Freedom Line Blog

Continuing our efforts to warn against the perils of federal, state, and local efforts to target short-term lenders while working families face increasing economic headwinds, Stacy Watson came out with a fantastic new commentary entitled “What’s the Fed Doing to Fight ‘She-Flation?”  She highlights the ways in which inflation can hit women particularly hard, and cautions against counterproductive legislation and regulation that will only make access to financing more difficult:

While the federal government is acting to tame inflation through legislation and monetary policy, there is more that can be done to ease the burdens of she-flation. For one, the government should increase access to liquidity for small businesses. That would incentivize and enable women to become entrepreneurs, seize control of their destinies, and, it is hoped, increase earning potential. Encouraging banks to partner with technology companies that serve underbanked consumers would open access to credit for many single moms and entrepreneurial women.   

Lawmakers should also take off the table legislation that would remove access to personal and small business credit, such as the recently reintroduced “Safe Lending Act.” Although the bill purports to protect consumers from deceptive lending practices, what it would actually do is gut access to credit for working-class families, minorities, and women.”

Bravo.

Many claim to prefer bipartisanship out of leaders in Washington, D.C., and right now we’re witnessing an encouraging example of it.

Specifically, Senators Mike Braun (R – Indiana), Joe Manchin (D – West Virginia), Angus King (I – Maine), James Lankford (R – Oklahoma), Kyrsten Sinema (D – Arizona), and Susan Collins (R – Maine) have written National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Chairman Lauren McFerran seeking reconsideration of the NLRB’s proposed “Joint Employer Rule” that they correctly warn “would have negative effects on workers and businesses during a time that many are already struggling following the COVID-19 pandemic.”

For years we at CFIF have sounded the alarm on the Joint Employer Rule that the Senators target, because it would dangerously reverse decades of established labor law by holding businesses liable and responsible for employees of franchisees whom they didn’t hire and over whom they exercise no control:

Under longstanding court precedent and National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) interpretation, an ’employer’ for purposes of applying the nation’s labor laws was generally defined to include only those businesses that determined the essential terms and conditions of employment.

As a textbook illustration, imagine a franchise arrangement whereby the franchisee determines whom to hire, whom to fire, wages and other everyday working conditions.  The distant franchisor, in contrast, obviously doesn’t fly every potential franchisee employee in for an interview at corporate headquarters or micromanage its franchisees’ working conditions.

On that logic, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in NLRB v. Browning-Ferris Industries (1982) that the appropriate standard for defining an employer with regard to a particular set of employees was established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Boire v. Greyhound Corp. (1964).  It held that only businesses exercising control over ‘those matters governing the essential terms and conditions of employment’ were subject to collective bargaining requirements and liabilities.

Two years later, the NLRB formally adopted that standard, ruling in separate cases that ‘there must be a showing that the employer meaningfully affects matters relating to the employment such as hiring, firing, discipline, supervision and direction.’  In other words, an ’employer’ for purposes of labor law mandates required direct and immediate control over the terms and conditions of employment.

That stands to reason, since it makes no sense to impose legal liability upon employers that don’t actually control a bargaining unit’s employment conditions.

In August 2015, however, Obama’s NLRB suddenly and needlessly upended that established legal standard by redefining what’s known as the ‘Joint Employer Doctrine.’  Essentially, the Joint Employer Doctrine now allows multiple businesses to be held legally liable for the same set of employees.

Thus, in the infinite wisdom of the Obama NLRB, even employers with indirect or even merely potential ability to affect employment terms could suddenly find themselves subject to federal labor laws.”

In their letter, the Senators highlight the potential harm of the proposed rule.  They note that in the United States, nearly 775,000 franchises employ 8.2 million workers and provide $800 billion of economic output, which is projected to grow in 2022 to nearly 800,000 franchises.   As they further note, the International Franchise Association (IFA) found that the proposed rule could “cost franchise businesses $33.3 billion per year, resulting in 376,000 lost job opportunities, and led to a 93% increase in lawsuits.”

These Senators demonstrate welcome bipartisan leadership, and Americans should contact their Senators to make their support clear.

As misguided politicians and regulators continue to target short-term lenders, which provide American consumers with vital financial lifelines when the only alternatives are skipping payments, bouncing checks, running up credit card debts or even going to dangerous loansharks, we’ve consistently noted how short-term lenders’ role becomes increasingly important as the U.S. economy deteriorates and credit card reliance skyrockets.  Sure enough, the New York Fed numbers provide an alarming illustration:

Credit Card Debt Skyrocketing

All the more reason to protect consumers’ access to legal, reliant, efficient short-term lending rather than irrationally target it.

As we approach Thanksgiving, you may have heard (or personally experienced) that the cost of Thanksgiving dinner this year is up a record 20%.

Meanwhile, guess what’s actually declined in price, according to the federal government itself.  That would be prescription drug prices, which declined 0.1% last month alone.

Perhaps the Biden Administration should focus on helping everyday Americans afford Thanksgiving, rather than artificially imposing innovation-killing government price controls on lifesaving drugs, which are actually declining in price and nowhere near the inflation rate afflicting other consumer costs.

We at CFIF often warn how attempts at “drug price controls” will only succeed in killing lifesaving drug innovation, in which the U.S. leads the world without a close second.

Joe Biden’s so-called “Inflation Reduction Act” constitutes a perfect illustration, and in a Wall Street Journal piece entitled “The Inflation Reduction Act Is Already Killing Potential Cures,” USC Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics fellow Joe Grogan shows how “we’re already getting signs of the damage”:

One poorly crafted provision is driving companies away from research into treating rare diseases.  In its Oct. 27 earnings statement, Alnylam announced it is suspending development of a treatment for Stargardt disease, a rare eye disorder, because of the company’s need ‘to evaluate impact of the Inflation Reduction Act.’  Alnylam’s decision turns on a provision in the Democrats’ bill that exempts from price-setting negotiations drugs that treat only one rare disease.  The company’s drug is currently marketed as treating only amyloidosis, and thus is exempt from Medicare’s price setting.  If Alnylam proceeded with research into treating Stargardt, it would lose its exemption.”

And that’s not even the end of it.  Earlier this week, Eli Lilly announced termination of a blood cancer drug because, “In light of the Inflation Reduction Act, this program no longer met our threshold for continued investment.”

Mr. Grogan proceeds to offer a must-read primer on how and why this is happening, then concludes by admonishing the next Congress convening in January to abandon this instant disaster and promote innovation instead of cheap Biden Administration talking point schemes:

The Democrats may have achieved a short-term talking point for the midterm elections, but in the long term this partisan healthcare bill will prevent patients from receiving innovative, lifesaving treatments.  A new Congress would serve Americans well by replacing the Inflation Reduction Act with an approach that recognizes the need for economic incentives to bring new treatments to patients.”

Good advice.

When pondering the origins of American Exceptionalism, and what makes us the most innovative, prosperous nation in human history, look first to our tradition of protecting intellectual property (IP) – patent, copyright, trademark, and trade secret property rights.

After all, other nations match or even exceed the U.S. in free market rankings (24 nations in the latest annual Index of Economic Freedom, in fact).  No nation, however, can match us for sheer innovation.  America accounts for less than 5% of the world’s population, and even with the world’s largest economy we account for under 25% of the global economy.  In contrast, no nation can match our scientific innovation, from flight to space exploration to the internet.  Nor can any nation match our artistic leadership, from the film industry to television to music, or claim as many instantly recognizable trademarks, from Coca-Cola to Apple.

Year after year, that’s why the U.S. leads global rankings of IP protection.

Perhaps most conspicuously, the U.S. accounts for fully two-thirds of all new lifesaving pharmaceuticals introduced to the world each year.  In an era increasingly reliant on pharmaceutical treatments for everything from Covid to cancer to Alzheimer’s, that is a leadership of which we should remain both proud and protective.

Inexplicably, however, some voices seek to undermine that IP leadership position.  A group called I-MAK offers the latest assault, with a “study” entitled “Overpatented, Overpriced,” which attempts to show “how excessive pharmaceutical patenting is extending monopolies and driving up drug prices.”  We employ scare quotes around the term “study” because I-MAK’s work has been previously debunked and exposed by leading IP scholars like George Mason University and Antonin Scalia Law School Professor Adam Mossoff and Senator Thom Tillis (R – North Carolina) for using defective and non-transparent supporting data.

Indeed, we highlighted earlier this year how drug prices have remained far, far below overall inflation.  Efforts like I-MAK’s would only end up suffocating drug innovation, not reducing prices, as we’ve also highlighted:

Of all new cancer drugs developed worldwide between 2011 and 2018, 96% were available to American consumers.  Meanwhile, only 56% of those drugs became available in Canada, 50% in Japan, and just 11% in Greece, as just three examples.  Patients in nations imposing drug price controls simply don’t receive access to new pharmaceuticals as quickly as Americans, if they ever receive them at all.”

Even the World Health Organization (WHO) acknowledges that overseas consumers’ lower access to pharmaceutical innovations stems from their governments’ imposition of price control regimes:

‘Every time one country demands a lower price, it leads to lower price reference used by other countries.  Such price controls, combined with the threat of market lockout or intellectual property infringement, prevent drug companies from charging market rates for their products, while delaying the availability of new cures to patients living in countries implementing those policies.’”

The irrefutable reality is that U.S. patent protections explain why we produce the overwhelming share of new drugs worldwide, including the Covid vaccines.  Efforts like I-MAK’s latest “study” continue a bizarre ongoing affront to property rights, the rule of law and IP.  If successful, they would only mean fewer future vaccines and treatments, and must be flatly rejected.

What was once a decades-long dream became reality during the Trump Administration, as the U.S. finally became an energy exporter again.  As Laffer Associates highlights, Joe Biden has inexplicably put that into reverse gear, and now gas prices are on their way back up.  This is progress?

Joe Biden’s Reverse-Midas Touch on Energy

We at CFIF often highlight the clear and present danger that drug price control schemes pose to American consumers, who benefit from our private pharmaceutical sector that leads the world – by far – in innovation.  A new lung cancer treatment breakthrough in the form of Amgen’s Lumakras illustrates that interrelationship.

Simply put, Lumakras reduced the risk of progression by 34% compared to chemotherapy in patents with advanced lung cancer, which is particularly welcome considering lung cancer’s especially low survival rate (18.6% over five years, and just 5% for advanced forms).  The breakthrough required years of research and enormous amounts of investment, however, which The Wall Street Journal notes makes Lumakras the type of innovation put at risk by new drug price controls recently enacted by Congressional Democrats and the Biden Administration:

The drug is by no means a cure, but progress occurs at the margin and some patients who had what amounted to a death sentence now have hope to live.  Lumakras is also much less brutal than chemotherapy.

Yet the drug might not have been developed had the Medicare take-it-or-leave-it negotiations that Democrats recently enacted been in effect earlier.  Their price controls will penalize in particular small-molecule drugs like Lumakras that have the potential to help large numbers of patients.  Within six years, Lumakras could be targeted by bureaucrats for price controls and the payoff on Amgen’s investment could vanish.

The reason for that is simple.  Straightforward economic principles dictate the inevitable negative blowback from government price controls, whether in the form of 1970s gas lines here in the U.S. or food shortages in Venezuela.

Even the United Nations World Health Organization (WHO) warns explicitly about these negative consequences of price controls on drug innovation:

[P]rice controls, combined with the threat of market lockout or intellectual property infringement, prevent drug companies from charging market rates for their products, while delaying the availability of new cures to patients living in countries implementing those policies.  

Closer to home, a recent University of Chicago study quantified the destructive effect of drug price controls on future lifesaving innovations:

The United States has fewer restrictions on price than other countries, but the Biden Administration has announced their goal to lower drug prices through greater price regulation…  [N]ew drug approvals will fall by 32 to 65 approvals from 2021 to 2029 and 135 to 277 approvals from 2030 to 2039.  These significant drops in new drug approvals will lead to delays in needed drug therapies, resulting in worse health outcomes for patients.  

As the University of Chicago points out, the U.S. maintains a more market-oriented approach to pharmaceutical innovation than other developed nations, which benefits American consumers.  Of 270 new medicines introduced here in the U.S. since 2011, for instance, Canadians could only access 52% of them, the Germans 67%, the British 64%, the French 53%, the Japanese 48% and the Australians just 41%.  Moreover, the U.S. accounts for two-thirds of all new drugs introduced to the world.

The real-world numbers speak for themselves.  Americans benefit immensely from our world-leading pharmaceutical sector, and Lumakras offers just the latest welcome example.  The sooner the recent drug price control schemes are repealed or scaled back, the more Americans who suffer from cancer and other ailments stand to benefit.

Joe Biden has leased fewer acres for oil and gas drilling than any other president.  Don’t dare suggest that he bears any responsibility for skyrocketing energy prices during his presidency, though.

Biden Administration’s War on Drilling

Congress doesn’t maintain a spotless record of affixing accurate titles to proposed legislation, but in the case of the American Music Fairness Act (H.R. 4130), the House of Representatives nails it.

Now it’s time for the Senate to take up companion legislation and bring greater fairness to performance rights in the music industry.

By way of background, federal law currently secures royalty payments for songwriters and others when their songs are played on AM-FM terrestrial radio, but not for the performing artists themselves.  Deepening that odd paradox, performance artists receive compensation when their songs play on digital broadcast platforms like the internet, satellite and cable.  Terrestrial radio broadcasters, however, somehow remain exempt under existing law from having to pay that same compensation.  There’s no logical or legal justification for that paradox, which amounts to crony capitalism in the form of a special government carve-out.

Fortunately, the American Music Fairness Act currently before the House would finally secure performance rights for artists whose recordings are played on terrestrial radio (with exceptions maintained for smaller mom-and-pop stations).  In 2021, we at CFIF joined numerous fellow conservative and libertarian organizations in a coalition letter to the House amplifying the need to pass this legislation to protect artists’ natural intellectual property (IP) rights:

The Constitution protects intellectual property rights and specifically delegates to Congress authority to protect creative works.  Artists who produce music therefore have the right to protect their intellectual property, including both the writer and performer of a given recording.  When a given work is transmitted, common sense and basic fairness dictate that the medium of transmission should not affect the existence of these rights.  Yet, under the current regime, a performer does not hold effective or enforceable rights to his or her product when it is distributed through terrestrial radio.”

Opponents of the American Music Fairness Act illogically suggest that it would somehow introduce needless market regulation, but the obvious reality is that the market is already regulated in the discriminatory manner described above.  The American Music Fairness Act would merely level the playing field and respect the value of the artists’ works.

Some opponents of H.R. 4130 also falsely attempt to portray it as creating a “tax.”  As leading anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform answers, however, taxes are compulsory payments to government, whereas royalties are voluntary payments to broadcast others’ creations:

[W]hat is proposed is not, in fact, a tax but a royalty.  The definition of a tax is the transfer of wealth from a household or business to the government.  Taxes aren’t voluntary; paying a royalty is.  It is completely within the rights of broadcasters to decide not to pay for the use of a performer’s song by simply not using the song.  This may not be an ideal option, but these songs actually are the property of someone else…  Just as dishonest as calling a tax a fee or fine, so too is it wrong to apply the word ‘tax’ to a royalty payment.  Creating the negative perception that this legislation creates a new tax may be convenient in the short term and assist opponents in gaining political support;  in the long run it is incredibly unhelpful to those who work to reduce the burden of government in our everyday lives.”

By any standard of fairness and logic, performing artists possess a natural right to enjoy the fruits of their labor and creativity, just like any of us do for our work.  After all, artists already receive performance payments from non-terrestrial radio stations, reflecting the value of their work.  The American Music Fairness Act simply corrects an unfair and illogical federal carve-out.

Accordingly, the House should promptly pass this long-overdue legislation, and the Senate should similarly take up companionate legislation.

For years we at CFIF have highlighted the failures and peril of government-run broadband boondoggles.  Government-owned networks (GONs) have an uninterrupted history of failure both domestically and overseas.  They compete with private investment in commercial networks, they create more debt for taxpayers who ultimately become liable for them, they rarely if ever manage to break even financially, and they offer substandard quality.

In that vein, our friend Shane Tews of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) offers an excellent new analysis highlighting yet another fatal defect of GONs:  weaker cybersecurity:

Local governments are good at many things, but asking them to understand how to keep local networks safe and protect connections to the nation’s internet infrastructure is a stretch.  Cybersecurity plans deserve more scrutiny at every level — especially given the possibility of local weaknesses in our network fabrics via government-owned and -operated broadband networks that often lack the tools to detect cyber intrusions.”

She rightfully contrasts the superior comparative performance of private broadband, and suggests a better option:

Commercial broadband providers, on the other hand, spend tens of billions of dollars annually to keep things running safely. They invest heavily in network security, pay hundreds of professionals to guard their network operations, and endlessly brainstorm ways to protect customers’ information.

We should build on what the COVID-19 work-from-home period has taught us: that our networks work extraordinarily well. Rather than overbuilding duplicative networks in areas that already have good broadband coverage, the state should partner with the private sector to close coverage gaps and build secure networks that give new internet users safe access. There is almost no question that the size and nature of these cyber threats will continue to escalate. We need to strengthen our network defenses — not build new, defenseless networks.”

Her pieces always merit full reading, and she hits the nail on the head by encouraging government to partner with private broadband providers that work extraordinarily well, not needlessly compete against them.

As inflation continues to spiral upward at multi-decade highs and with the U.S. economy now in recession, maintaining an “all of the above” array of lending options for American consumers becomes more and more important.  Unfortunately, activist groups like the “National Consumer Law Center” aim to do the opposite and limit rather than expand consumer options.

For a sense of consumers’ growing desperation, consider a Federal Reserve report on exploding credit card debt, as highlighted by Steve Cortes:

How have consumers dealt with these skyrocketing prices? The simple answer, unfortunately: via credit cards, particularly for working-class households. Just last week, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York issued a damning report on this credit binge for consumers, into a pronounced economic slowdown.

Total consumer debt rose a staggering $40 billion in June, far surpassing Wall Street expectations of a $25 billion increase…

A huge portion of this new debt flows from costly, risky credit card use. In fact, for the April-June second quarter of 2022, total credit card debt rose a staggering $46 billion, the biggest jump in 20 years. Americans pile into new accounts to accomplish this borrowing, opening up a whopping 233 million new cards during that second quarter, the most new cards since 2008. Such comparisons to the Great Recession should worry everyone.”

Additionally, credit cards aren’t always a viable option for many Americans, and traditional bank loans aren’t always an option due to small amounts needed for short-term emergencies.  Whereas higher-income Americans with stronger credit history can borrow from banks, utilize assets they possess as leverage or use their savings, consumers with lower credit scores or lacking sufficient savings cannot.  Indeed, according to the Fair Isaac Corporation, some 46% of consumers possess credit scores below 700, meaning that traditional bank loans aren’t possible for them.

In such circumstances, struggling Americans can access the money they need for the short-term via consumer finance loans.

Groups like the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC), however, want to limit the availability of such options, which they falsely characterize as some sort of scheme “to snare consumers into predatory loans for auto repairs, tires, furniture, and even pets.”

In reality, however, the unintended consequence of efforts like that of the NCLC will be to drive temporarily strapped consumers to seek out illegal loansharks, suffer overdrafts, or simply be unable to cover their temporary costs.  As none other than the World Bank found, such limitations lead to “increases in non-interest fees and commissions; reduced price transparency; lower number of institutions and reduced branch density; and adverse impacts on bank profitability, in addition to the lack of access for smaller and riskier borrowers.”

That doesn’t help the people whom groups like the NCLC claim to protect, it hurts them.  Accordingly, American consumers and elected leaders should recognize the peril that NCLC and similar groups present.  Their efforts would only make consumer lending more difficult, more dangerous and more expensive.

Our latest Liberty Update highlights the danger of an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that’s about to enjoy a doubling of funding and personnel via the abominable Manchin-Schumer “compromise” tax-and-spend-and-regulate bill.  Apologists for the bill rationalize that a turbocharged IRS is necessary to collect more taxes from the American people (and we highlight in our piece how Americans earning under $200,000, not the “rich,” will be the primary targets).  The U.S. Treasury Department, however, just reported that the federal government just collected a record amount of taxes so far this fiscal year.  The obvious problem isn’t insufficient funding of the federal government, but rather excessive spending:

As Senators Joe Manchin (D – West Virginia) and Kyrsten Sinema (D – Arizona) betray their “moderate” charade and join Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s (D – New York) latest tax-and-spend monstrosity, we’ve highlighted the preposterousness of the claim that imposing drug price controls will in any way address out-of-control inflation.  Price controls will kill innovation, but do nothing to reduce inflation, because prescription drug prices simply aren’t the problem.  Once again, economist Steve Moore offers a handy illustration of that truth:

Prescription Drug Costs Aren’t the Problem

We recently highlighted how prescription drug costs defy today’s otherwise out-of-control inflation, which makes it all the more odd that the Biden Administration and the Pelosi-Schumer Congress seek to impose drug price controls (which will suffocate future innovation, not relieve consumers).

Well, federal government statistics identify another critical consumer product that defies inflationary pressures, yet also remains the target of Biden Administration efforts to expand the federal regulatory state:  internet service.   Something of which legislators and regulators must remain mindful as yet another destructive “Net Neutrality” campaign looms.

Broadband Defies Inflationary Pressures

While Joe Biden attempts to blame a shifting array of scapegoats for inflation, the simple numbers demonstrate the unmistakable truth.  Consumer prices began skyrocketing upon Biden’s inauguration in January 2021, and wage gains plummeted toward an immediate deficit relative to inflation.  During the Trump presidency, wages consistently exceeded inflation, only rarely even coming in even, let alone in negative territory.  Economist Stephen Moore illustrates the reality unambiguously:

We’ve often highlighted how federal and state regulators who target short-term lenders only end up hurting the struggling Americans they claim to be helping.

That dynamic is even more pronounced in times of increasing economic uncertainty like today.

According to a 2018 study from the federal government itself, nearly 40% of American families don’t possess sufficient savings to cover even a $400 emergency expense, including 51% of military service members living paycheck-to-paycheck.   For such people, credit cards aren’t always a viable option and traditional bank loans aren’t feasible because of the small amounts involved.

They can, however, access desperately-needed money for the short-term via consumer finance loans.   Unfortunately, the Biden Administration, the Pelosi-Schumer Congress, federal bureaucrats who think they know better and government officials at the state and local levels constantly pursue legislation and regulation to make consumer finance lending less available.  As a consequence, vulnerable Americans are forced to seek illegal loansharks, suffer overdrafts or simply fail to pay their pressing bills.

Our friends at National Taxpayers Union (NTU) commendably highlight the latest dangerous Biden Administration effort in a piece entitled “The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Continues to Attack the Financial Industry”:

While taxpayers look for relief from out-of-control inflation, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) continues to attack the financial industry, tipping our already unstable economy further over the edge…

As recently as April CFPB announced they would be invoking a long dormant authority to examine nonbank financial companies or ‘fintech’ companies.  CFPB inaccurately posits that these nonbank entities are harmful to consumers, however these companies often represent some of the only credit available to struggling Americans who have been continuously left behind by traditional institutions.  At a time when the economy is faltering and everyday Americans’ financial futures are so uncertain, the CFPB’s action seems misplaced.”

As NTU rightly concludes, “in many cases these institutions are doing the exact opposite of what CFPB claims, they are providing a lifeline to their users and breaking barriers to traditional institutions.” 

As our economy weakens due to the Biden Administration’s own counterproductive economic policies, the least it could do is avoid making matters even worse for struggling Americans increasingly desperate for a workable lifeline, non-traditional lenders.

For a man who constantly claims to support “Buy American,” Joe Biden demonstrates an inexplicable and almost fetish-like tendency to undercut American industries.

Since day one, the Biden Administration has ceaselessly besieged a domestic energy sector that finally achieved U.S. energy independence after decades of effort.  And now, it is following through on its inexcusably foolish assault against the U.S. pharmaceutical sector.

Each year, American pharmaceutical innovators account for an astounding two-thirds of all new lifesaving drugs introduced worldwide.  That’s the direct result of our system of intellectual property (IP) protections, including patents, which consistently leads the world.

Instead of protecting that legacy of American Exceptionalism, however, the Biden Administration remains bizarrely determined to eviscerate it.  Today, the World Trade Organization (WTO) announced agreement to forcibly waive patent protections for Covid vaccines, a dangerous effort that the Biden Administration for some reason supports.

This is nothing short of a license to steal U.S. patents.

The WTO effort serves no valid purpose, because Covid treatments are already being provided to poor nations across the world and the underlying pharmaceutical patents it targets are already being licensed at reduced prices or even for free.  Moreover, the  nations that the WTO claims to help recognize that lack of immunizations stems not from vaccine shortages, but rather from local logistical distribution problems and vaccination hesitancy among unvaccinated people in those nations.  Indeed, biopharmaceutical manufacturers remain capable of producing 20 billion vaccine doses this calendar year, so the problem isn’t lack of vaccine availability.

Additionally, a  supermajority of American voters spanning the political spectrum oppose this forcible waiver of Covid vaccine patents, favoring instead the licensing of patents to boost the global supply of vaccines.  Specifically, over 70% of voters believe that waiving Covid vaccine IP could have significant negative implications on the safety and efficacy of supply.

American patent protections explain our unmatched record of innovation, and also why we produce the overwhelming share of new drugs worldwide.  As the pandemic demonstrated once again, that includes Covid vaccines.  The WTO proposal egregiously sacrifices U.S. property rights and undermines the rule of law, which in turn will mean fewer lifesaving vaccines and treatments in the future.  If the Biden Administration won’t correct course, Congress must intervene to do so.

CFIF has continuously sounded the alarm on dangerous drug price control efforts, which will only do what artificial price controls always do – cause shortages of the very products they attempt to regulate.  The numbers speak for themselves.

Today, The Wall Street Journal editorial board cogently addresses the looming bankruptcy of Medicare and Social Security, and along the way nicely makes that point that we and others have been making, while also pointing out that drug prices have actually remained flat while prices for other products and services have skyrocketed:

Democrats blame Big Pharma for bankrupting Medicare, but annual Part D prescription drug costs have grown on average 1% over the last five years.  That’s far less than inflation, GDP and other Medicare spending. Even expensive drugs that grow spending in the short run can reduce long-term health spending.

Consider Hepatitis C treatments, which public-health scolds lambasted as too pricey when they launched nearly a decade ago.  Prices have since plummeted 75% from about $100,000 per course thanks to market competition.  A Department of Health and Human Services analysis estimates the treatments reduce patient health costs by about $16,000 annually and will save Medicaid $12 billion after this year.

Once the hospital trust fund runs dry, spending will have to be slashed by 10%.  The Democratic solution is to let Medicare “negotiate” drug prices — their euphemism for price controls.  But this will reduce the incentive to develop innovative treatments for hard-to-treat conditions like Alzheimer’s.  The result may be higher Medicare spending over the long term.“

Artificial government efforts to impose price controls never work, whatever the product, whatever the time and whatever the flimsy rationalization.  America leads the world in producing lifesaving pharmaceuticals – 2/3 of all new drugs introduced worldwide, in fact – so we mustn’t tolerate Biden Administration or Congressional efforts to try this failed proposal yet again.  The stakes for us all are too high to re-learn that lesson the hard way.

Advocates of Obama-era internet service regulations that caused broadband investment to decline for the first time ever outside of an economic recession are at it again.  Even though U.S. internet service remarkably flourished amid the Covid pandemic while more heavily regulated Europe suffered, those who want to bring your internet under greater federal bureaucratic control are out with a preposterously defective poll suggesting that service providers are forcing consumers to “pay more” for inferior service.  Well, here’s a comparison of broadband price increases versus inflation among other critical consumer products since 2021, refusing that bizarre claim:

Broadband Prices Versus Other Products