Big Pharma - Drug Dealers in Lab Coats

Last weekend the Washington Post and “60 Minutes” did a major public service and reported that pharmaceutical lobbyists had manipulated Congress to hamstring the Drug Enforcement Administration.  Just as frightening, Donald Trump intended to name big Pharma's point man in Congress to be his new drug czar until the scathing coverage derailed that effort and Pennsylvania Republican Tom Marino, withdrew his name from consideration.  The crisis of deaths from opioids is a prime example of why strict government regulation is needed because sadly in too many corporate board rooms the only thing that matters is money - even when it comes from actions that lead to needless deaths. Rather than rail against petty anti dealers and increase the arrests on users of small amounts of marijuana, Trump and the ever despicable Jeff Sessions need to go after big Pharma which not only has become a merchant of death but also overcharges everyday Americans on virtually a daily basis.  A column in the New York Times looks at the underlying cause for the opioid crisis.  Here are highlights:

For decades, America has waged an ineffective war on drug pushers and drug lords, from Bronx street corners to Medellin, Colombia, regarding them as among the most contemptible specimens of humanity.

One reason our efforts have failed is we ignored the biggest drug pushers of all: American pharmaceutical companies.

Our policy was: You get 15 people hooked on opioids, and you’re a thug who deserves to rot in hell; you get 150,000 people hooked, and you’re a marketing genius who deserves a huge bonus.

Big Pharma should be writhing in embarrassment this week after The Washington Post and “60 Minutes” reported that pharmaceutical lobbyists had manipulated Congress to hamstring the Drug Enforcement Administration. But the abuse goes far beyond that: The industry systematically manipulated the entire country for 25 years, and its executives are responsible for many of the 64,000 deaths of Americans last year from drugs — more than the number of Americans who died in the Vietnam and Iraq wars combined.

The opioid crisis unfolded because greedy people — Latin drug lords and American pharma executives alike — lost their humanity when they saw the astounding profits that could be made.

Today, 75 percent of people with opioid addictions began with prescription painkillers. The slide starts not on a street corner, but in a doctor’s office.

That’s because pharmaceutical companies in the 1990s sought to promote opioid painkillers as new blockbuster drugs. Company executives accused doctors of often undertreating pain (there was something to this, but pharma executives contrived to turn it into a crisis that they could monetize). The companies backed front organizations like the American Pain Foundation, which purported to speak on behalf of suffering patients.

The opioid promoters hailed opioids as “safe and effective,” and they particularly encouraged opioids for returning veterans — one reason so many veterans have suffered addictions.

Drug companies employed roughly the same strategy as street-corner pushers: Get somebody hooked and business will take care of itself. So last year, Americans received 236 million opioid prescriptions — that’s about one bottle for every adult.

[T]he Sackler family, owner of the company that makes OxyContin, joined Forbes’s list of richest American families in 2015, with $14 billion.

It’s maddening that the public narrative is still often about an opioid crisis fueled by the personal weakness and irresponsibility of users. No, it’s fueled primarily by the greed and irresponsibility of drug lords — including the kind who inhabit executive suites. The Washington Post quoted a former D.E.A. official as referring to pharmaceutical company representatives as “drug dealers in lab coats.”

Our pattern of opioid addiction points to a tragedy, driven by the greed of some of America’s leading companies and business executives, systematically manipulating doctors and patients and killing people on a scale that terrorists could never dream of.

There’s a lot of talk in the Trump administration about lifting regulations to free up the dynamism of corporations. Really? You want to see the consequences of unfettered pharma? Go visit a cemetery.

House Republicans Vote to Hobble Independent Ethics Office

So it begins.  Donald Trump. a/k/a Der Fuhrer has not even yet been sworn into office and the reign of corruption begins.  House Republicans, with no notice or debate, voted yesterday to significantly curtail the power of an independent ethics office that oversees the conduct of Members of the House of Representatives and House congressional officials.  One can only assume the move was taken in the wake of Der Fuhrer's refusal to disengage himself from his business empire and not use the office of the presidency to further enrich himself.  Obviously, this does not bode well for the country and the typical American voter and signals that things will likely only get worse.  A piece in the New York Times looks at the disturbing development.  Here are story highlights:  

House Republicans, defying their top leaders, voted Monday to significantly curtail the power of an independent ethics office set up in 2008 in the aftermath of corruption scandals that sent three members of Congress to jail.

The move to weaken the Office of Congressional Ethics was not public until late Monday, when Representative Robert Goodlatte, Republican of Virginia and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, announced that the House Republican Conference had approved the change with no advance public notice or debate.

In its place, a new Office of Congressional Complaint Review would be set up within the House Ethics Committee, which before the creation of the Office of Congressional Ethics had been accused of ignoring credible allegations of wrongdoing by lawmakers.

The full House is scheduled to vote Tuesday on the rules, which will last for two years, until the next congressional elections.

The surprising vote came on the eve of the start of a new session of Congress, with emboldened Republicans ready to push an ambitious agenda on everything from health care to infrastructure, issues that will be the subject of intense lobbying from corporate interests. The move by Republicans would take away both power and independence from an investigative body, and give lawmakers more control over internal inquiries.

Mr. Goodlatte defended the action in a statement issued Monday evening, saying it would strengthen ethics oversight in the House while also giving lawmakers better protections against what some members have called overzealous efforts by the Office of Congressional Ethics.
 

Let's be clear.  Goodlatte is a liar and obviously id looking to enrich himself off of lobbyist bribes.  Now corruption is a GOP "family value."  The cesspool gets worse and worse.  

How "Public Servant" Hastert Got His Riches

In addition to the surprise over the indictment of former House Speaker that raised the issue of Hastert's past sexual abuse of a male student, many have been surprised at how a former school teacher and coach was in a position to be paying millions in hush money.  The answer, of course, is Washington's revolving door which allows former elected officials to reap millions after retirement to work for lobbying firms and other organizations.  Hastert in more ways than one represents what's wrong with Washington today. A piece in The Daily Beast looks at how Hastert became wealthy as have far too many politicians.  Here are excerpts:

It’s clear that the indictment of Dennis Hastert has raised more questions than it’s provided answers. But I suspect a lot of people are asking the wrong ones. Hastert’s “misconduct” may turn out to be of sexually predatory nature, in which case talk of how much his reputation is worth is picayune compared the nature of crime. But there are questions about what he did that are applicable to the entire industry he represents.

The most obvious question, that’s also the least relevant for most Americans: What is the “misconduct” that Hastert is alleged to have been trying to cover up?

If the conduct was sexual abuse, as sources are saying, then the statute of limitations has run out. It follows that Hastert wasn’t paying hush money to stay out of jail, he was protecting his reputation.

A better question, and one that many Washington watchdogs leapt on quickly: How did Hastert happen to have enough money lying around that paying out $3.5 million was even within the realm of possibility?

Hastert’s ability to participate in the blackmail is, after all, itself a general indictment of D.C.’s “revolving door” money culture, in which former lawmakers move easily from government into lobbying. In Hastert’s case, the ability to profit off of one’s legislative position is especially galling: While in office, Hastert used the earmarking process to turn his investment in some Illinois farmland into a profit of 140 percent when a federal highway project just happened to make its way through those very fields. Indeed, it was this instance of a completely legal form of insider trading that helped prompt Congress to end earmarks.

And, of course, Hastert made even more money once he was out of office. One study found that, on average—and when the information is publicly available—former lawmakers get a 1,425 percent raise when they make the jump from Capitol Hill to K Street. Hastert, who was worth between $4 million and $17 million when he left Congress, was making $175,000 as a representative. His K Street bump would be to almost $2.5 million a year.

And, it’s important to remember, what Hastert was covering up with that hush money was not a “reputation” as an average citizen might conceive of it: something akin to honor or trustworthiness or fidelity. A lobbyist’s reputation, after all, actually hinges on his or her established lack of principles. A lobbying client for someone who is a former member of Congress is paying a premium for that person’s willingness to engage in barely-legal favor-trading. A lobbyist’s prices go up the more corrupt he is. Who wants to hire an honest one?

Will Ed Gillespie Be the First Victim of McDonnell's Giftgate?

Gillespie with the Chimperator

Make now mistake about my views.  GOP Senate candidate Ed Gillespie is a sleaze bag with sleazy lobbying efforts extending all the way back to his days as a lobbyist for Enron.  Add to that the fact that he is pro NRA and anti-gun control, "pro-life", anti-gay, and wants to gut the social safety net and repeal the Affordable Health Care Act and he is a frightening specter for many Virginians.  Equally troubling is his habit of speaking to GOP extremist groups behind closed doors barred to the media.  Obviously, such conduct suggests that Gillespie is saying things and pushing agendas that he doesn't want the larger public to hear.  The good news?  So far Gillespie is trailing significantly in the polls and some believe his poisonous agenda is being harmed by the fallout from the criminal conviction of former governor Bob"Taliban Bob" McDonnell.   A column in the Richmond Times Dispatch looks at the campaign race to date:

Encouraging polling notwithstanding, Ed Gillespie could be the first casualty of the McDonnell scandal.

The previous week, a poll by Christopher Newport University showed Gillespie behind 22 percentage points. Needless to say, following the release of the Quinnipiac poll, the Republican noise machine was set on giddy.

What Republicans aren’t acknowledging is that Gillespie could be trailing by at least 12 percentage points, if you include the poll’s margin of error, plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

But the continuing absence of Gillespie-friendly super PACs suggests the out-of-state money and media moguls don’t see the Virginia campaign as close. Remember: Gillespie had a hand in the creation of one of the biggest and baddest, American Crossroads.

Politics is expensive enough without throwing good money after bad. And Republicans just don’t have it to spend. Notwithstanding their uncertain odds on holding the Senate, Democrats have remained competitive in crucial red- and purple-state races — Virginia is not among them — because of an impressive cash surge.

Gillespie has a more significant problem, one overshadowed by Quinnipiac’s head-to-head findings: His support among Republicans is soft — 15 percentage points weaker than Warner’s standing among Democrats. In other words, there’s a passion gap.

One explanation may be that Gillespie, a millionaire Washington fixer who parachuted into Virginia politics, isn’t well-known even among fellow Republicans. Warner’s 3-to-1 advantage in television advertising doesn’t help either.  

Plus, for five weeks the McDonnell trial blacked out nearly all news coverage of the Senate campaign, making it tougher for Gillespie to tell his story.

Another possible factor in Gillespie’s lag: continuing suspicion among tea party and libertarian Republicans for the party’s establishment wing, of which Gillespie is a gold-plated example. He was a lobbyist, a White House aide and high-profile hand-holder to candidates, including a future governor in a hurry: Bob McDonnell.  The McDonnell scandal only confirms for tea partyers and their fellow travelers what they already believe: that mainstream Republicans are bought and paid for.

Also, the Republican right alienates the party’s shrinking number of moderates. They’ve been gravitating to Warner since 2001, when he successfully ran for governor. Their continuing support burnishes Warner’s record of bipartisanship.

That nearly two in 10 Republicans, according to Quinnipiac, favor Warner raises the bar for Gillespie. Defeating Warner was always going to be tough. It’s tougher if Gillespie can’t count on a strong, unified Republican base.

Finally, the passion gap may be exacerbated by something many Republicans never believed would happen: A governor — a Republican governor — would be found guilty of corruption.

The episode threatens to damage the GOP with swing voters. It’s demoralized the party’s rank-and-file and thrown Republican elective officials on the defensive on ethics, an issue they’ve ducked for years.

Fair or not, Gillespie, as the consummate D.C. insider, was always going to be suspect on ethics.

Gillespie’s checkered employment history is emphasized by Warner and his allies, including a super PAC that’s already spent $1.4 million on commercials blistering Gillespie as a hired gun for corporate abusers, including gone-bust Enron.

As Gillespie returned to that revolving door — most recently, as a Senate candidate — he was among those counseling McDonnell on ways to control the crisis that was destroying his governorship. Gillespie was chairman of the McDonnell gubernatorial campaign.

Tucker Martin, McDonnell’s communications director and currently a consultant to Gillespie . . .  At one point, Martin was shown an email that included a possible statement to the newspaper in which McDonnell, who as a defendant claimed to be estranged from his wife of nearly 40 years, expressed his loyalty to Maureen.  Among those copied on the email was Ed Gillespie.

Lobbyists Quietly Advise GOP to Shif on Gay Marriage

Just as Republican politicians continue to take positions that are contrary to majority public opinion on issues such as immigration reform, infrastructure spending in their quest to utterly prostitute themselves to the angry whites who make up the Christofascist/Tea Party base of the GOP, so too are they defying the changing majority view on gay marriage.   The ultimate outcome as Hispanics, gays, non-religious extremists and their supporters flee the GOP is that the party is likely destined for permanent minority status at the national level and, at best will become a regional party concentrated in the backward regions of the South. The Hill looks at the efforts of lobbyist to counsel the GOP to dump its opposition to gay marriage and, more or less, kick the Christofasists to the curb.  Here are excerpts:

Republicans on K Street are helping members of their party shift their stance on gay rights issues.

Kathryn Lehman, a top GOP lobbyist and partner at Holland & Knight, carries a list of 40 to 50 Republican offices in the House and Senate she visits on behalf of Freedom to Marry, a group that backs same-sex marriage.

“The issue is losing its toxicity, from a Republican perspective,” she said, mentioning that the list was a fraction of that size when she first took on Freedom to Marry as a client in 2011.

Lehman, who helped to write the Defense of Marriage Act while working on Capitol Hill, is among a small group of lobbyists and organizations that are leveraging their conservative credentials to try to sway Republican lawmakers on gay marriage, transgender rights and the creation of a federal nondiscrimination policy.

Organizations like Log Cabin Republicans and Project Right Side are also pushing Republicans by providing data about changes in public opinion and, like lobbyists, offering lawmakers and their offices a “safe space” to talk about the challenges facing LGBT individuals.

In addition, Project Right Side, founded by former Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, makes the case for how gay rights align with conservative principles.

“We’re also trying to protect a party that we care a lot about. There has been societal change. Any political party that ignores societal change does so at its own peril,” said Mehlman, now the global head of public affairs at investment banking firm KKR, told The Hill.

“As conservatives, we don’t have to ignore it. There is a strong conservative argument for safe schools, for civil marriage, merit-based decisions at work.”

Despite the opposition of religious conservatives, advocates are convinced the tide is turning in their favor.

“I have had meetings with some of the most rock-ribbed social conservatives in Washington,” said Gregory Angelo, the executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans. “A lot of them see the writing on the wall, they see the direction the country is headed.”

A Pew Research Center poll released earlier this year showed that more than 60 percent of Republicans under the age of 30 support gay marriage; 43 percent of those aged 30–49 were in favor.

“I believe that this is the civil rights movement of our generation,” said Thorsen, whose sister recently married her longtime partner, “and I’m proud that I’m on the right side of this, and I’m proud that I can tell my grandchildren that I was there when it mattered.”