made. Quality Preschool: The Obama Administration has invested billions of dollars to help provide high-quality early education opportunities so that more children are successful when they enter kindergarten, and more than 30 states have boosted their own investments in early learning. Higher Standards: Today, nearly all students have access to higher standards than they did a few years ago. 48 states and the District of Columbia have taken action to hold allstudents to challenging academic standards that will prepare them to graduate from high school prepared for success in college and the workforce. Fewer, Better Assessments: The Obama Administration has supported states in their hard work to move America past the traditional multiple choice test and toward assessments aligned to college- and career-ready standards and focused on critical thinking, problem solving, and writing. At the same time, the Administration is helping states and school districts to push back on unnecessary or low-quality tests and test preparation. Strong Teachers in Every Classroom: Every student needs and deserves a strong teacher, but minority and low-income students are less likely to have effective teachers than their peers. The Department of Education has launched a number of efforts to support great teachers and teaching, including proposed regulations that will strengthen teacher preparation, and the Teach to Lead initiative, created jointly with the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, to help teachers to take control of their profession and their career paths. In addition, the Teacher Incentive Fund, Supporting Effective Educator Development Grant program, and updated teacher equity plans Excellent Educators for All are initiatives that support states and districts to train, attract, and keep effective educators in high-need schools. Competitive Programs to Improve Schools: President Obama’s Race to the Top initiative offered strong incentives to states willing to enact systemic reforms that would improve teaching and learning in America’s schools. Race to the Top was the most significant reform of public education in a generation. With an initial investment of $4 billion – less than 1 percent of annual K-12 education funding – Race to the Top catalyzed meaningful change for more than 10 million students and 700,000 teachers across over a dozen grantees, and for many more in states that did not receive funds. Race to the Top helped states increase their capacity to implement innovative solutions to improve educational outcomes by establishing high standards; supporting great teachers and leaders; using data and technology to improve instruction; and turning around the lowest performing schools – solutions that have since spread nationwide. Even in states that did not win awards, the work to

develop an application and establish the conditions for positive change unleashed incredible initiative and creativity at the local level. Investing in Innovation: The Administration’s Investing in Innovation (i3) program has helped develop a culture of evidence-based decision-making in public schools by expanding interventions that accelerate student achievement and that prepare every student to succeed in college and in their careers. The more rigorous the evidence an organization has supporting its intervention, the larger the grant award it can potentially receive. Originally, the $650 million i3 fund offered support to districts, nonprofit organizations, and institutions of higher education to research, replicate, and scale-up promising practices that improve educational outcomes. The Department awarded 49 grants in the competition, but nearly 1,700 applicants applied – by far the largest number of applicants in a single competition in the Department's history. Now, nearly 150 i3 grantees are working in every state in the country, impacting over 2 million students. 5 Creating Promise Neighborhoods: Since 2010, the Administration’s Promise Neighborhoods program has sought to break the cycle of intergenerational poverty by investing $270 million in more than 50 of our nation’s most distressed communities, representing over 700 schools. These efforts are helping to build a pipeline from early learning to high school and beyond for our highest-need students by creating comprehensive, wrap-around educational support services and strong, vibrant school environments. Moreover, 1,000 national, state, and community organizations have signed-on to support and partner with Promise Neighborhoods to ensure these initiatives are effective and long-lasting. More than Halfway to Reaching the President’s Goal to Prepare 100,000 Excellent STEM Teachers: In his 2011 State of the Union address, the President called for a new effort to prepare 100,000 STEM teachers over the next decade with strong teaching skills and deep content knowledg e . Answering the President’s call to action, more than 230 organizations formed a coalition called 100Kin10. These organizations have made more than 350 measurable commitments to increase the supply of excellent STEM teachers , including recruiting and preparing more than 43,000 teachers in the first five years of the initiative . In addition, in 2014 the Department of Education announced more than $175 million over five years in STEM-focused grants under the Teacher Quality Partnership Grant program, which will support more than 11,000 new STEM teachers in high-need schools. In total, the President’s Educate to Innovate campaign has resulted in over $1 billion in direct and in-kind support for STEM education. Expanding Access to the Technology Students Need to Succeed and Cutting the Digital Divide in Half: Since President Obama launched his ConnectED initiative in 2013, we have cut the connectivity divide in schools in half. Now, 20 million more students have access to high-speed Internet, which they need in order to utilize modern digital learning tools. Today, 77 percent of school districts meet minimum standards for high-speed broadband, compared to 30 percent in 2013. More than 3 million students from all 50 states are also benefitting from the $2.25 billion in independent private sector commitments of hardware, digital content, software, wireless service, and teacher training commitments. And thousands of district leaders have received training to support their commitment to making their schools “Future Ready.” Making College More Affordable: Our historic investments in student aid for college, a far simpler Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), and the new College Scorecard are helping to give all students the opportunity to go to college by providing them with the right tools for success.