Ramblings and Musings

 

                  Various Ramblings and Musings

         There’s no real theme this week, so let’s see what develops.

I was recently talking to a gentleman who was playing with the orchestra that accompanied my wife’s choral group and, in the course of conversation, it came up that he was a retired pastor, and he was from Texas. Somehow the conversation turned to the price of gasoline, and he said, “Well it's because they've banned all drilling.” It became obvious, by other opinions of his, who “they” were. This categorically proves the educated can still be ignorant.

Let's get this straight right off the top: there are over 6000 US drilling permits currently active and the Biden administration has not banned any drilling for oil. So why is the price of gasoline so high? And the answer is (drumroll) because the petroleum companies like it that way. Reality is, that until very recently, American refineries were not operating at capacity and, as Adam Smith said in his epic 1776 economic work, On the Wealth of Nations, scarcity causes price to increase. Now the economic reality of the oil business is this: drilling for oil is an awfully expensive process which requires a significant investment up front with no guarantee of profit on the other end. If you don't find oil you've not only lost your time and effort, but you've lost investor’s money. For some smaller concerns, this may even mean that money borrowed to finance drilling is a loss. On the other hand, getting a higher price for what you do produce with absolutely no extra outlay of funds or effort is free money. Free money enhances your bottom line and the stockholders in your energy corporation love that because it means more return on their investment.

     And yet, you may say, “But if they produce more gasoline, they'll sell more and make more money.” The downside to that is that what they're already producing will also decrease in price and so, if they do nothing, they can continue to exact a high price for it which, by the way, is only high compared to what we're used to and is low compared to what the rest of the world pays. It costs them no extra money to exact this high price. 

    Oil, like any other commodity is a market product, and in this case, it is a world market product. If a president, any president, could simply push a button or issue an edict and reduce the price of gasoline, they would do that. Alas, there is no magic wand and there is no magic solution when greed at the top of the energy corporation chain says otherwise.

Reflect, if you are old enough, on the 1970s Arab oil embargo. At that time, the US was dependent on Arab Oil to the point that the shortage of crude oil to refine actually did create a situation where there was less gasoline available than there was demand. Those who were drivers at that time may recall long lines of cars at gas stations and gas stations actually running out of gas. Now reflect on the current situation. Have you seen lines at gas stations? Have you seen gas stations without gasoline to sell now? You have not; it's just been more expensive. The people that run ExxonMobil and other petroleum companies are not unhappy with this situation regardless of what they may imply.

Shifting gears: While I am over the moon about what happened to Alex Jones and sincerely hope the man is impoverished and remains so the rest of his life, it is worth noting that he's not the only lunatic out there spouting the most outrageous and vile drivel simply because it fits a very Far Right view of the world. There is a man by the name of Stew Peters who has produced a film entitled Watch the Water. “Watch the water” is a favorite refrain of the QAnon lunatic fringe who believe that, in some alternate universe, the government is treating the water with various things to our detriment. In Alex Jones’ case it was some sort of substance to either spray on or add to water and turn people gay. As bizarre as that is, the subject of Mr. Peters film is even more outré.

This anti-vaccine documentary makes the ludicrous assertion that the coronavirus is not a virus, but a synthetic version of snake venom that evil forces are spreading through remdesivir, the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and drinking water to "make you a hybrid of Satan." The general format of said video is an interview between Peters, who has a history of using inflammatory rhetoric and spreading multiple COVID-19 conspiracy theories, and Bryan Ardis, a former chiropractor who built a brand around falsely claiming that the drug remdesivir is killing people.

It shows Ardis, who now hucksters acne products and is also using the film to sell what he calls "anti-v" supplement kits online, invoking the Garden of Eden story to “legitimize/justify” his insane claims. He proposes, in part, that: "I think the plan all along was to get the serpent's, the evil one's DNA into your God-created DNA," Ardis said. "They're using mRNA, which is mRNA extracted from, I believe, the king cobra venom, the king cobra venom. And I think they want to get that venom inside of you and make you a hybrid of Satan."  As usual, “they” are not identified. (For the record, humans manufacture mRNA in their own cells, and vaccine mRNA is manufactured in a lab setting, no cobras involved.)  Of course, the preceding babbling lunacy also assumes the existence of a “Satan,” as well as the assumption that this fictional fallen angel turned into a snake so God could use him/it to mess with humanity.

And finally: We in The Villages were spared the worst of Hurricane Ian, primarily because we are west of Orlando as well as north. Additionally, the storm was uncharacteristically weaker on the north side than most we have seen. While O-town was drenched, we had just three inches or so of rain. So, we were lucky. Not so fortunate, however, were those on the southwest coast who died, either by drowning (90% of fatalities) or wind driven damage which proved fatal. While we all mourn these deaths, there are several points of discussion which are relevant.

First, watching the video of roofs and walls of houses collapsing due to wind and water also showed that most of these were older homes almost certainly built before the 2001 Florida construction codes were enacted. Prior to that, Florida was a construction free for all. If you could build it and make it pretty, you could sell it. This was made abundantly clear when the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew was surveyed. Many pricier homes were damaged or totaled, but none of them were homes built by Habitat for Humanity. Those homes definitely weren’t more expensive, but they were just built to a higher construction standard.

More troubling are the deaths of those who simply decided to “ride it out.”  There was no lack of warning or descriptions of how severe this storm could be. Similarly, there was no shortage of evacuation warnings by civil authorities. The prevalent characteristic of storm victims seems to be complacency. For newer residents, this is exacerbated when a storm fails to materialize as severely as the predictions would lead one to believe, which can lead to the belief among those who know no better that it will always be thus. Around ninety drowning victims of Ian proved that it isn’t so.          

"The Death of Free Speech?"

 

"The Death of Free Speech?"

So, let’s try for a little perspective: Donald Trump is suing CNN for almost precisely the amount of money he owes, but doesn’t have, to pay his numerous creditors. Of course, he doesn’t have the money to pay his lawyers either, but his easily duped MAGA drones are contributing, about $7 million to date, and most contributions are being used to pay the law firm du-jour which sees in Trump a money machine which can be billed regardless of outcome.

 Trump’s suit revolves around his claims that CNN has slandered him over the years by commenting on his proven false statements and, more to the point, by analyzing his actions and allegations in the context of his proven racism, sexism, and disregard for the law as it applies to him and his finances. Most of these have been corroborated by other non-CNN sources such as Trump family members, former staffers, and other media sources.

The most likely outcome for these and similar Trump suits will be dismissal. The New York State tax fraud cases against Trump and his older spawn must, at least, be proven with hard data. Slander and libel on the other hand are far more difficult to prove, especially when the alleged “victim” (hard to even use that term where Trump is involved) is a public figure. Engaging in a public forum, by its very, nature raises the slander/libel bar far higher.

It has historically been more difficult to prove slander/libel when the accuser is a celebrity because public figures have more factors to prove. The courts tend to distinguish between two types of plaintiffs in defamation actions: “private individuals” and “public figures.” The difference in the way they are treated depends on the defendant's knowledge in publishing the defamatory content. Private individuals need only establish that the publisher acted with "negligence." However, where public figures are concerned, the courts have generally held that there is a lessened interest in protecting the defamed subject's reputation. Therefore, public-figure plaintiffs must allege a higher level of knowledge.

In the generally cited case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) The Supreme Court established that a public figure plaintiff must establish what is known as “actual malice.” To show actual malice, the person who published the statement either had to have known that the statement was false or published it with reckless disregard despite awareness of the probable falsity (think Tucker Carlson). The existence of actual malice must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.

In plain speak, an example might be that a public figure individual makes a public statement which is proven to be false, and a media outlet analyzes said statement for what it may imply about the individual. In a blatant example, candidate Trump repeatedly said he’d be “too busy to play golf” while in office, yet when elected he actually played more, and much more expensively, than any previous President. Analysis of that statement as it relates to Trump’s proclivity for lying as shown by his actions, might make Trump angry, but it certainly isn’t libel or slander.

Compared to the almost daily spate of outright lies and distortions of several Fox News talking heads, CNN is pure as the driven snow. Trump’s public behavior has done more to demonstrate Trump’s lack of character than CNN could ever do.

So why all this explanation? Simply because, in the light of recent events re: the even more despicable (if that’s even possible) Alex Jones, the same Trump MAGA sycophants are screaming about the “death of free speech.” He was, justifiably, again found guilty for his continued slanderous attacks on private individuals in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook school shootings. In a too-rare victory for the good guys, he was also ordered to pay punitive damages of almost $1 billion!

 Such “experts” as Marjorie Taylor Greene grossly over-simplified it thus: "No matter what you think of Alex Jones, all he did was speak words. He was not the one who pulled the trigger." At this juncture I might point out that her words would, in her warped state of reality, also largely excuse Hitler for the Holocaust, since, like Jones, he didn’t actually personally kill anyone, but his words led to it. The above reductio ad absurdum (using exaggeration to the ridiculous level to demonstrate a point) was made to illustrate the Far Right “But whaddabout?” mentality. It’s true that Alex Jones did not “kill anybody” but whaddabout (insert latest conspiracy theory here).

Jones, by implication, did accuse the government of complicity when, in December of 2012, Adam Lanza shot and killed twenty students and six teachers in Newtown, Connecticut. Not only that, but he intruded into the private lives of grieving parents by alleging that the children weren’t dead, and that “crisis actors” were faking it all. By direct implication he accused fifteen sets of parents of complicity. Jones has admitted calling bereaved Sandy Hook parents "crisis actors" on his show and saying the shooting was "phony as a three-dollar bill". His shows continued to portray the Sandy Hook shooting as staged as part of gun control efforts. He also said: "You've got parents laughing - "hahaha" - and then they walk over to the camera and go "boo hoo hoo," and not just one but a bunch of parents doing this and then photos of kids that are still alive they said died? The reverse has long since been proven.        

Over the following years, and largely in response to Jones’ continuing allegations, Strangers showed up at some of the bereaved parents’ homes to record them. People hurled abusive comments on social media. Erica Lafferty, the daughter of the slain Sandy Hook principal, testified that people mailed rape threats to her house. Mark Barden recounted how conspiracy theorists had urinated on the grave of his seven-year-old son, Daniel, and threatened to dig up the coffin.

   Without Jones, it is unlikely any of this would have happened. Understand, these parents and those in Uvalde, Texas, were private individuals, and Alex Jones, by his hate speech, turned them into public figures and then further injured them with false allegations that, in the case of Sandy Hook, incited even worse direct actions of others. This is a textbook example of Slander and, probably, hate speech!

On the off chance that the name Alex Jones doesn’t resonate with you he has also over the years claimed that:

The Sept. 11, 2001, attacks were an “inside job” perpetrated by the U.S. government.

“Of course, there’s weather weapon stuff going on “We had floods in Texas like fifteen years ago, killed thirty-something people in one night. Turned out it was the Air Force.”

The government is using chemicals in order to turn people gay, using a mysterious “gay bomb” devised by the Pentagon.

The Oklahoma City bombing was a “false flag” government operation perpetrated by government forces to frame and stigmatize the militia movement

“The reason there’s so many gay people now is because it’s a chemical warfare operation. They’re (the “gummint?)  going to encourage homosexuality with chemicals so that people don’t have children.”

There are many more, but you get the picture.

Now to finish: Many of those who are supporting, and even funding, Trump’s frivolous suit against CNN are the same ones watching Fox News and screaming “The death of free speech” in the wake of the Jones verdict.”  Apparently, they believe they can have it both ways. What a sorry and pathetic batch of deplorables.

 

Things You May Not Know 

    (And most Republicans don't want you to know)               

 

In the current environment of inflation, higher interest rates, and the hardships they can cause for American families, it should not be totally unexpected that many people blame the president of the United States for that problem. In fact, however, because of the way the national financial structure is organized, the president can do little or nothing to affect that. To understand why requires an understanding of how and why the American federal financial system has changed over time.

        The American War for Independence left the new country essentially bankrupt and the economy in widespread disruption because many of its citizens were heavily in debt and Continental Congress paper money that had been issued during the war was essentially useless. I can still remember my grandmother using the phrase that something was “Not worth a continental.” While her direct ancestors were not even in the country at the time of the revolution, the phrase had endured that long.

          At the same time there was no national consensus on whether the United States should be primarily agricultural, as it had been pre-war, or whether the government needed to encourage business and industrialization. By far, the strongest proponent of the latter point of view was Alexander Hamilton and he had some ideas that many considered radical. After considering what other nations had done to deal with the issue of massive national debt, Hamilton settled on the British model of a National Bank (as in the Bank of England). Like the Bank of England his proposed Bank of the United States was also to be stockholder owned.

In 1790, Hamilton submitted a report to Congress in which he called for the establishment of the first Bank of the United States. The function of such a bank would be to issue paper money, also called banknotes or currency, provide a safe place to keep public funds, offer banking facilities for commercial transactions and also act as the government's fiscal agent collecting government tax revenues. To assure a modicum of safety, he proposed that said bank would also be required to maintain a minimum ratio of loans to precious metals, which requirement did not exist in the Bank of England. He also stipulated the government should own 20% of the bank whereas the Bank of England was wholly privately owned. After some strenuous debate, President George Washington signed the bill to create the Bank over the strenuous objections of many of his Virginia colleagues including Jefferson and Madison.

Without going into greater detail, public sale of shares in the bank created a bubble and a subsequent financial collapse as speculators borrowed from the bank to buy shares in the bank, hoping the value of the shares would go up. Through its history there were other valid criticisms of the first Bank of the United States. From a modern perspective there were many flaws, one of the principal ones being that the bank actually did not set national monetary policy and, secondly, it did not regulate other banks. Its substantial holdings in gold reserves did, however, establish what passed for a stable national currency and, by managing its lending policies and the flow of funds through its accounts, the bank could — and did — alter the supply of money and credit in the economy and hence the level of interest rates charged to borrowers. If this last sentence sounds familiar it should, because to greater degree this is, somewhat analogous to, what the current Federal Reserve Board does.

When the First Bank’s request for a charter extension was rejected and the bank ceased to exist in 1811, conditions rapidly reverted to the post-revolutionary morass of state banks and other private banks issuing bank notes without the required amount of security. War debt following the war of 1812 was huge, inflation followed, and a panic thereafter. In 1816 President James Madison, who had adamantly opposed the creation of the First Bank of the United States, signed a bill creating the Second Bank of the United States with a twenty-year charter.

Many state banks envied the Second Bank because it received all of the government’s deposits and therefore could make more loans. This meant that private or state banks were in direct competition with the Bank of the US. Andrew Jackson hated banks in general, having lost money due to defaulted bank notes years before and determined to kill the Second US Bank by pulling federal deposits from it and placing them in “Favorite” State banks (known in the press at the time as his “pet banks.” In 1836, the Second Bank’s charter expired as Jackson refused to sign a renewal.

Over the next decades, in the absence of a national bank, there were five nationwide economic panics, inflation, and profiteering from wealthy bankers and investors. This culminated in a huge nation-wide panic in 1907. One of the lessons to be learned here is that most of these panics were the result of greatly underregulated banks being allowed to speculate in stocks and wealthy financiers having interests in both banks and corporations which conflicted. Banks failed, ordinary depositors lost their savings, it wasn’t pretty. (Numerous examples, too little space, just trust me on this one.)

The 1907 crisis was moderated, and banks rescued only when three specific events occurred. First, the US treasury intervened and pumped twenty-five million in government funds to shore up deposits in New York City banks. Second, John D. Rockefeller gave $10 million of his own fortune to the same service and, finally, J.P. Morgan extended $25 million in emergency funds. In the aftermath of this debacle there were widespread calls for major currency and banking reform.

Finally, after an intervening war (WWI) and, again primarily due to under-regulation of banking, financial, and commodities markets, the US economy once again soiled its linen. The Great Depression led to the eventual signing, by President Roosevelt, of the National Banking Act of 1935. Earlier, the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 had effectively separated commercial banking from investment banking and created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

In vastly simplified language, the National Banking Act created the Federal Reserve System (“Fed” from here on) and banks. The Act created the Federal Open Market Committee, the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and stipulates that five representatives of the Federal Reserve Banks will be members of the Committee, which must conduct open-market operations according to specific regulations adopted by the Committee. The goal of open-market operations is to accommodate commerce and business with an eye to U.S. credit conditions.

The Fed’s mandate is to use their authority to control the money supply as needed by buying or selling federal securities and combat inflation, to the degree that they can, by adjusting the interest rate (known as the “discount rate”) charged by the Fed to private banks when, and if, they borrow from the Fed to meet the amount of funds they are required to have on hand. This is known as the reserve requirement. The discount rate is that interest rate we read about the Fed changing to fight inflation. That rate affects what lenders and other creditors charge.

All this detail and history may bore some of you, but the plethora of complainers publicly blaming anyone and everyone for the current economic situation clearly demonstrates a gross lack of understanding about economics on the part of a sizeable percentage of the population. Sadly, much of the partisan carping is aimed at the President.

Now to the crux of the matter: The Fed does not report to, nor are they accountable to, the President of the United States. The Chairman is nominated by the President and serves a four year term. Each member of the Board of Governors is appointed for a 14-year term; the terms are staggered so that one term expires on January 31 of each even-numbered year. After serving a full 14-year term, a Board member may not be reappointed. Jerome Powell, current Fed chair was nominated in 2018 by Donald Trump and reconfirmed by a Republican controlled Senate.    

The Fed is responsible to the Congress. Period. Understand, I am not being critical of Chairman Powell. I am simply pointing out that blaming President Biden is lunacy on the same level as blaming him for high gas prices. If this were simple math, two plus two would always equal four and boom, push a button and inflation would vanish. It simply doesn’t work that way. Never has, never will. This is a global problem, exacerbated, in part, by a Russian madman.

 

         

Things to Remember

 

                                 Things to Remember

Before you make a decision on how to cast your vote for Governor of Florida, consider this:

One of the very first legislative votes cast by the current Florida governor, who is more than willing to accept any and all federal aid in the wake of Hurricane Ian, was in his second day as a US Congressman. He voted against a bill to appropriate adequate funding for Hurricane Sandy relief. This shows the character, or lack thereof, of this little man. Also, The Federal money he spent to grandstand on the immigration issue would be nice to have now in SW Florida to augment the FEMA funds that President Biden ordered in his disaster declaration. Ask yourself how this might have played out if the roles were reversed, based on DeSantis’ record.

Additionally, when Ron DeSantis self-congratulates about giving first responders $1000 bonus checks, remember this: These are not stimulus payments to aid families who aren’t working, but a bonus to folks who, while they may well deserve them, are working and earning. More importantly, these aren’t state funds, but are part of President Biden’s American Rescue Plan, so don’t thank DeSantis, thank Biden.

This of course is in addition to the DeSantis attacks on public education, and on voting rights which make me so mad just can’t stand it.

And, on Republican financial policies in general:

In the 1930’s when the social security program was originally adopted, FDR said, “I guess you’re right on the economics. We put those pay roll contributions there (meaning Social Security as payroll, deduction) so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and their unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program.”  Social Security benefits weren’t taxed at first, but in fact, this was the result of a series of administrative rulings by the Treasury Department and not part of the act which established Social Security. In 1983, The Reagan administration pushed for, and got, a bi-partisan bill to tax Social Security benefits for the first time.

Unfortunately, Reagan and his Republican controlled Congress also reduced top marginal income tax rates from 70% to 28%. It is difficult to find any single better example of the Republican ethos which, if written as a mission statement, might read: “Reduce financial liability and responsibility of the rich, while increasing that of the lower income population.”

Today there are those of the Republican persuasion who favor allowing people to opt out of Social Security in favor of privately managing their retirement. These are, by and large, people who will, in truth never need the monthly SS stipend to any real extent. They attempt to sell privatization as a positive issue, when in truth, more than 20% of the households in America depend on SS for at least 80% of their income, and half of American households relied on SS for at least half of their income as of 2018. These are usually not folks who, while working, have the disposable income to invest unless it is deducted before they get paid. That is factual like it or not. In the absence of SS, many of these folks would be impoverished wards of the state.

George W. Bush also tried pushing privatization of SS during his first term. Privatization may sound good, like chocolate, but…. There are three key reasons that it is far more complex.

First, Social Security is an insurance program; it offers features that just can’t be measured by a rate-of-return analysis. Second, the claimed higher returns in the private market come from ignoring the cost of increased risk, such as markets tanking as in 2009. When that cost is taken into account, the supposed “free lunch” from stock-market investments disappears. Finally, to secure the supposedly higher returns of private accounts, one must also incur relatively large transition costs. Once the transition costs are considered, as they must be for a valid, comparison, the “higher returns” in private accounts are seen to be illusory. Even more fallacious is the “privatizer’s” refusal to acknowledge that SS is:

1) Based, and fixed on, work history and Cost of Living Adjusted (COLA), which an IRA isn’t.

 2) Guaranteed for life at the same level, plus COLA. In other words, you can’t “run out” of SS. Very few investments which the average worker could afford offer that degree of security. In simple terms, SS isn’t subject to market whims.

3) Since the inception of Medicare, which is in essence a sort of Siamese twin of SS, an individual who privatized his SS would either continue payroll deduction contributions to Medicare or be forced to pay for far more expensive healthcare coverage in retirement.

And…. Lindsey Graham, who is assiduously attempting to draw up legislation which would strip American women of their reproductive rights, has no children, no significant other (whom he acknowledges, anyway) and no family, but believes he is entitled to tell the rest of us how and when we should have ours.

And…   The Fairness Doctrine, enforced by the Federal Communications Council, was a result of the US media environment in 1949. There was increasing concern that the three main US networks, NBC, ABC and CBS, had what amounted to monopoly audience control, and could misuse their broadcast licenses to set a biased public agenda. More to the point it was the age of Red Scare and the beginning ascendency of Joe McCarthy, hardly a mainstream media darling. Adopted in 1949 as a guiding principle, the Fairness Doctrine mandated that broadcast networks devote time to contrasting views on issues of public importance. Congress backed that policy in 1954, and by the 1970s the FCC called the doctrine the “single most important requirement of operation in the public interest – the standard of behavior for the granting or renewal of broadcast licensure.

The Supreme Court upheld said doctrine. In 1969’s Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, a journalist sued a Pennsylvania Christian Crusade (!!) radio program after their host attacked him on air. In a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the individual’s right to an on-air response under the Fairness Doctrine, arguing that nothing in the First Amendment gives a broadcast license holder the exclusive right to the airwaves they operate on.

The doctrine remained in effect and enforced until the Reagan Administration. In 1985, Reagan’s former campaign staffer, now FCC Chairman, Mark Fowler, issued a report stating that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. This was coincident with increased media criticism of Reagan’s policies and the rise of radio voices such as Rush Limbaugh. In Reagan’s second term the doctrine was so eroded that the FCC voted 4-0 to void it altogether. In June 1987, Congress, angered by this reversal of their intent, attempted to preempt that FCC decision via the (bipartisan) Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1987. Reagan vetoed the bill.

While you may wonder why the hell, I even bring this up, you must understand that this Reagan policy change is why we have Fox News and other one sided, no-rebuttal, accountability or facts required, outlets who seem to work for the GOP in 90 percent of cases. This flouting of reality is what makes pols like Trump and DeSantis even more dangerous.

 When you vote this December, do it early, if possible, insure you do everything correctly, and choose as if your quality of life depends on it, because it does.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're Being Lied to (Again!)

 

                   You Are Being Lied to Again

The current proposal to limit drug prices, which is a part of major pending legislation has, as one might well expect, brought forth the wrath of the richest single industry sector in the US. Of course, I’m referring to the pharmaceutical industry. First some history, though, because Big Pharma wants you in the dark except for the barrage of their grossly slanted op-eds and media ads you’re about to see. The misalignment of US drug pricing with that of most of the rest of the developed world is a multi- faceted issue.

 Right off the top, The US, began allowing DTC (direct to consumer) drug advertising in the early 1990s and some drug manufacturers immediately began targeting consumers, due in part to a flood of aging baby boomers and to an increase in the number of patients participating in their own health care decisions, in more than a few cases, demanding drugs they now saw advertised. Create the demand, increase the price and they will come (and pay)! Since then, DTC advertising has become a ubiquitous popular promotional tool. More importantly, as advertising is designed to do, it has helped create a sense of need and market pressure that has also fueled the unreasonable surge in US drug pricing.   

        Drug companies are granted patent protection for drugs they develop and market. No one would argue that this is unreasonable. Patent terms are set by statute. Brand-name pharmaceutical companies are rewarded for inventing and developing new treatments and cures that improve the quality of life for everyone. In return for the innovation, current law provides brand pharmaceutical companies with 20 years for each patent. During the period of patent and marketing exclusivity, brand name drugs are priced and sold free from competition and, in too many cases, free from restriction of a reasonable or affordable cost structure.   Drug companies are well aware that, within that 20-year period, other companies will likely develop clones of their brand-named drug and since manufacturing is far, far, cheaper than initial development, will be able to sell that generic cheaply once the original’s patent protection has lapsed. Hence, they do several things which increase drug costs unreasonably.

One long standing practice which reeks of pure greed is the frequent action of some major drug companies of markedly increasing retail prices on a medication as the end of patent coverage approaches. This is simply wringing the last drop of blood from the stone before generics hit the market. When Harvoni, a Hepatitis C cure, goes off-patent, then the $60,000 price might well be supplanted by the generic, now sold in India for $127. (No that is not a typo!) More on Harvoni later.

Another common practice is known to regulators as “evergreening.” In simplest terms this can be modifying a drug very slightly and filing for a new patent even though the drug is therapeutically very much the same. Another form is more subtle. Say you bring a drug online (FDA approved and patent granted) for one specific clinically verified application, such as was the case with Enbrel. Originally developed to treat Psoriatic arthritis and FDA approved for that application, patients with both arthritic and visible “plaque” Psoriasis began reporting excellent and unexpected clearing of the visible disease as well. So, the manufacturer of Enbrel went back the FDA seeking approval for treating plaque Psoriasis as well. New patent, start the clock again. Pharma loudly proclaims R & D as the reason prices are so high, but a secondary application patent requires only test results, not R&D. 

One final Evergreening example: rheumatoid arthritis drug HUMIRA (aka “adalimumab” which doesn’t have that brand name "pizazz")) is the best-selling prescription drug in the world, with over $12 billion in U.S. sales per year. Humira was approved in 2002, and it now makes more money annually than all of the NFL teams, combined. The initial patent on the product expired in 2016, but within the three years before expiration, the company applied for and obtained over 75 patents that would extend its monopoly to 2034 – and keep this enormously expensive treatment inaccessible to many patients. Note:  at recommended adult dosage for an adult treating Arthritis, and even with a coupon at your pharmacy, you’re looking at over $70,000 retail annually.

 Here’s an excerpt from a JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) article. “Humira is now priced at $2,984 per syringe, or $77,586 annually — a 470% increase from when the drug entered the market,” and those consistent price hikes were driven by executive bonuses from 2015 to 2018, which were directly linked to Humira's financial performance.”  

By now the reader will have thought, “Yeah, but insurance covers some of that, right? Well, that depends on the insurance. At best (other than Military retiree plans) Humira can still cost $400-$500 monthly on copays. These are not “optional medications for those who need them. For the uninsured, Humira is just a word.

        Now to “who pays?” In the debris of his Iraq debacle and prior to dumping the housing bubble collapse in Barack Obama’s lap, Bush 43 was anxious to create a legacy of some sort, and Medicare part D was it. Sadly, the powerful Pharma lobby leaned on “their” members of Congress to insist that to pass Part D, Medicare and Medicaid would not be allowed to negotiate drug costs but would be forced to pay retail.

     Medicare Part B, Part D, and beneficiaries spent $560 billion on drugs from 2016 through 2018, $324 billion of which was spent on drugs with direct-to-consumer advertising. And so it goes. They price it, Medicare pays it! Guaranteed income, no quibbling. As just one example: The Veterans Administration is not part of the deal and pays less than half as much for potentially life-saving Epi-pens as Medicare and Medicaid. Fun fact: Heather Bresch, former CEO of Mylan Pharmaceuticals, the company which jacked up the price of Epi-pens in 2016, is Senator Joe Manchin’s daughter.

Philosophically, bashing Jeff Bezos for making a great deal of money while supplying customers with things they can either buy or not buy at fair prices with disposable income, is a favorite Far Right parlor game (called envy).  Where is the outrage directed at the CEOs of the Big Pharma corporate entities which are the most profitable businesses in any sector of the US economy, when they price life essential medications out of reach of many Americans?

Now let’s discuss those R&D claims which Big Pharma always leads with.   Over the last fifty years, research funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Cancer Institute (NCI) has played a role in every major advancement related to cancer prevention, detection, and treatment, and contributed to breakthroughs for many other diseases.

So, what does the NIH do? In 2019 NIH (Federal) funding for R & D was $138.9 billion. The entire US Pharmaceutical industry spent just $83 billion. In other words, Pharma itself funds about 40% less than the Federal Government on cutting edge drug research yet reaps all the profits! The NIH shares the results of their research; Big Pharma doesn't, without cost. Hell, one might even make the case that if the basic research and initial trials on a specific drug (like Harvoni developed by Emory University researchers with NIH grants) are done with “our dollars”, then perhaps “we” should own the patent. Alas, not so. The Emory Professor who ran the development was allowed, by law, to sell the patent to Gilead Pharmaceuticals for $4 million. In just the first full fiscal quarter after FDA approval, Gilead reported Harvoni sales of $7.3 billion, with a net profit of $3.5 billion. In one quarter they recouped 875 times in profit what they paid for the drug on which they did zero R&D.      

 Betsy McCaughey, Star Parker, John Stossel, and others will complain that the proposed limits on drug costs will somehow negatively affect Pharma R & D efforts, costing us, “Much needed, life-saving, drugs.”  What they, especially Stossel, who detests anything government, will never admit is that the vast majority of the lifesaving drugs on the market are there at least partially, if not primarily, because of NIH efforts and funding.

Of course, Pharma CEOs don’t have to worry about drug costs since many are compensated more than $20 million annually.  

I’ll close with this since it’s a special case and exemplifies Pharma greed better than all other examples. The largely faux reasons cited by pharmaceutical companies for the high cost of new prescription drugs do not apply to insulin.

First: the “high cost of development” is not relevant for a drug that is more than 100 years old; even the latest and most commonly used analog insulin products are all over 20 years old. The original developers, Canadians, sold the patent to Toronto University for $1!

Second, the pricing is not even the product of a free market economy. The person who needs the product is not in a position to negotiate the price, and there is no relationship of price increases over time compared with overall market inflation. The price of insulin has risen inexplicably over the past 20 years at a rate far higher than the rate of inflation. One vial of Humalog insulin, which used to cost $21 in 1999, cost $332 in 2019, reflecting a price increase of more than 1000% or in other words 15 times the cost-of-living increase over the same period. The number one reason for the high cost of insulin is the presence of a vulnerable population that needs insulin to survive. Period.

By contrast, insulin prices in other developed countries, including Canada, have stayed the same. Insulin pricing in the United States is the consequence of the exact opposite of a free market: extended monopoly (and Evergreening, remember?) on a lifesaving product in which prices can be increased at will.   

Third, and last, spare me the invalid R &D bullshit argument. There is limited innovation when it comes to insulin; the far more pressing need is affordability. The next time you read of or hear some talking head complaining about “excessive government regulation”. Think about those negatively affected by lack of it in cases where it really matters.

         It’s not just me either, “The pharmaceutical industry has tried to instill fear in the American public that federal legislative proposals to reduce drug spending would threaten access to innovative life-saving drugs,” said Timothy A. Lash, president of the West Health Policy Center.  “West Health and John Hopkins’ findings clearly refute that claim. Large drugmakers are so profitable they could maintain their current investment in R&D – and their standing as the most profitable industry – even if they lose significant revenue.” Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health finds that large, brand-name drug manufacturers would still be the most profitable industry sector even with $1 trillion in lower sales, all while maintaining current research investments. Wow!

 

 

Running Scared?

 

                                     Running Scared?

Florida Senator Marco Rubio has a problem. Her name is Congresswoman Val Demings and she's running for his office. She's a problem for him because she's brighter, more experienced in real public service, and proven to be more capable where the rubber meets the road.

This has, of course, led to Rubio campaign ads which, as is his norm, cherry pick partial statements out of context and then, in the most recent case, show persons in police uniforms citing them. In the ad I’m referencing, Rubio's campaign takes Congresswoman Demings out of context — attempting to undermine and minimize her background in law enforcement, which is comprised of 27 years as an Orlando City law enforcement officer, four years of which was as Chief of Police.

The 30-second spot, published, of all places, on YouTube on July 19 features several “uniformed law enforcement personnel” bashing Demings' voting record in Congress and calling her a "radical rubber stamp."

Most nauseating is the tired and meaningless Republican mantra that: "Demings votes with Pelosi 100% of the time." One officer said this, invoking data  showing that Demings and Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi agreed on 100% of votes in the 116th Congress, which ended Jan. 3, 2021. And so? If a Republican candidate voted with Mitch McConnell 100% of the time, they’d proclaim this as a sign from above of that candidate’s worthiness for sainthood.

A far more misleading and blatantly false allegation came from another “officer”: "She called abolishing the police 'thoughtful,'" he said, bracketing “thoughtful” in “air quotes.”

The source of this last slur is a 2 year old interview shortly after George Floyd was choked to death by former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin, now serving a 21year sentence for his crime. Shortly after the event, Congresswoman Demings (not in the soon to be referenced interview) asked: “As a former woman in blue, let me begin with my brothers and sisters in blue: What in the hell are you doing? When an officer engages in stupid, heartless, and reckless behavior, their actions can either take a life or change a life forever. Bad decisions can bring irrevocable harm to the profession and tear down the relationships and trust between the police and the communities they serve. Remember, law enforcement needs that trust just as the public does. Think before you act! Remember, your most powerful weapon is the brain the good Lord gave you. Use it!”

This unredacted statement is part of a longer dialogue which far from endorsing defunding or abolishing the police (as Rubio and/or his followers would love you to believe) is a cry for better policing…period.

Now that we’ve established Val Demings Law Enforcement  bona fides, here is the circumstance of the actual recent statement from which the word “thoughtful” was taken, far from its contextual meaning.  In June of 2020, while the Floyd murder was still front-page news, Ms. Demings was asked by a CBS interviewer, for her thoughts on Law Enforcement reform in general and then, more specifically, regarding a proposal in Minneapolis to "dismantle and rebuild" the city's police department. Why ask her? Because as the former Chief of Police in a major city (Orlando) she is, almost assuredly, the sole member of Congress actually qualified to speak authoritatively on the subject. "Is that a strategy you could agree with?" the reporter asked Demings. Her exact response was, "I do believe that everyone has a right to look at any proposal that is put forth because there desperately needs to be change. I also believe the council is being very thoughtful in terms of looking at all of the services that police provide." This is the source of the slanderous Rubio ad. At no time does Demings endorse abolishing police, in fact she believes they should be better.

 We in Florida deserve so much better in the United States Senate than we currently have. Rick Scott is the unconvicted co-conspirator in the most egregious cased of Medicare fraud in history, and a Trump rubber stamp. Marco Rubio has never done anything truly successfully other than take state funds for teaching a college course for which he rarely showed up and getting Federal bucks as a Senator. Other than that, he has never really held a real job, other than as a shill for Florida Big Sugar (“Sugar is a national security issue!” yes, he said that) His unsavory ties to big sugar include taking significant funding from a family whose paterfamilias took millions from the areas south of Okeechobee while remaining a Spanish citizen. It’s bad enough when politicians are for sale to US businesses, but Marco Rubio is far worse than that.

I had no personal knowledge of Val Demings until a former colleague, a retired Orlando police officer and her husband, a very senior retired Orange County Sheriff's Department Division Chief, both staunch Republicans, volunteered to hold a fund raiser for Val Demings in their home. In casual conversations in the teacher’s lunchroom, it soon became obvious that regardless of partisan differences they admired her for her personal character and ability as well as her performance a Police Chief. I challenge you to find anyone who holds Marco Rubio in such regard. We have a choice in the Senate race. Make it Val Demings - not for her but for all of us. Her election could swing the Senate majority.

"And they Walk Among Us"

 

                                  And They Walk Among Us

 

The human cesspool of people who should be disemboweled with a set of rusty salad tongs just keeps widening. It’s bad enough when it’s a delusional “red hatter” like a Trumpette whom I recently saw interviewed. She said, (and apparently believes) in part: “Yes, Donald Trump ‘came in’ and he invented SpaceX (surprise Elon!) and he ‘put up’ the biggest satellite ever. Then when the election happened, all of them votes went up to the satellite and when they came down, they were changed to Biden votes.” At this point the interviewer, after getting his breath, asked her what happened next, and she alleged that the votes “Come back down and went to Berlin and Italy and then got sent back here for counting.” When the reporter asked her source for all this she turned and walked away. In her defense, she had to spit out her gum before she could walk away.

Far more devious and divisive are the almost reflexive continuing claims of “false flag” hoaxes following mass shootings. The latest were Social Media posts following the horrific Highland Park murders of July 4th, which said, in part:  

"Here we go, folks. This is CLEARLY another op by the Dems."  Another proclaimed. "Pray against false flag events today and this month," another said. "Pray they will be stopped and exposed. Pray that the real perpetrators will be caught! (“#notbuyingtheirlies #falseflags #exposed.)"  This means there are actually morons out there who believe Uvalde, Parkland, Highland Park, etc. were all either fakes, invented or, perhaps the most bizarre, committed by liberal persons wanting stronger gun laws. Ultra conservative radio host Alex Smith, several years ago, proclaimed on his radio show that the Sandy Hook shootings never even happened. It’s a slippery slope from the lunatic “It never happened” to “The Democrats did it.”  Tragically, some will believe this sort of thing even though the Highland Park shooter confessed when captured.

This conspiracy theory terrorism is even more sinister when a member of the US Congress stokes these fires. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene shared a clearly doctored image featuring the Highland Park shooting suspect, falsely claiming it was a photo that showed him “in jail or rehab or a psychiatric center.”  It was not. What her object in posting it was, exactly, will never be known to us, since she herself is devoid of reasoning power. In the image, which Greene first tweeted July 4 alongside other photos of confessed shooter, Robert Crimo, he (Crimo) looks as if he’s seated in a compact, windowless cell, holding a Bible, and grinning. Experts have determined the photo is fake. Greene reposted the image on July 5, when she posted a Twitter thread arguing that the attack and other recent mass shootings should not be blamed on lax gun laws. Note: In 2019, police in Highland Park confiscated sixteen knives, a dagger, and a sword from Crimo’s home after a family member called claiming he “was going to kill everyone.” In spite of this Crimo’s father, later that same year, signed an affidavit allowing his son to apply to obtain a Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) Card -- needed in the state of Illinois to purchase firearms or ammunition.

Compounding the flood of (largely NRA driven) pro gun rhetoric from the far right are Faux News mouthpieces whose words are treated by far too many viewers as gospel. When a Greg Gutfeld states on air, "I don't believe — and someone correct me later, I won't listen — but I don't believe anybody with a concealed carry permit ever committed a mass shooting.” The average viewer just files that away as data, never questioning. In truth, even statistics in Fox News files show that in at least 37 US mass shootings, the shooter had a concealed carry permit.

So how about some reality? For some reason, large swaths of Americans, and particularly Republicans, are incredibly, fanatically, protective of guns — more so, it seems, than of school children. And as such, after every mass shooting, the same old rhetoric gets barfed out once more. And why not? That rhetoric has proven to be quite effective, given that the U.S. Congress hasn’t passed a truly meaningful piece of gun legislation despite overseeing the only country on earth where school children are slaughtered in classrooms on a fairly routine basis. Even the recent new law is far less rigorous than it ought to be.

Then NRA loves the part of the 2nd amendment which says, “shall not infringe”! Still, it never ceases to amaze me how many half-literate buffoons can recite the back end of the 2nd Amendment but seem completely befuddled by the first half: “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state ….” I've dealt with this conundrum in several earlier pieces so I'll keep it as brief as possible. 

Alexander Hamilton had served as George Washington's chief of staff during the Revolutionary War and had seen too many badly trained state militias perform poorly and, in some cases, simply leave and go home when it was time to harvest crops. In spite of this there was no enthusiasm at the time of the Constitution’s proposed ratification for a standing federal army because the memory of a standing British Army, actually housed in some cases in colonial homes at the expense of the owner, still lingered. The Founders didn’t want a bunch of hillbillies roaming through Target with assault rifles over their shoulders. They wanted a trained and capable militia in each state — in place of a standing federal army. Hamilton wrote these reflections down, and he and (primarily) James Madison hammered out in the Second Amendment what was seen as an alternative if the need arose, and those with brains had every anticipation that the need would arise. And arise it did, with Britain, before too many years passed. They were correct. “Mr. Madison's War” better known as the War of 1812, proved them correct. At the beginning of the war the vast percentage of U.S. military forces were again, as they were in the Revolutionary War, state militia. The U.S. Army was poorly trained and led and had significant logistical weaknesses. Although it was established in 1802, West Point, its early years, featured very few standards for admission or length of study. Cadets ranged in age from 10 years to 37 years and attended between 6 months to 6 years. There was no such thing as a standardized enlisted basic training.

In 1817, realizing, finally, that a well-trained standing Army was a national necessity, curriculum was upgraded, standardized and admission requirements toughened. By 1815, a 15,000 strong  national professional army existed. The Army National Guard became a standard nationwide militia title in 1903 and has specifically indicated reserve forces under mixed state and federal control since 1933.The days of civilian “militia” as a necessary national military protection force are effectively over, and along with it, the need for the Second Amendment as some still interpret it. And by the way: A 1792 federal law (passed just one year after the 2^nd Amendment was ratified!) required that every man eligible for militia service register his gun ownership on public records! What would the NRA say?