Mediaboss Marketing

Although economists debate how serious this is for the short term, all are in agreement that this level of spending is not sustainable. We will reach a point where continued deficit spending with rising interest payments on debt will begin to drag our economy down.

Ironically, it is the insatiable thirst of the American voter for social programs that created this problem. And it is that thirst that will result in their loss.

Congress spends money in three areas: mandatory spending (primarily Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and unemployment), interest on the national debt, and discretionary spending (the annual budget Congress and the president work out for defense, homeland security, health, education, and all the other branches and departments of government.

Mandatory spending consumes the greatest amount of federal revenue (what the government makes from taxes). Federal revenue typically runs around $3.5 trillion a year. Since the advent of Obamacare, mandatory spending now requires about $2.6 trillion, or about 75% of the federal revenue.

Growing interest on the national debt requires Congress to allocate $350 billion, or about 10% of federal revenue. After allocating money for mandatory spending and interest on our debt, Congress is left with only 15%, or $525 billion, of all federal revenue for discretionary spending.

That $525 billion is not sufficient to pay for defense, schools and education, homeland security, and running all of our government agencies. Thus, to keep our country safe and operational we have to run a deficit. A large deficit.

The large number of social programs under mandatory spending is dragging down our countrys financial health. Congress and the president, politicians put into office by the American voters, have elected not to address the problem. The reason is simple. This is a long-term problem, and politicians are in for the short term.

President Barack Obama gave the American people the Affordable Care Act by borrowing on Americas future. In return, he got a nearly $12 million mansion in Marthas Vineyard. For the short term, it was a win-win for all. In the long term, Obama will still have his mansion.

The American voter, in general, is poorly educated to understand fiscal policy. Americans rank in the lower 15% of the 35 leading economic countries in math. We have little understanding of economics and lack fundamental knowledge of how our government works. Americans are poorly qualified to recognize a leader. They vote for those who say they will give them what they want. It is a pitfall of democracy when dealing with an uneducated public that votes.

So how do we fix our current financial situation? Cut benefits? That would be political suicide. Raise taxes? Based on evidence, Americans are taxed out. Obamas tax increase to pay for the Affordable Care Act did little to raise revenue.

President Donald Trumps tax cut actually had the end result of raising revenue. It created a booming economy with the lowest unemployment in history. More people working meant more tax money coming in.

But even that added revenue was not sufficient to pay for all of our social programs.

The answer lies in education. Unfortunately, the two major parties are not interested in an educated public. They have done quite well getting elected by the uneducated. In fact, the Democrats have made it policy to register as many uneducated people as possible to vote. San Francisco even attempted to give those 16 years of age the right to vote.

So, it is left to the Libertarian Party. It is the Libertarians task to educate the American voter.

Dave Crockett of Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, owns engineering firms in Arizona and Michigan; is politically active; and is currently on sabbatical, working at Cirrus Aircraft in Duluth.

See the rest here:
Local View: Long-term spending problem won't be solved by short-term politicians - Duluth News Tribune

Homicides in the United States increased in 2020 by over 30 percent, on a year-over-year basis. Gun assaults and aggravated assaults also spiked, leading the National Commission on COVID-19 and Criminal Justice to deem the crime surge of 2020 a large and troubling increase with no modern precedent. Tragically, the early available statistics for 2021 tell a similar tale. On the American domestic front, however, issues such as Covid, the economy, and illegal immigration still garner more headlines than the escalating rates of violent crime.

This blas attitude did not materialize overnight. Many in todays leadership class entered the public arena during a decades-long drop in crime that began during the Reagan presidency and continued well into this century. Following the widespread chaos of the 1960s and the harrowing urban crime sprees of the 1970s, tough on crime quickly became a popular bipartisan political stance. President Bill Clintons highly successfuland now oft-criticized1994 Crime Bill, which passed the House on a voice vote and the Senate by a 95-4 majority, exemplified this consensus. Confident that the new trend of plummeting crime would continue, many in the silent law-and-order-supporting majority gradually became complacent, implicitly abetting the political opportunism of emergent light-on-crime libertarians and progressives.

As the Tea Party-era Republican Party evolved into a more libertarian entity and the Democratic Party adopted an ever-more stringent identity politics, criminal-justice reformthe very inverse of the 1994 Crime Billbecame the new bipartisan fad. By the mid-2010s, George Soros had begun donating large sums of money to reshape the criminal-justice system, beginning at the district attorney level. Across many of Americas leading cities, light-on-crime district attorneys invoked prosecutorial discretion to justify non-prosecution of crimes like petty larcenyreversing the effective Broken Windows policing of the recent past.

The high watermark of the new criminal-justice reform movement was the First Step Act of 2018, an unparalleled federal jailbreak that passed the Senate by a staggering 88-12 margin. It was no big stretch to get from the First Step Act to last summers prolonged AntifaBlack Lives Matter urban anarchy.

Signs of a possible pushback have become evident. In Los Angeles, District Attorney George Gascnan archetype of what Andrew McCarthy calls the progressive prosecutor projectfaces a possible recall. And sizable majorities among all racial and ethnic demographics poll in strong opposition to the most extreme anti-law and order slogan: defund the police.

But the time is ripe for a more aggressive, sustained campaign against the de-carceral, de-civilizational agenda pushed by many libertarians and progressives alike. Citizens of all political stripes, especially conservatives, must recover and publicly advocate anew the time-tested and common-sense notion that a free and just society is impossible without a robust commitment to a strictly enforced rule of law.

Once upon a time, such an effort would hardly have been needed. Abraham Lincolns Lyceum Address, delivered 23 years before Fort Sumter, famously warned of the dangers of a mobocratic spirit taking hold among the citizenry. Almost a century later, President Calvin Coolidge observed, we are always confronted with the inescapable conclusion that unless we observe the law, we cannot be free. That a secure rule of law and a concomitant quashing of nascent anarchy is a necessary precondition for justice, human flourishing, and the common good ought to beand, not too long ago, wasas ubiquitous a belief as any in our politics.

But such a pro-rule-of-law national campaign is now necessary. Activists can start at the local level, getting involved in district attorney races to oppose anti-enforcement, de-carceral candidates. Voters should punish statewide attorneys general and federal legislators alike for throwing law enforcement under the bus and focusing their ire on the qualified immunity legal doctrine over substantive commitments to support law enforcement. Citizens should make themselves heard at city council meetings in support of more police officers on the beat, a proven and effective crime deterrent. Conservative commentators must grow comfortable calling out the excesses of light-on-crime libertarianism that come from their own side of the aisle. Republican politicians, cognizant of both the disturbing on-the-ground crime reality and the political truth that the small-government rhetorical emphasis of the Tea Party era is over, must recalibrate and shift back toward a traditional pro-law-and-order political platform. Such a platform would be both proper and popular.

We have reached the point where the pendulum has swung too far back toward decarceration, under-prosecution, and light-on-crime policies. The moral primacy of order and public safety must take precedence over fashionable peddling of pro-criminal bail reform and criminal-justice reform initiatives. We have been here before; we know what we have to do. Now its time to execute the game plan.

Josh Hammer is Newsweek opinion editor and a research fellow at the Edmund Burke Foundation. Twitter: @josh_hammer.

See more here:
Recover the Moral Imperative of Law and Order - City Journal

The nation's top infectious diseases doctor Anthony FauciAnthony FauciThe Hill's Morning Report - Presented by Facebook - Forget about comity in Congress FDA official: US AstraZeneca stockpile not in danger of expiring Budowsky: Trump should champion vaccines MORE on Thursday clashed with Sen. Rand PaulRandal (Rand) Howard PaulKentucky legislature limits governor's Senate appointment power Overnight Health Care: A number of Republican lawmakers are saying no to COVID-19 vaccines | European AstraZeneca suspensions threaten global COVID-19 response | OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma proposes B bankruptcy exit A number of Republican lawmakers are saying no to COVID-19 vaccines MORE (R-Ky.) over the need for people to continue wearing masks once they've already been infected with or vaccinated against COVID-19.

"You're telling everyone to wear a mask," Paul said. "If we're not spreading the infection, isn't it just theater? You have the vaccine and you're wearing two masks, isn't that theater?"

"Here we go again with the theater," an exasperated Fauci responded. "Let's get down to the facts."

Paul, who was infected with COVID-19 at the beginning of the pandemic last March, has said he is immune to future infection. As a result, he refuses to wear a mask in the Capitol and has declared he does not need to be vaccinated.

Paul argued there are no studies that show significant reinfection among people who have recovered from the virus or after vaccination.

"I agree with you, that you very likely would have protection from wild type for at least six months if you're infected," Fauci said, but pointed out there is no protection from some of the more infectious variants, like the one one first found in South Africa. The variants are a "good reason for a mask."

"You're making policy based on conjecture!" Paul said, talking over Fauci and accusing him of wanting people to wear masks "for another couple of years."

"You've been vaccinated and you parade around in two masks for show," Paul continued. "If you already have immunity, you're wearing a mask to give comfort to others. You're not wearing a mask because of any science."

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidance states that those who have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19 should still wear a mask in public.

Paul, a libertarian ophthalmologist, has clashed repeatedly with Fauci throughout the pandemic on a wide range of topics including the idea of herd immunity and the effectiveness of restrictions.

"Let me just state for the record, masks are not theater," Fauci said, adding that "I totally disagree" with what Paul said.

More:
Fauci clashes with Rand Paul over masks | TheHill - The Hill

Members of the House Judiciary Committee want the entire Wyoming House to debate a bill that would legalize marijuana for adult personal use and establish a regulated retail market, voting 6-3 Friday to send the measure to the floor.

The committee advanced House Bill 209 Regulation of marijuana after about four hours of testimony from a spectrum of witnesses ranging from the states leading libertarian to the former governor of Rhode Island. Depending on the speaker, marijuana is either an addictive substance packaged for and marketed to children whose brains it re-wires, or an adult product less harmful than a beer consumed in leisure times to relax.

Witnesses ran the gamut from an anti-pot activist to a doctor, a former vice presidential candidate, a convicted drug felon, a medical patient who uses and another patient who wishes he could. The bill would regulate marijuana establishments from retail shops to greenhouses to transport and testing businesses and would allow personal cultivation and private use.

Reps. Ember Oakley (R-Riverton) and Barry Crago (R-Buffalo) cast swing votes to advance the bill to the House floor. They didnt commit to voting for its ultimate passage.

Oakley, a Fremont County prosecutor, said she was torn over the issue and warned of a variety of costs that legal use could bring. Marijuana cant be prescribed by a doctor, she said underscoring federal prohibitions, so its hard to think we would legalize it.

Crago, an attorney and rancher, is against legalizing marijuana, he said. But after being bombarded by emails both for and against, he said it is time for a whole-House debate.

Opponents raised worries. Rep. Rachel Rodriguez-Williams (R-Cody) voted against the bill for the sake of preserving the Wyoming family unit, and in support of law enforcement. Committee member Rep. Art Washut (R-Casper) opposed the bill saying if he were to challenge federal law he would start with the Endangered Species Act, not marijuana prohibitions.

Opponent Dan Laursen (R-Powell) raised questions about hospitalization rates and other issues arising in Colorado from marijuana legalization there.

Co-sponsors Michael Yin (D-Jackson), Karlee Provenza (D-Laramie) and Dan Zwonitzer (R- Cheyenne) backed lead sponsor Jared Olsen (R-Cheyenne), chairman of the committee. Ill be voting for liberty today, Olsen said as the measure succeeded.

Olsen spent a year crafting the bill, modeling it after Virginia statute, he said. He showed a map of nearby states where marijuana is used under regulations and raised the possibility of federal action to essentially decriminalize the drug possibly within a year.

Then who decides what the regulation of marijuana is like in Wyoming? Olsen asked.

Penalties for driving under the influence, supplying minors and other infractions would not change. I dont come from the camp that says I want to see the laws relaxed, he said.

The bill would tax retail sales at 30%, raising an estimated $50 million annually. Licensing will be strict, prohibiting anyone who is not a resident of Wyoming not of moral character, he said.

Were going to fingerprint em, Olsen said of marijuana license holders.

Committee members quizzed state bureaucrats before Olsen, chairman of the committee, turned to the public. Support for his bill came from several quarters.

The wholesale regulation proposed in Olsens 122-page bill is superior to the medical-only halfway approach said Lincoln Chafee, former Rhode Island governor who now lives in Jackson Hole. He inherited Rhode Islands medical-only statutes in 2011 upon becoming governor, he said over a Zoom link.

I recommend keeping as much control as possible over every aspect of this endeavor, Chafee said.

The 2012 Libertarian Party vice presidential candidate, Jim Gray, also backed Olsen, saying as soon as you prohibit a substance, you give up all your control to the bad guys. Gray, a retired California judge, continued his outspoken criticism of American drug laws.

You are not condoning the use of marijuana, Gray said of Olsens bill. You are taking a lot of money away from Mexican drug cartels, motorcycle gangs, thugs. No state in the U.S. has legalized marijuana, he said. Youre talking about regulating.

Rep. Mark Baker (R-Green River) told the committee marijuana helped him recover from a serious intestinal condition and major surgery.

Former representative Frank Lata, meanwhile, told of how Wyomings laws pushed him to addictive opioids to treat his multiple sclerosis.

Every doctor has told me, you would be much better served using marijuana, he said. Lata dismissed worries about medical testing and efficacy. Every medicine I have been on has been experimental, he said.

Utah marijuana advocate Justin Arriola told the committee a person would have to consume about 6 tons of marijuana in one session to die from it. Its almost impossible to use enough cannabis product to cause a fatality, he said.

He also countered anti-regulation witnesses who used fear tactics, he said, in rolling out a litany of evils caused by marijuana in other states.

Luke Niforatos, an anti-marijuana activist associated with the Colorado Smart Approaches to Marijuana group, claimed youth use is increasing in states that allow marijuana, an increase he tied to a more permissive attitude toward the drug. Concerning data shows increasing hospitalizations and other problems, he said.

The cartels and gangs and drug dealers have made more money than ever, he said. They use a lot of chemicals that have killed a number of endangered species of spotted owls.

State Health Officer Dr. Alexia Harrist responded to a question, saying there is certainly information out there that about one in every 10 marijuana users will become addicted. Arriola said studies show 6% to 9% of users have a propensity for addiction.

Susan Gore, founder of the Wyoming Liberty Group, opposed the bill saying, among other things, that marijuana rewires childrens brains. The bill would allow adult use only.

I had the experience of inhaling and experiencing the dopamine rush, she said of an encounter with the drug. I didnt get addicted to my experience.

My main point [is] to plead for the brains of the children of Wyoming, she said. I know that marijuana is particularly promoted to women and to children. In states where its regulated, theres an increase in damaged babies, Gore claimed.

The bill was not scheduled for floor consideration by early Monday. Thursday is the last day for bills to be considered in their chamber of origin. The committee didnt act on a second marijuana bill House Bill 82 Implementation requirements for medical marijuana, so that measure died.

Excerpt from:
Marijuana regulation bill heads to House floor - WyoFile

Over the last 20 years, social media has moved from being a niche pursuit to a global phenomenon. More than half the worlds population now uses social media, with user numbers edging towards four billion. The average person spends two hours and 24 minutes on social networking sites each day, according to stats on Backlinko.

While this shift has altered many aspects of life not least how we consume news media and connect with other people it has been nothing short of seismic for marketing departments.

As users flocked to Facebook, YouTube and Twitter, businesses began to understand what this might mean for advertising and e-commerce. Today, more than 90% of marketing executives use social media and its rare to find a brand without some form of social media presence.

The pharma industry, however, may have seemed slow on the uptake. Given the strict regulations around what can and cannot be said not to mention what can and cannot be advertised drug companies simply havent had the same freedom as, say, consumer goods companies to promote their products. This means social media marketing, or even information campaigns, can sometimes be a non-starter.

Most of our clients, the pharma companies, have policies that heavily restrict their use ofsocialmediaand limit their ability to benefit from the wealth of data that could accompany it, says Stephen Page, co-founder and brand and strategy director at Page & Page and Partners. Patients are often not allowed to know about or discuss the options for treating their condition, in case they try to treat themselves and then sue the pharma company sponsoring themediachannel for the worsening of their predicament.

Unfortunately, this can also serve as an obstacle for healthcare professionals. In some cases, doctors have not been able to access the information, forums and resources that would help them do their job, in case a patient stumbles across it. The good news is that this is changing.

Overly restrictive regulations are being updated as governments, healthcare professionals and industry realise that their patient populations may be the most powerful source of data ever, says Page. Its a source that will allow for even more profound advances in medicine, benefiting both society and the research and development teams trying to create new blockbusters.

For the past 18 years a timeframe that neatly covers the ascendancy of social media Page has been focusing on the healthcare sector. He has developed campaigns and brand strategy for a range of pharma, biotech, medical device and health and wellbeing brands across many therapeutic areas.

Increasingly, this means thinking about social media. As the drug development process becomes more collaborative, and patients insights become more sought-after, social networks are being recognised as a good way to glean and disseminate information.

GlobalData's TMT Themes 2021 Report tells you everything you need to know about disruptive tech themes and which companies are best placed to help you digitally transform your business.

We recently worked with a large pharmaceutical company on asociallistening programme, says Page. In developing a new drug and therefore a new therapeutic pathway, the company realised that by understanding patients experience of a condition, they could then use that information to close the gap between their own medical affairs team, marketing, the healthcare professionals they were targeting and the patients as the end user.

The upshot, he says, is that the drug company will be able to go beyond their own science, and offer the patient meaningful real-world clinical benefits.

Another example is a recent pharma company campaign that was developed to support a nutritional supplement brand. The campaign started out by sending surveys to dietitians on LinkedIn, with a view to identifying prescribing challenges. It finished with a selection of educational videos on Vimeo and YouTube, to help overcome these prescribing challenges.

Its not about the channel so much as the content video via YouTube or Vimeo or contained within another platform, such as LinkedIn seems to be the most successful, as people dont have the time or bandwidth to focus on reading for long periods, says Page.

Successful use ofsocialmediais perhaps defined by the value, relevance and credibility of the content it imparts.

So what rules do pharma companies need to follow on social media? Clearly, it depends on where you are in the world, with some countries imposing stricter regulations than others.

In the UK, the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry is responsible for setting the guidelines. It states that prescription-only medicines cant be promoted to patients under any circumstances, either via social media or traditional marketing channels. Pharma companies are, however, allowed to share information impartially on social media, so long as they comply with the code.

Given the concerns around overly restrictive regulations, the code has recently been updated, with the 2021 Code due to come into force in July.

In the US, where pharma companies routinely use television adverts to market their products directly to consumers, the rules are somewhat laxer they can use social media for the same purpose, so long as it complies with guidance from the US Food and Drug Administration.

Social media platforms also tend to have their own rules around health advertising. Facebook, for instance, has banned adverts that imply the reader has specific attributes (including disabilities or medical conditions), which means advertisers would need to be careful about wording. YouTube restricts the advertising of some pharmaceutical products, and companies need prior authorisation to advertise on Twitter.

Another timely question is whether pharma companies are doing enough to combat vaccine-related misinformation, which has surged on social media in the last year. Since vaccine hesitancy could prolong the pandemic and cost lives, there is a clear need for accurate information on social media.

Whats more, pharma social media accounts will need to stay vigilant to targeted anti-vax campaigns. Risk intelligence company Crisp has warned that vaccine social media pages could be infiltrated by fake accounts, posting false information about side effects and potentially sabotaging the vaccine rollout.

Page thinks that, while pharma companies could do better here, stemming the tide of misinformation should not be down to the drugmakers alone.

Is pharma doing enough to address the publics concerns with regards to Covid-19 and the new, rapidly developed vaccines? The short answer here is not enough, he says. But then again is the media, with all their experts, doing enough? Are governments and local authorities doing enough?

He thinks, despite the constraints placed on social media, and the obvious challenges inherent in using it, the industry has done a good job at making sure healthcare professionals and patients stay informed.

Pharma companies need to present a digital environment that helps time-poor, highly patient-focused professionals find the information, resource or medical liaison they need quickly, he says.

Or if theyre providing information to the patient, theyve got to make the information accessible, relevant and intuitive. The industry is proving ever more capable of usingsocialmediathe dots are beginning to be joined.

Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients for Inhalation and Central Nervous System Therapies

28 Aug 2020

Powder Handling Systems for Pharmaceutical Applications

28 Aug 2020

Contract Manufacturer and Supplier of APIs and Intermediates

28 Aug 2020

View original post here:
Logging in: how the pharma industry is getting to grips with social media - Pharmaceutical Technology