Recent example of a politics DA

I have pasted some 1NC cards that have been VERY commonly read in recent tournaments. By the time you are seeing this, the DA will likely be non-unique, but being able to see a different type of PTX DA is very important and can help you come up with your own versions to run at tournaments. You should note how all the parts of a da is there and all the parts that are necessary for a PTX DA are there. Please note that the impact scenarios are not binding. This is just a team that ran this specific impact. You should also see that the UQ card is also the Link card. The tagline of the evidence helps show the two parts.

CR will pass BUT requires unity and floor time. New spending derails negotiations.

RCP 9-11, "Report on the Possibility of a US Government Shutdown," Roan Capital Partners, 09/11/2025, https://roancp.com/report-on-the-possibility-of-a-us-government-shutdown/.

As of September 9, 2025, the United States faces a heightened risk of a partial federal government shutdown beginning October 1, 2025, if Congress fails to enact funding legislation by the September 30 deadline. This deadline marks the expiration of a continuing resolution (CR) passed in March 2025, which has temporarily funded federal agencies through the end of fiscal year (FY) 2025. Partisan divisions, exacerbated by the Trump administration’s recent policy actions, have complicated negotiations. Republicans control both chambers of Congress but require Democratic support in the Senate to meet the 60-vote threshold for passage. Key sticking points include proposed cuts to foreign aid, impacts on healthcare programs from recent tax legislation, and demands for restoring funding to affected communities. While a short-term CR remains the most probable outcome to avert an immediate shutdown, the ongoing standoff increases the likelihood of disruptions if no agreement is reached soon. Introduction A U.S. government shutdown occurs when Congress fails to pass appropriations bills or a continuing resolution to fund federal operations, leading to the furlough of non-essential federal employees and the suspension of certain government services. Since 1981, there have been 14 partial shutdowns, with the longest lasting 34 days during the 2018-2019 standoff over border wall funding. Shutdowns typically arise from disagreements over spending priorities, debt limits, or policy riders attached to funding bills. The fiscal year for the federal government runs from October 1 to September 30, requiring Congress to approve approximately $1.8 trillion in discretionary spending annually, separate from mandatory programs like Social Security and Medicare. In the current context, the March 2025 CR extended funding through September 30, 2025, averting an earlier crisis but setting the stage for renewed negotiations. With Congress returning from its August recess on September 2, 2025, lawmakers have just over three weeks to act. This report examines the current status of funding talks, key challenges, potential impacts, and the overall probability of a shutdown. Current Status of Funding Negotiations Congress must either pass 12 full-year appropriations bills for FY2026 or enact another CR to maintain operations past September 30. The full appropriations process is considered unlikely given the tight timeline and historical precedents, where comprehensive bills are rarely completed on schedule. Instead, attention has focused on a “clean” CR, which would extend current funding levels for a few months (e.g., until December 2025 or March 2026) without policy changes, providing time for broader budget negotiations. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) has not yet committed to a specific strategy but has emphasized the need for Republican priorities, including spending cuts. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) has expressed optimism for bipartisanship, stating hopes for a “process that works for both sides.” On the Democratic side, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has accused the Trump administration of undermining Congress’s authority by withholding previously approved funds, describing it as “an all-out war against Congress’ Article I authority.” House Democrats have highlighted that the administration is blocking over $410 billion in owed funding to communities nationwide. Appropriations committees in both chambers are cautiously advancing toward a temporary agreement, with subcommittee markups expected in the coming weeks. However, as of September 9, no bill has been formally introduced on the House or Senate floor, and senior GOP aides indicate internal divisions persist. Key Players and Partisan Sticking Points The Trump administration plays a pivotal role, with President Donald Trump signaling openness to a short-term CR following the enactment of his “One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act” – a sweeping tax-cut and spending package signed into law recently. However, Trump and Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought have pursued a rescission package to claw back nearly $5 billion in foreign aid and an additional $9 billion in cuts to foreign aid and public media funding, actions Democrats deem illegal and obstructive. These moves are seen as complicating bipartisan efforts, with Trump previously demonstrating willingness to risk shutdowns to advance his agenda, as in 2018-2019. Republicans, buoyed by majorities in both the House and Senate, are pushing for reduced non-defense spending – approximately $15 billion below FY2025 levels – and integration of Trump’s policy wins. Conservatives within the GOP acknowledge the need for compromise but resist any “chip away” at the new administration’s domestic package. Democrats, in the minority, are leveraging the Senate’s filibuster rules to demand concessions, including reversals of Medicaid cuts from Trump’s tax bill that could affect healthcare coverage for over 10 million low-income Americans. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has warned that unilateral Republican cuts would force Democrats to withhold support, potentially dooming any CR. Bipartisan leaders are attempting de-escalation, with recent talks aiming to separate funding from policy riders. Potential Impacts of a Shutdown If no funding is approved by midnight on September 30, non-essential federal services would halt, affecting approximately 2 million civilian employees through furloughs or unpaid work. Essential functions, such as air traffic control, military operations, and Social Security payments, would continue, but delays in payments to contractors, veterans’ benefits processing, and national park access would ensue. Economically, even a brief shutdown could lead to higher borrowing costs, stock market volatility, increased unemployment, and a contraction in GDP, as seen in prior incidents. Specific sectors like healthcare research, housing assistance, and defense contracting would face immediate disruptions, with contractors already reporting delays in year-end obligations. Likelihood of a Shutdown The probability of a shutdown is moderately high – estimated at 40-60% by analysts – due to the entrenched partisan positions and the administration’s aggressive rescission tactics. However, historical patterns favor last-minute compromises, with a clean CR viewed as the path of least resistance by the White House and moderate lawmakers like Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), who stressed the need for “hard work and collaboration.” Democrats’ strategy appears to bet on a brief impasse to extract concessions on Affordable Care Act subsidies, but prolonged delays risk public backlash ahead of the 2026 midterms. If negotiations stall further, a shutdown could extend into early October, mirroring past crises. Conclusion With only three weeks remaining, the window for averting a government shutdown is narrowing amid deepening partisan rifts and the Trump administration’s fiscal maneuvers. A temporary CR offers a viable off-ramp, but success hinges on bipartisan willingness to prioritize funding over policy fights. Failure to act would not only disrupt federal services but also undermine public trust in governance. Stakeholders, including federal employees and contractors, should prepare contingency plans while monitoring congressional developments closely.

Shutdown destroys aviation safety.

Oriana Pawlyk 25, POLITICO's aviation reporter, covering everything from drones to airlines to the uncharted territory of commercial space, “Government shutdown a 'hit' air traffic controllers can’t take, union president warns”, https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2025/03/government-shutdown-a-hit-air-traffic-controllers-cant-take-union-president-warns-00210516, *language edited

The head of the union for air traffic controllers warned lawmakers Tuesday that a government shutdown would be a [damaging] crippling blow to the controller workforce, which is already strained by persistent staffing shortages and amid the aftermath of a midair disaster in January that killed 67 people. “The air traffic controllers cannot take another hit right now,” said Nick Daniels, president of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association. Daniels said not only do controllers have to work without pay during a shutdown, the FAA Academy that trains new crops of controllers would close its doors, disrupting classes. Daniels said even a one-day shutdown "puts us months behind." “That's what a government shutdown is — not only is it impacting modernization, but it will shut down the Oklahoma City Academy that we are relying on, to bring in these new air traffic controllers so we can train them,” Daniels said. Without a deal, the government is set to shut down on March 14. And many controllers may simply quit if the government shuts down again, because they don't want to deal with the disruptions anymore, Daniels said. "Many of them don't come back, because they certainly do not want to work in that type of career field, or go with $0 paychecks — or not even a paycheck,” Daniels said. The controller workforce is short of roughly 3,600 certified controllers, and it’s impossible to just fast-track that number, especially during a shutdown, he said. The shutdown that began in December 2018 and lasted for just over a month impacted 25 percent of the trainees coming through the system. Daniels added it takes between two to three years from the time a controller is hired to get into their official role from when they pass initial qualifications. Last week, DOT Secretary Sean Duffy announced a new plan that would seek to shorten the hiring process, though how that's being streamlined is murky. Lawmakers have also proposed the idea of raising the threshold of the maximum amount of people allowed to be trained at the academy, and the potential of opening a second academy. Findings from an independent panel of experts released in 2023 said that the shutdown politics injects risk into the system, and found that a spike of near collisions at airports that year were directly linked to congressional dysfunction.

Another crash wrecks the aerospace industry broadly.

GTF 25, Global Tourism Forum, an international collaboration platform focused on addressing the challenges for the travel industry that combines the joint efforts of government agencies, industry stakeholders and academia, “Why Airline Crashes Shake Global Economies: Stock, Insurance, and Infrastructure Losses Explained Introduction”, https://live.worldtourismforum.net/opinion/why-airline-crashes-shake-global-economies-stock-insurance-and-infrastructure-losses-explained-introduction

Aviation is one of the world’s most economically sensitive sectors. When a plane crash occurs, the effects are immediate and far-reaching—impacting not only the airline involved but also airports, insurers, stock markets, and even a nation’s economic output. The ripple effects can disrupt supply chains, freeze tourism flows, spike insurance premiums, and dent investor confidence. This article examines how commercial airline crashes shake global economies—through market reactions, insurance liabilities, and infrastructure losses. Drawing from real-world incidents, it explains why aviation disasters cost billions, not just in lives but also in lost productivity, trade, and trust. 1.⁠ ⁠Stock Market Shockwaves: A Fall in Investor Confidence Plane crashes often trigger sudden and sharp declines in the stock value of the affected airline and, in some cases, the broader aviation sector. Examples: • Boeing 737 MAX (2018–2019): Following two fatal crashes, Boeing’s stock plunged by nearly 25%, wiping out over $60 billion in market capitalization. The MAX program was halted, and hundreds of aircraft were grounded globally, resulting in canceled orders and legal backlash. • Lufthansa & Germanwings (2015): After a Germanwings co-pilot deliberately crashed Flight 9525, Lufthansa’s stock dropped by approximately 3–4% intraday. Although it recovered quickly, the brand’s credibility took a temporary hit. • Malaysia Airlines (2014): After MH370 and MH17, Malaysia Airlines’ share price fell 13%, and the airline suffered its largest quarterly losses ever. Why This Matters: Investors flee airline stocks after a crash due to fears of operational grounding, compensation payouts, and reputational damage. If the crash involves a manufacturing defect, aircraft makers like Boeing or Airbus may see even greater losses. 2.⁠ ⁠Insurance Payouts and Long-Term Premium Hikes A commercial airline crash initiates enormous liability for the airline, aircraft manufacturer, and even the country of origin. Typical Costs Include: • Passenger compensation (under the Montreal Convention): ~$175,000 per victim minimum • Hull loss (value of the aircraft): often $100–200 million • Third-party damages and environmental remediation • Legal settlements and fines Case Study: Boeing’s 737 MAX Liability • Boeing paid over $2.5 billion in fines and compensation. • Airlines were compensated for lost revenue due to grounded aircraft. • Insurance firms faced claims in the billions, triggering reevaluations of risk and policy premiums. Aftermath: These payouts contribute to higher aviation insurance premiums globally, especially for carriers in developing countries or those with safety concerns.

Commercial aerospace is key to hypersonic innovation.

Stephen Clark 25, aerospace reporter at Ars Technica, covering private aerospace companies and the world’s space agencies, “The company with the world’s largest aircraft now has a hypersonic rocket plane”, https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/05/stratolaunch-successfully-flies-a-modern-replacement-for-the-x-15-rocket-plane/

Catching up So why is hypersonic flight testing important? The Pentagon wants to close what it views as a technological gap with China, which US officials acknowledge has become the world's leader in hypersonic missile development. Hypersonic weapons are more difficult than conventional missiles for aerial defense systems to detect, track, and destroy. Unlike ballistic missiles, hypersonic weapons ride at the top of the atmosphere, enhancing their maneuverability and ability to evade interceptors. Hypersonic flight is an unforgiving environment. Temperatures outside the Talon-A vehicle can reach up to 2,000° Fahrenheit (1,100° Celsius) as the plane plows through air molecules, Krevor said. He declined to disclose the duration, top speed, and maximum altitude of the December and March test flights but said the rocket plane performed a series of "high-G" maneuvers on the journey from its drop location to Vandenberg. Engineers know less about the conditions of the hypersonic flight regime (in excess of Mach 5) than they do about lower-speed supersonic flight or spaceflight. The only vehicles that regularly fly at hypersonic speeds are missiles, rockets, and spacecraft reentering the atmosphere. They spend just a short time flying in the hypersonic environment as they transition to and from space. There are two things you should know about hypersonic missiles. First, rockets have flown at hypersonic speeds since 1949, so when officials talk about hypersonic missiles, they are referring to vehicles that operate in the hypersonic flight environment instead of just transiting through it. Second, hypersonic vehicles come in a couple of variations. One is a glide vehicle, which is accelerated by a conventional rocket to hypersonic speed, then steers itself toward its destination or target using aerodynamic forces. The other is a cruiser that can sustain itself in hypersonic flight using exotic propulsion, such as scramjet engines. The military recently tested an intermediate-range hypersonic weapon, known by the Army as Dark Eagle and by the Navy as Conventional Prompt Strike, using the glide vehicle architecture. The Army's version could be operational later this year. Meanwhile, the Air Force is working on a scramjet-powered hypersonic cruise missile, but it likely won't be ready for combat for a few more years. Not only must a vehicle operate in the extreme hypersonic flight regime, but any operational hypersonic weapon must be "affordable" and "manufactured at high rate," two Pentagon officials wrote in prepared testimony to the House Armed Services Committee last year. "Our goal is to enable the nation’s industrial base to manufacture hypersonic systems at a cost comparable to traditional weapon systems and at the capacity necessary to achieve a decisive advantage for the warfighter on the battlefield," the officials wrote. The Pentagon has spent about $12 billion on hypersonic weapons development and testing since 2018. None of the weapons are operational yet. All of these initiatives aim to match China's hypersonic capabilities. US officials believe China's first hypersonic weapon, using the glide vehicle architecture, became operational in 2019. Russia's government claimed it deployed a hypersonic weapon named Avangard the same year. China began testing a scramjet-powered hypersonic cruise missile in 2018. Paving the way The Pentagon's emphasis on hypersonic weapons is relatively new. After the X-15's final flight in 1968, the government lacked any major hypersonic flight test programs for several decades. NASA flew the autonomous X-43 test vehicle to hypersonic speed two times in 2004, and the Air Force demonstrated an air-breathing scramjet engine at Mach 5.1 with the X-51 Waverider aircraft in 2013. While some of the X-43 and X-51 test flights failed, they provided early-stage data on hypersonic propulsion systems that could power high-speed aircraft and missiles. But these were expensive government-led programs. Together, they cost nearly $1 billion in 2025 dollars, with only a handful of flight tests to show for it. The military now wants to lean heavier on commercial industry.

Losing the hypersonic race causes great power war.

Michael E. White 25, former Principal Director for Hypersonics (PD,H) in the Office of the Director of Defense Research and Engineering (Modernization) within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering and Head of the Air and Missile Defense Sector at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory where he led over 1,100 staff members developing advanced concepts to enhance the Nation's air and missile defense capability, M.S. in Aerospace Engineering, “The hypersonic imperative”, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/commentary/strategy-memo/the-hypersonic-imperative/

Should the United States fail to improve its offensive hypersonic capabilities, Washington’s ability to penetrate adversary A2/AD nodes and manage escalation could degrade, making it more difficult to deter great-power war and manage intrawar deterrence. Failing to protect the United States from hypersonic weapons could allow adversaries to more effectively coerce the United States by threatening limited warning conventional strike against key civilian and military infrastructure, as well as attacking US forces deployed abroad. Why now? The United States must field and evolve hypersonic capabilities now as part of a comprehensive warfighting strategy to maintain its ability to dominate the battlefield against an increasingly capable set of adversaries. These adversaries have developed integrated capabilities to create a highly contested environment to defeat US and allied forces across all domains: air, land, sea, and space. This multi-domain threat must be addressed with a comprehensive and layered defeat strategy that leverages new offensive and defensive capabilities across kinetic and non-kinetic domains to attack and disable adversaries’ high-end systems before and after launch. Hypersonic strike weapons, launched from stand-off ranges that protect launch platforms, will be essential to allowing US and allied forces to defeat these systems with lethal, survivable effects in a timescale of relevance on a modern battlefield. This offensive capability must be coupled with effective, layered, kinetic, and non-kinetic defenses against adversary hypersonic and ballistic missile capabilities.