Freedom Line Blog

Earlier this year IMS Health projected the American drug industry to contract slightly in the next few years, at a rate of 0.01 percent. In an updated report, however, the industry now stands to turn in healthy profits.

This change in good fortune is not because of a surging economy; it’s because of backroom deals with the White House and Congress. According to the report, the industry is expected to grow by 3.5% next year, and is set to rake in about $137 billion over the next four years.

Behind this paradox is the Obama Administration’s deal with the drug companies. IMS states that ObamaCare is actually going to “lead to higher priced brand [non-generic] products.”

So drug companies, the villain and devil-incarnate for much of the left-wing, will soon gain another $137 billion because of the Obama Administration? Wasn’t President Obama supposed to be the destroyer of all evil in the world?

These newfound profits might be surprising, but it comes as no surprise that former Representative Billy Tauzin leads PhRMA and still has plenty of political clout in Washington, D.C.

You might recall Tauzin, architect of the 2003 Prescription Drug Bill, who then bolted for his current cushy position at PhRMA.

What capitalism creates … crony-capitalism destroys.

HT: Huffington Post

Over on National Review, Stephen Spruiell gives an in-depth look at how the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is helping President Barack Obama remake America into a much more liberal place, one piece of legislation at a time. The excerpts below offer a powerful wake-up call to anyone thinking that the stimulus bill, health care reform, and card-check are anything other than massive redistributions of wealth.

On getting a union-friendly stimulus bill:

The stimulus bill was a top priority for SEIU because it contained massive bailouts for state governments and Medicaid. As mentioned above, states such as California, New York, and New Jersey have expanded their social-welfare systems beyond what they can afford, in response to pressures from SEIU and other public-sector unions. At the same time, their progressive income-tax structures have made them especially vulnerable to boom-and-bust cycles. When the credit bubble burst, these states were looking at massive deficits, layoffs, furloughs, and budget cuts. The stimulus bill included a $50 billion slush fund for state governments and $90 billion in Medicaid expansions, helping the states avoid a necessary round of belt-tightening and tax reform.”

A bit surprisingly, California came in for particularly rough treatment:

The most illustrative example of SEIU’s clout during this process came when the Obama administration threatened to withhold stimulus funds from the state of California if it went ahead with a planned reduction in payments to home health-care workers. The administration set up a conference call with state officials to discuss whether the cuts violated the terms of the stimulus, and state officials were surprised to learn that the administration had invited SEIU representatives to join the call. “This was really atypical and outside any norm I am familiar with,” California secretary of health and human services Kim Belshe told the Los Angeles Times. The administration backed down from the threat, but only after the story had leaked and caused significant blowback.”

On getting a union-friendly health care reform bill:

SEIU has poured millions into a group called Health Care for America Now, which has dispatched envoys to deliver portable pavilions, professionally printed placards, and uniform attire at almost every major health-care protest this year. Dennis Rivera sent hundreds of union activists to meetings this summer in an attempt to counteract opposition to the Democrats’ bill. “We’re running this campaign like this was a presidential campaign, and our candidate is health-care reform,” Rivera told the New York Times. Why does SEIU care so much about health-care reform? The subsidies and mandates in Democrats’ legislation would drive up demand for health-care services, meaning more revenue for hospitals, more health-care workers, and more members for SEIU.

The creation of a government-run insurance plan is an especially important priority for the SEIU. “The nexus between government and private industry would give SEIU a toehold to organize more workers,” explains J. Justin Wilson, managing director of the Center for Union Facts. Once the public option is in place, SEIU can pressure the bureaucracy to implement union-friendly policies. For example, the public option “might only reimburse hospitals that are unionized or have a neutrality position toward unions,” Wilson says.

And finally, supporting card-check legislation:

As important as the Democrats’ health-care plan is to SEIU, the union’s top priority remains the Employee Free Choice Act, otherwise known as the card-check bill. Under SEIU’s preferred version of the bill, employers would have to recognize a union once a majority of its employees had signed petition cards. This process would allow union organizers to identify holdouts and pressure them into signing up. The bill would also require business owners to allow union organizers to hold meetings with employees on the business’s property, while forbidding the owners to hold mandatory meetings to discuss unionization.

Finally, the bill includes a binding-arbitration provision that would allow the NLRB to impose a union contract on a business if negotiations with its union broke down. SEIU loves this provision, because Obama just named one of its lawyers, Craig Becker, to the NLRB. Businesses negotiating with the SEIU would have two choices: accept SEIU’s demands voluntarily or have the SEIU-friendly NLRB accept them for you.”

You can read the entire article here.

…turn a taxpayer-funded federal website into a self-serving online petition! That’s exactly what Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has done with the front page of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Between links to FLU.gov and another to Stop Medicare Fraud, there is an icon under HealthReform.Gov where a visitor can “State Your Support” for health reform this year.

According to Connie Hair at Human Events, HHS’s solicitation of support for Democratic health reform is likely in violation of federal law because it spends money for a purpose other than what Congress intended. In a legal opinion requested by Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), and written by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), CRS points out that:

Under the United States Constitution, no funds may be expended by federal agencies, or their officers or employees in the executive branch, except by way of an appropriation made by an act of Congress. The “Appropriations Clause” of the Constitution is not only an express assignment of appropriations authority to the Congress, but has also, as explained by a unanimous Supreme Court, been long understood “as a restriction upon the disbursing authority of the Executive department…”

Hair reports further that:

Congress has made it clear that federal agencies are not to use public funds to finance campaign tactics and grassroots propaganda. By law, official HHS funds cannot be used “for publicity or propaganda purposes … designed to support or defeat legislation pending before the Congress … ,” according to and Section 503(a) of Division F and Section 717 of Division D of the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act or for “printed or written matter, or other device, intended or designed to influence in any manner … an official of any government, to favor, adopt, or oppose, by vote or otherwise, any legislation, law, ratification, policy … ,” according to 18 U.S.C. § 1913.”

In other words, HHS can’t spend taxpayer money to solicit support for partisan legislation. Although there’s little chance of mounting a successful lawsuit against the “State Your Support” link, signers of the petition should be aware that they are doing much more than giving their name. They’re also permitting the Obama Administration to retain their email and postal addresses for future contacts and solicitations, perhaps even for financial contributions. Of course, we can be sure that none of the names and numbers given will be misused or passed along to third parties, right?

HT: Reason.tv

CFIF – For All They Have Done, For All They Have Sacrificed
CNN – Nations around the World Honor Veterans
Politico – Fox News Critic Leaving the White House
John Stossel – The U.S. House of Presumptuous Meddlers

WSJ – The Economic Uses of Al Gore
George Will – The Truth about Global Warming
Gallup – Republicans Edge Democrats in 2010 Vote
The Hill – Reid Pushes for 2010 Stimulus
San Diego Union-Tribune – Stimulus Dishonesty

Federal Debt: $11.988 trillion

As health care reform sprints towards the finish line, one can’t help but wonder what repercussions the triumph of Obamacare might have for the White House staff.

I speak specifically of Nancy-Ann DeParle, the President’s “health reform” czar. One hopes that, in fidelity to his promise of good government, Obama would demand Deparle’s letter of resignation immediately upon signing health care reform into law.  After all, what’s left for the reform czar once the sole objective of her employment is achieved? Unfortunately, the answer to that question is probably “a taxpayer-financed salary and all the perks of White House employment until President Obama heads back to Chicago.”

As Majority Leader Harry Reid scrambles to put together the pieces on his economy-busting health care “reform” bill, the Senate Finance Committee today began  hearings on that other job-killing legislation… Cap-and-Trade.

The Committee’s Ranking Member, Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), rightly used some of the time he had for opening remarks to remind his colleagues that unlike the Environment and Public Works Committee, which is controlled by some of the Senate’s most liberal members and which passed its version of a Cap-and-Trade energy tax last week, the Finance Committee’s job is to focus on the economic impact and costs of the legislation.

According to Roll Call, Grassley stated:

This committee’s expertise is in the costs and economic impacts of new taxes. It therefore has the relevant expertise for evaluating the costs associated with climate change legislation. An honest cost-benefit assessment requires that we first stop trying to sell this policy as if it will have no cost for Americans and accept the basic economic principle that there is no such thing as a free lunch.”

Acknowledging Grassley’s remarks, Chairman Max Baucus (D-Montana) said:

While we must always be mindful of the cost of legislation, that’s particularly true in today’s economy. Our unemployment rate remains far too high. And we must be diligent to create jobs, including in the energy sector.”

Considering the federal government’s own estimates warn that the legislation would cost the U.S. economy far more jobs than it may create, wouldn’t the most diligent thing be for Baucus to scrap the idea of a Cap-and-Trade energy tax altogether?

As the worldwide economic downturn drags on, why are European regulators arbitrarily stifling Oracle’s acquisition of Sun Microsystems, causing harm to the latter’s business?  One would think we’d want to encourage beneficial mergers during these lean times. right?

Apparently not in the sclerotic European Commission (EC).  After notoriously blocking such other synergistic mergers as General Electric and Honeywell, EC bean-counters are formally objecting to the Oracle/Sun agreement.  Even the suddenly-activist Obama Justice Department had already approved the deal and said it wouldn’t harm competition, but it apparently troubles the European status quo too much for Euro tastes.  As a result, Sun’s sales have plummeted some 25%, and Oracle could ultimately be forced to abandon the deal and pay a $260 million breakup penalty. Oracle’s software focus doesn’t even compete with Sun in the consumer marketplace, and the agreement was reached back in April.

Meanwhile, EC bureaucrats navel-gaze, and consumers again pay the price.

During a week in which Nancy Pelosi force-fed her job-killing healthcare bill to America, it was timely that the Kauffman Foundation released a report on how jobs are created in this country.

According to their study released last week, two-thirds of jobs created as recently as 2007 came from enterprises less than five years old.  Indeed, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, almost all of America’s net job creation since 1980 came from new businesses.  This stands to reason in our dynamic economy, where giant firms tend to become complacent and wither, whereas new innovators with novel ideas rapidly expand and create new jobs.  Think of General Motors and Microsoft, for instance.   Before that, the horse-and-buggy industry lost employees to the auto makers.  This is the nature of our economic system.

With this in mind, what are Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid doing to create jobs?  We’re not referring to temporary work funded by dollars borrowed from future generations or wrenched from more productive uses via taxation – actual jobs?  Stated differently, what entrepreneur in his or her right mind would consider this a promising moment to take risks and hire new employees?  From healthcare “reform” to carbon cap-and-tax legislation to higher taxes to financial regulation, Obama, Pelosi and Reid see employers as mere scapegoats who should be saddled with even higher costs of employment.  They bail out dinosaurs like GM and Chrysler, but leave smaller entrepreneurs to suddenly subsidize ObamaCare and the ever-expanding federal government.

The unemployment rate just jumped to 10.2% despite Obama’s promise that it wouldn’t exceed 8% if we swallowed his “stimulus” medicine.  At what point does he wake up and smell the real-world coffee?  Will he ever?

With pressure coming from the White House and not to be outdone by Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Harry Reid indicated earlier today that the Senate could begin debate on his health care “reform” bill as early as next week.  Reid believes a final vote on the legislation could happen by Christmas.

That’s an ambitious schedule considering that Reid’s bill hasn’t even been presented to his Senate colleagues yet, much less to the American people.   The Majority Leader has been waiting for the Congressional Budget Office to finish its cost estimates on various versions of his “reform” proposal prior to deciding what the final product will look like and releasing it for review.

Moreover, Reid has his hands full trying to find the 60 votes necessary to proceed to a vote on health care “reform” in the Senate as liberals and so-called moderates in his caucus are divided on issues such as taxpayer funding for abortion and a government-run “public option.”

UPDATE:

The Hill reports:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) late Tuesday laid the groundwork for the Senate’s healthcare reform debate to start next Tuesday.

Reid filed a motion to introduce the bill on Monday, Nov. 16. Anticipating a Republican objection, the bill would be pushed onto the Senate calendar.

“A motion to proceed to the bill would be in order the next legislative day,” said Reid spokesman Jim Manley.

Politico – 10 Senate Seats Most Likely to Flip
The Hill – Democrats Defend Their Vote on Health Care
WSJ – Confessions of an ObamaCare Backer
NY Times – Democrats Raise Alarm over Health Care Costs

Slate – A Guide to Shifting Health Care Factions
Byron York – The Top Issue is Jobs
National Review Online – The Road Ahead for Health Care
Breitbart – FCC Falling Afoul of Key Senators

Federal Debt: $11.984 trillion

What a difference an election cycle makes. Today, the Club for Growth (CFG), a pro-free-market political action committee, endorsed Marco Rubio for the open Florida Senate seat. Somewhat surprisingly, Charlie Crist, the other contender for the Republican nomination, sidestepped lashing out at CFG. Instead, his campaign played the part of misunderstood statesman, vowing cooperation even though he didn’t get CFG’s support.

While Marco Rubio has a record of raising taxes and spending exorbitantly, Charlie Crist is a true fiscal conservative and looks forward to working with the Club for Growth on their shared goals as Florida’s next US Senator.”

Two years ago, presidential candidate Mike Huckabee also failed to get CFG’s endorsement. His reaction wasn’t as conciliatory. Here’s a link to Huckabee defending his views on the “Club for Greed.”

Unlike Huckabee, Crist can’t rely on a background as a preacher with a conservative social agenda to compensate for his fiscal management as governor. As the movement for lower taxes and smaller government picks up momentum going into next year’s mid-term elections, the rhetoric of Republican campaigns will be decidedly more cautious in dismissing fiscal conservatives.

Some people have a knack for recognizing a decisive moment before it occurs. Even fewer have the insight to choose (or guess) which way is best when it happens. Count Martin Heinrich, freshman Democrat from New Mexico, as one of the folks who didn’t migrate from column A to column B. When discussing his support for comprehensive health care “reform” over the weekend, Congressman Heinrich said:

This is an opportunity to do something as big Social Security,” he added. “And me, personally, I don’t want to be on the wrong side of history.”

Regrettably, far too many liberal politicians think being first (or biggest) is the same as being right. With this in mind, replicating the biggest social welfare boondoggle in American history becomes not only historic, but right, and voting for it ensures supporters of their implied inclusion in whatever laudatory blurb finds its way into next decade’s high school civics books.

However, there is another way to interpret the “historic” moment facing the nation and the Democratic Party. In the aftermath of World War II, England voted for a weaker presence abroad, and a much enhanced social safety net at home. The plan came to be known as the “post war consensus” and can be characterized as:

…a belief in Keynesian economics, a mixed economy with the nationalization of major industries, the establishment of the National Health Service and the creation of the modern welfare state in Britain. The policies were instituted by all governments (both Labour and Conservative) during the post-war period.” (Emphasis added)

Sound familiar? Much like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, the leader of the consensus, Clement Attlee, was an unremarkable politician except for the fact he helped create the National Health Service. This put Britain on the path of unsustainable spending and deficits all in the name of a health program that expands coverage while castrating care.

Welcome to infamy, Rep. Heinrich. Here you’ll find no end to self-indulgent paternalism and the undying belief that free people need “free” services from government.

The unemployment rate is 10.2%, the House just passed a government-takeover of health care, but at least Wall Street gave us some good news today.

The Dow hit a 52-week high during afternoon trading, reaching 10,186.  However, this is still far behind the Dow’s October 9, 2007 high of 14,164.

Although lost amidst news of last week’s elections, the Ft. Hood shooting and Nancy Pelosi’s healthcare abomination, President Obama pays a visit to China next week.  What awaits him might not be the fawning foreign crowds to which he is accustomed in his overseas travels.

As noted by The Wall Street Journal, Obama’s behavior in office has already created friction in a nation where President George W. Bush was actually quite popular.  Whereas Bush expanded and improved trade and diplomatic relations, Obama has engaged in destructive trade protectionism over such things as low-cost tires.  Considering China’s importance as a trade partner, economic force and strategic antagonist, it is critical that Obama deal with them intelligently.  Unfortunately, so far, he appears less adept at achieving successful relations with China than he does in wooing anti-American audiences in the Middle East and socialist portions of Europe.

But hey – at least the denizens of Parisian salons love him.

The New York Times has an interesting chart on the 39 Democrats who voted “No” on Speaker Pelosi’s version of health care “reform.”

The bill, H.R. 3962, passed 220 to 215 on Saturday night.

Click here for more on health care.

WSJ – Why Some Dems Voted Against ObamaCare
Political Wire – Lieberman Says He’ll Join Filibuster
The Hill – President Obama Urges Senate to Pass Health Bill
Politico – Huckabee ‘Very Serious’ About Presidential Run
Clive Crook – Obama Lost Sight of the Center
Real Clear Politics – Breaking Down the Democratic Defectors
RedState – Another Czar Bites the Dust

Federal Debt: $11.979 trillion

On most days, the New York Times’ opinion page is a gallery of liberal stereotypes. There’s Maureen Dowd, whose “liberating” neo-feminism somehow renders her as joyless as a puritan schoolmarm; Frank Rich, the kind of “tolerant” liberal whose Cliff’s Notes understanding of history leaves with him only three totalitarian regimes to compare Republicans to; and then there’s Thomas Friedman…

Friedman is inarguably the Times’ greatest success story. His books are consistent best-sellers and he’s a regular fixture on television and the lecture circuit. This mostly owes to the fact that Friedman substitutes enthusiasm for erudition. He’s an emotive presenter, but his ideas usually center around haute couture social engineering (his affection for “the green economy”) or aging conventional wisdom (how “The World is Flat” became a hit over a decade after globalization was a household concept is beyond me).

I introduce these criticisms as penance for what I’m about to say: Thomas Friedman has gotten something completely and commendably right.

In his new column, “Call White House, Ask for Barack” (a title that owes to a wonderfully direct James Baker quote featured in the piece), Friedman argues that it’s time to throw up our hands and leave the Israeli-Palestinian peace process behind … at least until an outside factor motivates the parties towards substantive work.  It’s a rare tour de force and an enticing look into what a significant public intellectual Friedman could be if he spent less time on fashionable shibboleths. Among the best passages:

It is obvious that this Israeli government believes it can have peace with the Palestinians and keep the West Bank, this Palestinian Authority still can’t decide whether to reconcile with the Jewish state or criminalize it and this Hamas leadership would rather let Palestinians live forever in the hellish squalor that is Gaza than give up its crazy fantasy of an Islamic Republic in Palestine.

A rare — but decisive — win.  Here’s hoping to more like this from Friedman.

Back before he took his oath of office, there were moments when Barack Obama seemed to have an intellectual clarity that occasionally allowed him to transcend partisanship. One such moment came in an interview with the Reno Gazette-Journal’s editorial board during the 2008 presidential primaries, when he made the (utterly true) claim that Ronald Reagan had been a transformative president in a way that figures such as Richard Nixon or Bill Clinton had not.

Of course, the fact that Obama wasn’t praising the content of Reagan’s legacy was obvious at the time.  Long before he was praising the virtues of Whole Foods arugula to Iowa caucus-goers (denizens of a state without a single Whole Foods location), The One was a Columbia undergraduate sympathetic to the nuclear freeze movement that thought Reagan was Dr. Strangelove with Pomade.  So this is a man who has never been a fellow-traveler with us Reaganites.

That being said, there are certain times when presidential grace requires biting history’s bullet (especially when it’s in service of a noble cause).  Thus, President Obama’s decision to snub Germany’s invitation to help commemorate the 20th anniversary of the Berlin Wall’s demise is as petty as it is revealing.

Two decades ago, the world witnessed the parting shots of perhaps the most protracted struggle between liberty and tyranny in human history. That this victory was achieved without any actual shots owes to the man that Obama once rightly recognized as transformational.  Yet while Obama was able to take time out of his presidential campaign to visit a Germany eager to enshrine him as a golden calf, he can’t find room in his day-planner for a return trip to celebrate the greatest human liberation of the 20th century.

Being wrong about the Cold War in the 1980s can be chalked up to an honest mistake fueled by a lack of intellectual sophistication. Being wrong about it 20 years later ought to disqualify you from any public office … let alone the highest in the land.

Tonight, the House of Representatives voted 220-215 to narrowly pass Speaker Pelosi’s 2,000-page, trillion-dollar-plus health care “reform” bill.

Just one Republican, Rep. Joseph Cao (Louisiana) voted “Yea.” Thirty-nine Democrats joined with all other House Republicans in opposition.