Mediaboss Marketing

OPINION:

Progressives have a plan to expand antitrust law that would effectively nationalize Americas most successful companies. They even hope to get conservatives on board. The bill most likely to get consideration this Congress would, according to Ryan Bourne and Brad Subramaniam of the Cato Institute, generally make it unlawful for major online platforms to engage in conduct that has produced tech products that consumers enjoy.

This proposal, if enacted, would prevent Apple from preloading FaceTime and iMessage into your apps and Google would have to remove Google Maps. Amazon Prime would be de facto banned.

If this sounds to you like a bad deal for consumers, you are spot on. This is nothing more than a Trojan Horse bill intended to expand federal power over the private sector.

Conservatives have a long history of embracing free-market economics. It wasnt so long ago that the Republican Party was known for encouraging entrepreneurship and celebrating success. Now, there is an emerging split between the populist wing and the traditional free marketeers of the Republican Party that endangers the economy. Because this fight is over Big Tech, some on the right are willing to toss aside small, limited government first principles for short-term political gain.

One Republican has dug in for the fight and is willing to take on Big Government ideas coming from both progressive Democrats and populist Republicans. For Fox News, Republican Sen. Rand Paul wrote on June 13, 2022, that he shares a degree of anger with Big Tech companies, yet he will not toss aside his love of free-market principles for legislation that would deprive consumers of the technological innovation that only free-market competition can provide.

Mr. Paul criticized Democrat Sen. Amy Klobuchars bill, the American Innovation and Choice Online Act (S. 2992), as creating a presumption that mergers are a violation of antitrust law. Mr. Paul remains critical of Republican Sen. Josh Hawleys bill, the Trust-Busting for the Twenty-First Century Act (S. 1074), that would forward the progressive goal of preventing mergers and ignoring the welfare of the consumer. The Hawley bill bans all mergers and acquisitions by companies with a market capitalization exceeding $100 billion. The Klobuchar bill is an attempt to empower government bureaucrats control over private enterprise, while the Hawley bill is a direct attack on success. Both would lead to pain for consumers and stagnation for a struggling American economy.

Ms. Klobuchars legislation would expand the power of the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice over private enterprise. President Bidens pick to run the FTC, Lina Khan, actually wrote an early version of this legislation. Politico reported in May, Lina Khan, President Joe Bidens Federal Trade Commission chair, helped write the House version of the American Innovation and Choice Online Act when she was a staffer on the Judiciary Committee. The Politico story cited heartburn from moderate Democrats who fear the radical legislation will cause even more economic headwinds and weaken the partys electoral prospects. Progressive Democrats intend on rushing this legislation through the Senate because they worry that a potential Republican majority following an election dominated by economic concerns would be less apt to beat up on successful technology companies.

These words from President Ronald Reagan are as true today as they were in 1981: We who live in free-market societies believe that growth, prosperity, and ultimately human fulfillment, are created from the bottom up, not the government down. Brilliant entrepreneurs are far better at driving the economy than unelected government bureaucrats.

American consumers and voters dont want a federal government that has racked up over $30 trillion in debt to run our nations most innovative corporations into the ground.

Brian Garst is vice president of the Center for Freedom and Prosperity.

See the rest here:
The progressive antitrust Trojan Horse - Washington Times

Victoria Knight

[UPDATED on June 21]

Harmony is not often found between two of the most boisterous senators on Capitol Hill, Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.).

But it was there at Tuesdays Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee markup of legislation to reauthorize the Food and Drug Administrations user fee program, which is set to expire Sept. 30.

This user fee program, which was first authorized in 1992, allows the FDA to collect fees from companies that submit applications for drug approval. It was designed to speed the approval review process. And it requires reauthorization every five years.

Congress considers this bill a must-pass piece of legislation because its used to help fund the FDA, as well as revamp existing policies. As a result, it also functions as a vehicle for other proposals to reach the presidents desk especially those that couldnt get there on their own.

And thats why, on Tuesday, Sanders took advantage of the must-pass moment to propose an amendment to the user fee bill that would allow for the importation of drugs from Canada and the United Kingdom, and, after two years, from other countries.

Prescription medications are often much less expensive in other countries, and surveys show that millions of Americans have bought drugs from overseas even though doing so is technically illegal.

We have talked about reimportation for a zillion years, said a visibly heated Sanders. This bill actually does it. It doesnt wait for somebody in the bureaucracy to make it happen. It actually makes it happen. He then went on for several minutes, his tone escalating, citing statistics about high drug prices, recounting anecdotes of people who traveled for drugs, and ending with outrage about pharmaceutical companies campaign contributions and the number of lobbyists the industry has.

I always wanted to go to a Bernie rally, and now I feel like Ive been there, Paul joked after Sanders finished talking. He went on to offer his support for the Vermont senators amendment a rare bipartisan alliance between senators who are on opposite ends of the political spectrum.

This is a policy that sort of unites many on both sides of the aisle, the outrage over the high prices of medications, added Paul. He said he didnt support drug price controls in the U.S. but did support a worldwide competitive free market for drugs, which he believes would lower prices.

Even before Sanders offered his amendment, the user fee bill before the committee included a limited drug importation provision, Sec. 906. It would require the FDA to develop regulations for importing certain prescription drugs from Canada. But how this provision differs from a Trump-era regulation is unclear, said Rachel Sachs, a professor of law at Washington University in St. Louis and an expert on drug pricing.

FDA has already made importation regulations that were finalized at the end of the Trump administration, said Sachs. But no applications under the directive have been approved yet. She added that whether Sec. 906 is doing anything to improve the existing regulation is unclear.

Sanders proposed amendment would have gone further, Sachs explained.

It would have included insulin among the products that could be obtained from other countries. It also would have compelled pharmaceutical companies to comply with the regulation. It has been a concern in drug-pricing circles that even if importation were allowed, there would be resistance to it in other countries, because of how the practice could affect their domestic supply.

A robust discussion between Republican and Democratic senators ensued. Among the most notable moments: Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) asked whether importing drugs from countries with price controls would translate into a form of price control in the U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) said his father breaks the law by getting his glaucoma medication from Canada.

The committees chair, Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), held the line against Sanders amendment. Although she agreed with some of its policies, she said, she wanted to stick to the importation framework already in the bill, rather than making changes that could jeopardize its passage. Many of us want to do more, she said, but the bill in its current form is a huge step forward, and it has the Republican support we need to pass legislation.

To my knowledge, actually, this is the first time ever that a user fee reauthorization bill has included policy expanding importation of prescription drugs, Murray said. I believe it will set us up well to make further progress in the future.

Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), the committees ranking member, was adamant in his opposition to Sanders amendment, saying that it spelled doom for the legislations overall prospects. Want to kill this bill? Do importation, said Burr.

Sanders, though, staying true to his reputation, didnt quiet down or give up the fight. Instead, he argued for an immediate vote. This is a real debate. There were differences of opinions. Its called democracy, he said. I would urge those who support what Sen. Paul and I are trying to do here to vote for it.

In the end, though, committee members didnt, opting to table the amendment, meaning it was set aside and not included in the legislation.

Later in the afternoon, the Senate panel reconvened after senators attended their weekly party policy lunches and passed the user fee bill out of the committee 13-9. The next step is consideration by the full Senate. A similar bill has already cleared the House.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

This story can be republished for free (details).

Visit link:
A Proposal to Import Drugs from Other Countries Creates an Unusual Alliance in the Senate - Kaiser Health News

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) received some unexpected company last week in citing NATO expansion as a main reason Russia invaded Ukraine. Pope Francis echoed Paul's earlier sentiment that NATO played a significant role in provoking Russia and shares a large part of the blame. The pontiff declared that Russia's invasion was "perhaps somehow either provoked or not prevented" in an interview with La Civilta Cattolica.

Sen. Paul initially made his comments during an exchange with Secretary of State Antony Blinken at a hearing about the crisis in Ukraine. The fact that Pope Francis endorsed this theory as well should come as no surprise. It has been a prominent theory in geopolitics for several decades. Yet Democrats and other left-wingers refused to acknowledge this, despite decades of evidence supporting Paul's claim. Instead, they vilified and attacked Sen. Paul, along with anyone else who repeated this theory.

Paul offered his criticism in April and was accused of being a Putin apologist. Are we to presume now that Pope Francis is also a Putin puppet?

But now that Pope Francis has supported the NATO expansion theory, this will surely change the minds of the leftists out there calling anyone who said such a thing as pro-Putin, right? Not likely, according to some of the feedback Pope Francis received.

"Someone may say to me at this point: but you are pro-Putin! No, I am not," Francis said. "It would be simplistic and wrong to say such a thing. I am simply against reducing complexity to the distinction between good guys and bad guys, without reasoning about roots and interests, which are very complex."

The refusal to acknowledge NATOs role in the war is indicative of the toxicity of contemporary left-wing ideologues.

As aforementioned, both the pope and Sen. Paul are right, of course. The idea that the eastward expansion of NATO and recruiting former Soviet republics into NATO would antagonize Russia has been at the crux of U.S.-Russian geopolitics since the 1990s. Renowned American diplomat, historian, and Cold War strategist George Kennan declared as much in a 1997 op-ed for the New York Times.

In "A Fateful Error," Kennan opined that "expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era. Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion to restore the atmosphere of the Cold War to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking."

Furthermore, President Joe Biden's CIA Director, William J. Burns, stated what the pope and Sen. Paul said about NATOs expansion decades earlier. Burns previously claimed that NATO expansion would antagonize Russia into conflict in two memos over a decade apart.

First, in 1995, while a counselor for political affairs at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, Burns wrote in a memo, "Hostility to early NATO expansion is almost universally felt across the domestic political spectrum here."

Then, in 2008, Burns wrote in a memo to then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, "Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players ... I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests."

As the war in Ukraine continues and as the United States keeps sending billions of dollars in aid, it's essential to realize the truth behind what the pope and Sen. Paul stated. This doesn't excuse or justify Putin's invasion in any way. However, it reveals that those in power criticizing this theory are woefully ignorant of facts. Moreover, their refusal to acknowledge these facts warrants questioning their credibility on all future foreign policy decisions.

If they could not comprehend decades of geopolitical intelligence and briefings, we shouldn't trust them with our country's present and future foreign policy decision-making. We'd be better off listening to Sen. Paul and the pope.

See the rest here:
The pope agrees with Rand Paul about NATO expansion and Russia - Washington Examiner

Are you going to let me answer a question? Fauci quipped amid a flurry of interruptions from Paul, who is also a medical doctor. Soundbite number one, he added.

Sen. Paul first asked Fauci if there was direct scientific evidence that booster shots prevent hospitalization and death in all people age 5 and older. When Fauci noted that the booster recommendations were based on assumptions and antibody data, Paul fired back: If I give a patient 10 mRNA vaccines and they make antibodies each time, is that proof we should give 10 boosters, Dr. Fauci?

I think that is somewhat of an absurd exaggeration, Fauci said.

Sen. Paul then changed his line of questioning to the royalties scientists from the National Institutes of Health may have received from companies, especially vaccine makers. Can you tell me that you have not received a royalty from any entity that you ever oversaw the distribution of money in research grants? he asked.

As Fauci tried to answer, the two who have frequently butted heads during the pandemic, continued to squabble and interrupt each other.

Eventually, HELP Committee Chair Patty Murray (D-Wash.) cut off the argument. Sen. Paul, your time has long over-expired. I gave you an additional two-and-a-half minutes, the witness has responded, we are going to move on, she said.

The topic at hand: Along with Fauci, witnesses Robert Califf, the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration; Dawn OConnell, Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, and Rochelle Walensky, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, appeared before the HELP committee to discuss the White Houses request for additional Covid-19 funding to maintain the federal public health response and surveillance programs.

Murray and other Democrats voiced support for the request, while Ranking Member Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and other Republicans asked for more accountability from the agencies before they approve any more funding.

On vaccinations and treatments: When asked about the timing for vaccines for the youngest children, Fauci said he believed it was likely that it would happen soon. The data look really good, so I anticipate that it will happen, he said.

The FDAs vaccine advisory committee recommended the agency authorize the shots on Wednesday. Soon comes the expected FDA approval. And the CDCs vaccine advisory committee is convening Friday and Saturday to consider the shots. The vaccines could be in toddlers arms as soon as next week.

On infant formula: Amid news that severe weather flooded Abbotts Sturgis, Mich., infant formula plant Wednesday evening, Califf said he believed that the latest disruption would not worsen the ongoing shortage.

Despite the shutdown, Califf expects a surplus of formula in the next two to three weeks, assuming companies are able to meet their production estimates and theres not another natural disaster impacting production.

One thing thats happened is we now get production data from all the companies involved, Califf said. It adds up to a surplus relative to the needs that are demonstrated by the number of babies using formula over the past several years. So we should be over that number easily.

On return to office: Republican lawmakers expressed concern that ongoing remote work policies may be negatively impacting HHS staff productivity.

Let me read something from Elon Musk, whos asking Tesla workers to go back to 40 hours a week. The more senior you are, the more visible you must be, said Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.). If youre underperforming and youre not showing up, that is not good stewardship, he added.

When asked by Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.) if remote work was limiting workplace performance, each of the four witnesses said that it was not.

Ill just say, I was at Google before this, as opposed to Elon Musk, said Califf. I think Googles doing pretty well with their hybrid program.

Read more:
Covid doesn't stop Anthony Fauci from taking on Rand Paul again - POLITICO

Fourteen Republican senators, including Mitt Romney and Rand Paul, have voted against providing healthcare and benefits to US veterans who came home from Americas post-9/11 wars sick and dying from rare cancers and respiratory illnesses.

On Thursday, the Senate passed the SFC Heath Robinson Honoring our PACT Act a landmark bill that will presumptively link 23 conditions to a veterans exposure to burn pits while on deployment overseas.

Now, around 3.5 million US veterans who lived and worked next to the huge open-air pits will finally be given automatic access to healthcare and disability benefits if they develop one of these conditions on their return home.

The bill sailed through the Senate with largely bipartisan support, with 84 senators voting in favour of its passage.

All Democrats voted yes to passing the bill but 14 Republicans voted no.

The senators who voted against were: Mitt Romney and Mike Lee of Utah, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Richard Burr and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Mike Rounds and John Thune of South Dakota, Richard Shelby and Tommy Tuberville of Alabama, James Lankford of Oklahoma, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, and Mike Crapo and James Risch of Idaho.

Senators Steve Daines and Roger Wicker were absent from the vote.

Despite the efforts of the 14 Republicans, the bill is likely just days away from being signed into law.

It first needs to go back to the House for passage before it can be sent to the desk of President Joe Biden.

However, passage in the House is almost certain as all Democrats and 34 Republicans voted in favour of its passage back in March, sending it sailing over the threshold with a 256 to 174 vote.

In that vote, the only lawmakers voting no were also Republicans.

Among them was Rep Lauren Boebert, who was slammed for heckling as Mr Biden spoke about burn pits in his State of the Union address.

The Senate has modified the House version to create a phase-in period for illnesses presumptively linked to toxic exposure, meaning a new vote is needed in the House.

During Americas post-9/11 wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, huge open-air pits were used to burn mountains of trash including food packaging, human waste and military equipment on US military bases.

Thousands of US service members returned home from deployment and developed health conditions including rare cancers, lung conditions, respiratory illnesses and toxic brain injuries caused by breathing in the toxic fumes from the pits.

But, until now, the burden of proof has always been on veterans to prove their condition is directly caused by this toxic exposure and almost 80 percent of disability claims mentioning burn pits were turned down by the Department of Veteran Affairs.

Mitt Romney was among the 14 Republicans voting against the bill

(Getty Images)

The bill was renamed in March after the Sgt First Class Heath Robinson who died in May 2020 from a rare cancer caused by breathing in toxic fumes from burn pits while serving in Iraq in the Ohio National Guard. He was 39.

Two years on from his death, the bill passed on his daughter Brielles ninth birthday.

Susan Zeier, his mother-in-law, said that the bills passage means she now no longer needs to carry Heath on my shoulders.

Ms Zeier gave an emotional speech outside the Capitol after Thursdays vote where she told how she has been wearing her son-in-laws army jacket for the past four years to draw attention to the plight of veterans fighting for healthcare and disability access as she and other advocates lobbied the US government.

Ive been wearing this since the summer of 2018 and today, with this bill passing the Senate, I think its time to retire it, she said.

I no longer have to carry Heath on my shoulders while Im advocating for all the other veterans who are out there sick and dying.

Ms Zeier described her son-in-law as a wonderful father who was always helpful and always generous and fought his cancer valiantly to survive as long as he could for his daughter.

See the rest here:
Mitt Romney and Rand Paul among 14 Republicans voting against healthcare for veterans suffering from burn pits - The Independent