Search This Blog

Showing posts with label DRUG IMPORTS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DRUG IMPORTS. Show all posts

Friday, July 16, 2021

RSN: Norman Solomon | Bernie Sanders Has Bonded With President Biden. Is That Good?

 

 

Reader Supported News
15 July 21

You Picked an Organization That Challenges Injustice

It’s what we do all day, every day. When you come here to “Reader Supported News” and ignore the organization’s funding, that is unfair and it is unjust. We will absolutely challenge that, too.

We must have your help to do this. Right now you are not providing it.

Unfair, unjust.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

Sure, I'll make a donation!

 

If you would prefer to send a check:
Reader Supported News
PO Box 2043 / Citrus Heights, CA 95611

Follow us on facebook and twitter!

Update My Monthly Donation

 

Reader Supported News
15 July 21

Live on the homepage now!
Reader Supported News

IF IT NEEDS TO BE A BATTLE FOR BASIC FUNDING, LET’S DO IT. We have to have a basic budget. We’re going nowhere without it. For some reason the vast majority of our readers seem to demand free service. If we have to fight with the people who come here for easily achievable basic funding, then so be it. We need help to keep RSN going. Please.
Marc Ash • Founder, Reader Supported News

Sure, I'll make a donation!

 

Sen. Bernie Sanders hugs then vice president Joe Biden at presidential debate on October 15, 2019. (photo: Adam Cairns/Columbus Dispatch)
RSN: Norman Solomon | Bernie Sanders Has Bonded With President Biden. Is That Good?
Norman Solomon, Reader Supported News
Solomon writes: "So far, most of the Biden presidency has been predictable. Its foreign policy includes bloated Pentagon spending and timeworn declarations that the United States should again 'lead the world' and 'sit at the head of the table.'"

o far, most of the Biden presidency has been predictable. Its foreign policy includes bloated Pentagon spending and timeworn declarations that the United States should again “lead the world” and “sit at the head of the table.” Many corporate influence peddlers have settled into jobs in upper reaches of the executive branch. The new administration has taken only baby steps toward student debt relief or progressive taxation. On health care, the White House keeps protecting the interests of insurance companies while rebuffing public opinion that favors Medicare for All.

And yet – Joe Biden is no longer on the narrow corporate road that he traveled during five decades in politics.

President Biden’s recent moves to curtail monopolies have stunned many observers who – extrapolating from his 36-year record in the Senate – logically assumed he would do little to challenge corporate power. Overall, Biden has moved leftward on economic policies, while Sen. Bernie Sanders – who says that “the Biden of today is not what I or others would have expected” decades ago – has gained major clout that extends into the Oval Office.

This month has seen a spate of news stories about Sanders’ new political leverage, not only as chair of the Senate Budget Committee but also due to his close working relationship with Biden. Under the headline “Vermont’s Longtime Outsider Has Become a Trusted Voice in the Biden White House,” CNN summed up: “The Biden-Sanders connection is not a love story; it’s more a marriage of convenience. But as Biden pushes an unprecedented progressive White House agenda, it’s crucial.” Sanders told the network that Biden “wants to be a champion of working families, and I admire that and respect that.”

But if Biden is pushing “an unprecedented progressive White House agenda,” it’s a high jump over a low bar. Leaving aside President Lyndon Johnson’s short-lived Great Society program that was smothered by Vietnam War spending, no White House agendas since the 1940s really merit the term “progressive.” And the current president hardly passes as “a champion of working families” unless he’s graded on an unduly lenient curve.

One danger of Bernie’s tight political embrace of Biden is that “progressive” standards will be redefined downward. Another danger is that Biden’s international policies and conformity to militarism will be further swept off the table of public debate.

For instance, targeting VenezuelaIranCuba and other disfavored nations, Biden continues to impose sanctions that are killing many thousands of people each month, with children especially vulnerable. A truly progressive president would not do such a thing.

Meanwhile – despite strong efforts by Sanders, some other lawmakers, and many human-rights activists – Biden is still abetting Saudi Arabia’s warfare in Yemen that continues to cause the world’s worst humanitarian disaster. “While he is a welcome change from the incompetence, venality, and cruelty of the Trump administration,” epidemiologist Aisha Jumaan and attorney Charles Pierson wrote days ago, “Biden has continued the Obama and Trump administrations’ support for the Saudi-led war on Yemen.” A truly progressive president would not do such a thing.

And then there’s the enormous U.S. military budget, already bloated during the Trump years, which Biden has opted to raise. A truly progressive president would not do such a thing.

There is political and moral peril ahead to the extent that Bernie Sanders – or others who oppose such policies – feel compelled to tamp down denunciations of them in hopes of reaping progressive results by bonding, and not polarizing, with Biden.

In the aftermath of his two presidential campaigns that achieved huge political paradigm shifts, Sanders is now in a unique position. “Sanders already influenced a leftward shift in the Democratic Party through his time on the campaign trail in 2016 and 2020,” Bloomberg News reported last week. “Biden has embraced a series of progressive priorities, including an expanded child tax credit and subsidies for clean energy, and made an attempt at increasing the national minimum wage earlier this year.”

Sanders routinely combines his zeal for the art of the morally imperative with the art of the possible. So, four months ago, he helped push the American Rescue Plan through the Senate and onto Biden’s desk for signing. It resulted in upwards of 160 million direct cash payments to individuals, but did not boost the minimum wage. Sanders commented: “Was it everything we wanted? No. Was it a major step for the working class of this country. You bet it was.”

His approach has been similar this week in the midst of negotiations for a multitrillion-dollar budget plan. After a private White House meeting with Biden that Sanders called a “very good discussion,” the senator told reporters: “He knows and I know that we’re seeing an economy where the very, very rich are getting richer while working families are struggling.”

For genuine progressives, the Sanders-Biden bond is positive to the extent that it helps sway the president’s policies leftward – but negative to the extent that it restrains Sanders, and others in his extended orbit, from publicly confronting Biden about policies that are antithetical to the values that the Bernie 2020 presidential campaign embodied. Today, Sanders’ role is appreciably and necessarily different from the needed roles of grassroots movements that have inspired and been inspired by him.

Progressives cannot and should not be satisfied with the policies of the Biden presidency. Yet breakthrough achievements should not be denied.

At the end of last week, Public Citizen’s president Robert Weissman sent out a mass email hailing big news about Biden’s executive order on monopolies. Noting that Biden “tasked agencies throughout his administration with helping to level the playing field for consumers, workers, and small businesses,” Weissman declared: “Joe Biden just took the most significant action any president has taken in generations to confront the menace of corporate monopolies.”

An exaggeration? Hyperbolic? I wondered. So, I asked a leading progressive economist, Dean Baker.

“I think the enthusiasm is warranted,” Baker replied. “Biden laid out pretty much everything that he could do in terms of executive action. In many cases, everything will depend on the implementation, and also what the courts will buy.” The executive order’s provisions will be legally contested. “But some of these items are a really big deal. In the case of imported prescription drugs, you could easily be talking about [saving] $100 billion a year and if they push hard, possibly as much as $200 billion a year. That comes to more than $600 per person every year.”

Baker added that Biden’s recent appointment of Lina Kahn to be the chair of the Federal Trade Commission “was a really big deal – she is probably the foremost progressive anti-trust scholar in the country.”

Overall, what the Biden administration is doing runs the gamut from very good to very awful. Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders – an extraordinary politician who has always worked in tandem with progressive movements – has landed in an exceptional position to shape history. He recently told an interviewer, “As somebody who wrote a book called ‘Outsider in the House,’ yes, it is a strange experience to be having that kind of influence that we have now.”

As Bernie Sanders continues to navigate that “strange experience,” one of the realms where he excels is public communication. It was aptly summarized a few days ago by Nathan J. Robinson, who wrote that Sanders “is always on message, always trying to make sure the press has to talk about what he wants them to talk about…. Bernie has his flaws and made serious mistakes in both of his presidential campaigns, but he is very good at politics despite his marginal position. If he goes on a talk show, he will be discussing wealth inequality or the future of democracy… Staying relentlessly on message – and thinking about what topics we want to spend our finite resources and time talking about – is critical to having an effective, persuasive left.”

An effective, persuasive left cannot be sustained by any leader, no matter how inspiring or brilliant. With the future at stake, what’s ultimately possible – as the Bernie 2020 motto insisted – is not about him, it’s about us.



Norman Solomon is the national director of RootsAction.org and the author of many books, including War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death. He was a Bernie Sanders delegate from California to the 2016 and 2020 Democratic National Conventions. Solomon is the founder and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

READ MORE

 

Contribute to RSN

Follow us on facebook and twitter!

Update My Monthly Donation

PO Box 2043 / Citrus Heights, CA 95611





Friday, July 9, 2021

POLITICO NIGHTLY: How Biden can strike back against Russian hack attacks

 


 
POLITICO Nightly logo

BY ERIC GELLER

With help from Sarah Owermohle and Myah Ward

BEYOND CTRL-ALT-DELETE — It seems like it was just yesterday that we led POLITICO Nightly with a look at potential solutions to the rising tide of ransomware attacks. And here we go again, after another high-profile cyberattack exposed more frailties in the world’s computer systems.

Unlike the Colonial Pipeline hack, the ransomware attack on the IT software management vendor Kaseya doesn’t appear to have threatened critical infrastructure. Still, it highlights the difficulty of curbing the activities of Russian cyber criminals, who can effectively terrorize businesses around the world with impunity from sanctuaries in Russia and other former Soviet states.

And while President Joe Biden has said that he feels “good about our ability to be able to respond” to these attacks, the truth is that his options are limited, challenging and fraught with peril.

A laptop affected by a ransomware attack is pictured.

A laptop affected by a ransomware attack. | Getty

If intelligence agencies link criminal ransomware gangs to Russian front companies, the Biden administration could hit them with massive financial restrictions. But while sanctions are the easiest, least costly tool in Biden’s arsenal, they may also be the least effective.

After all, years of sanctions have seemingly done nothing to discourage Russian government cyberattacks. And sanctions could prove to be especially toothless against cyber criminals, who haul in their profits through Bitcoin and other digital currencies that bypass the traditional global financial system. Biden officials are reportedly reevaluating the United States’ use of sanctions as a foreign policy tool.

Biden could also push for new regulations on cryptocurrency exchanges, which are popular with hackers because they don’t play by the same rules as banks and other mainstream financial institutions. Many experts say the international community should require these companies to follow “know-your-customer” laws and implement other anti-money-laundering tools. With the exchanges’ help, it would be much easier to block ransom payments and starve out the hackers. But such an effort would require nearly global participation — and any hold-out countries would instantly become attractive headquarters locations for resistant companies.

Another option would be for like-minded nations to adjust trade deals and other partnerships to punish countries that harbor cyber criminals. The Russian economy depends heavily on energy exports, mostly to Europe, and canceling those contracts could significantly destabilize Vladimir Putin’s government.

But the dependency runs both ways: European society relies overwhelmingly on energy imports from Russia. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, usually a staunch U.S. ally, has resisted White House appeals to cancel a planned natural gas pipeline from Russia to Germany.

Biden could even authorize the release of embarrassing or damaging information about Putin, the Russian president’s oligarch allies or the Russian state. U.S. intelligence agencies have undoubtedly collected extensive amounts of such information.

The Obama administration considered this option when responding to Russia’s election interference in 2016. But, as Obama ultimately concluded, this approach could backfire. It could be seen as condoning behavior that the U.S. criticized when WikiLeaks engaged in it, or it could prompt Putin to respond in kind.

The most aggressive options on Biden’s plate are offensive cyber operations, whether aimed at knocking out ransomware gangs’ websites or causing chaos for Moscow as the price for its inaction.

There is some precedent for a digital strike to relieve the pressure of the ransomware scourge: In 2018, U.S. Cyber Command knocked out a Russian troll farm to tamp down on election disinformation.

But hacking ransomware operators could entail significant risks, such as accidentally crippling innocent bystanders’ online infrastructure. Plus, even after a successful U.S. strike, resilient criminals would quickly resurface. Disruptive attacks on Russian government systems, meanwhile, could interfere with spy agencies’ attempts to gather intelligence by monitoring those systems.

Welcome to POLITICO Nightly. Reach out with news, tips and ideas for us at egeller@politico.com, or on Twitter at @ericgeller.

 

SUBSCRIBE TO WEST WING PLAYBOOK: Add West Wing Playbook to keep up with the power players, latest policy developments and intriguing whispers percolating inside the West Wing and across the highest levels of the Cabinet. For buzzy nuggets and details you won't find anywhere else, subscribe today.

 
 
FIRST IN NIGHTLY

NIGHTLY EXCLUSIVE: AMERICANS BACK IMPORTING CHEAP MEDICINES … EXCEPT FROM CHINA — Sarah Owermohle emails Nightly:

There is broad support among American adults for importing less expensive medicines from foreign countries according to a new POLITICO/Harvard poll slated for release next week. The idea of drug importation from Canada has long been floated by Democrats and more recently, former President Donald Trump, who finalized a rule that would let states import medicines across the northern border.

But overwhelming majorities of Americans say we don’t need to restrict cheaper imports to Canada (which has pushed back on the policy). Nearly 80 percent of respondents back Canadian imports, 73 percent endorse shipping from the U.K., 67 percent say they want imports from the European Union, 58 percent want Mexican imports to be legal, and 58 percent are fine with drugs from Japan. But most respondents, 61 percent (including 58 percent of Democrats), say drug imports from China should be illegal.

The poll of 1,009 randomly selected U.S. adults was conducted from June 22 to June 27 and has a margin of error of 3.8 percent.

Despite these numbers, don’t expect action anytime soon. While Trump cleared the path for states to set up drug importation programs, no governor has filed a proposal to start one. And again, Canada wants no part of this.

Plus, China provides U.S. pharmaceutical companies roughly 7 percent of their stock of active pharmaceutical ingredients, the key materials that make certain medicines. So the country is already significantly involved in American drug manufacturing.

The Biden administration withdrew a Trump-era importation rule today, saying no one had applied to use it. The rule — issued in Trump’s final months in office — would have let people personally apply to import insulin from other countries.

Biden has said that he wants to revitalize U.S. drug manufacturing, especially for key generic medicines that saw shortages during the pandemic or have become pricier because of few competitors. But his administration has also moved to dismiss a lawsuit against Trump’s broader rule that lets states import medicines, signaling that Biden is willing to use a range of methods, including importation, to bring costs down.

 

SUBSCRIBE TO "THE RECAST" TODAY: Power is shifting in Washington and in communities across the country. More people are demanding a seat at the table, insisting that politics is personal and not all policy is equitable. The Recast is a twice-weekly newsletter that explores the changing power dynamics in Washington and breaks down how race and identity are recasting politics and policy in America. Get fresh insights, scoops and dispatches on this crucial intersection from across the country and hear critical new voices that challenge business as usual. Don't miss out, SUBSCRIBE . Thank you to our sponsor, Intel.

 
 
WHAT'D I MISS?

— Biden defends U.S. withdrawal: Biden issued a forceful defense today of his decision to withdraw all American troops from Afghanistan and denied it was inevitable that the Taliban would eventually topple the U.S.-backed government in Kabul. In a question-and-answer session with reporters following a brief address from the White House, the president expressed faith in Afghan leaders while effectively washing his hands of America’s longest war, which he said would formally conclude at the end of next month.

— Tokyo Olympics to be held without fansThe Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games, which start on July 23, will be held without spectators because of a new state of emergency over Covid-19 in the Japanese capital. Japan’s Olympics Minister Tamayo Marukawa made the announcement today following discussions with International Olympic Committee officials and competition organizers.

— Delta variant said to be far more widespread than federal estimates: The more-transmissible Delta coronavirus variant is believed to be significantly more widespread than the current federal projections, according to two senior Biden administration health officials with knowledge of the situation. CDC data released late Tuesday shows the Delta strain accounted for more than 51 percent of new Covid-19 cases from June 20 to July 3. But the reality on the ground is likely much higher because states and private labs are taking weeks to report testing results to the CDC, the officials said.

— Harris announces expansion of voting campaign: Vice President Kamala Harris today announced a $25 million expansion of the Democratic National Committee’s “I Will Vote” campaign , a move intended to increase voter registration, turnout and protections. The announcement comes a week after the Supreme Court upheld restrictive voting laws in Arizona, and after 17 states have enacted dozens of new laws this year that restrict voting access, according to the most recent tally. Nearly 400 restrictive bills across 48 states have been introduced.

TALKING TO THE EXPERTS

HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra

CAN WE INTEREST YOU IN A SHOT TODAY? HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra opened the door today for more backlash to the Biden administration’s Covid vaccination push when he said “it is absolutely the government’s business” to know which Americans have been vaccinated against coronavirus. Becerra said later today that his comments were “taken wildly out of context,” while clarifying that the U.S. does not have a database tracking who’s had the shot.

Republicans have blasted Biden this week for saying his administration needs to send people “door-to-door” to help Americans get vaccinated. White House press secretary Jen Psaki said today that the door-knocking is done by doctors, faith leaders and other community volunteers, not government officials. The administration’s renewed push also includes setting up clinics at workplaces and urging employers to offer paid time off for vaccinations.

Nightly’s Myah Ward asked public health experts whether door-knocking is an effective vaccination strategy, and what else the administration should do to target hard-to-reach populations at this stage in the pandemic.

“Making vaccines available to individuals with the greatest convenience, which is exemplified by a one-on-one, door-to-door approach, may persuade some to become vaccinated. The days in which mass vaccination centers were the best way to get the population vaccinated are long gone as the numbers of those who were eager to be vaccinated have fallen. Door-to-door vaccine approaches, in order to be optimal, should ideally involve familiar trusted community members and primary care physicians — having vaccines in primary care offices should also be routine. Full FDA approval of the vaccines is also something that will diminish vaccine hesitancy.” — Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security

“The best approach is the other measures President Biden proposed in that same speech, which are mobile vans, bringing vaccinations to work places, asking employers to give paid time off for vaccines, providing free child care and transportation for vaccinations, community messengers and providing the shot in local pharmacies and doctors offices. I don’t think going door-to-door is necessary and could be considered an invasion of privacy.” — Monica Gandhi, infectious diseases expert at the University of California at San Francisco

“The problem we are facing is a social and logistical one more so than a biological one at this point. We need to get more shots into arms. The Biden administration’s door-to-door efforts, as well as bringing vaccines to workplaces and clinics, and pushing for paid time off for vaccinations is critically important. In global health, we face the ‘last mile’ problem — getting health interventions to hard-to-reach populations by whatever means necessary. We are facing the same here, and all efforts to bridge the ‘access’ gap are crucial right now. There will still be some who refuse vaccines altogether — I don’t expect we will reach 100 percent, nor will we need to in order to further control the epidemic.” — Abraar Karan, infectious disease fellow in the Division of Infectious Diseases and Geographic Medicine at Stanford University

“Increased spread anywhere provides opportunity for the virus to evolve further, with new strains that could be even more deadly than Delta. We can save tens of thousands of more lives by taming the virus through vaccinations. Going door-to-door to offer information and facilitate vaccination for unvaccinated people can help address lack of access in many communities. But it’s equally important we address vaccine hesitancy, along with the polarization, politicization and misinformation that comes with it. We need to reach all unvaccinated populations in different geographic communities, of different races, age groups, political affiliations and genders by using the right messages and messengers, tailored for each group. Different populations will be more receptive to receiving vaccine information and the vaccine itself in different ways. There is no one-size-fits-all to reach the unvaccinated.” — Tom Frieden, former CDC director and president and CEO of Resolve to Save Lives, an initiative of the global health organization Vital Strategies

“President Biden’s proposal to send health workers into communities to help with vaccination efforts is good public health practice. Simply hoping individuals will show up on their own at clinics or pharmacies is not sufficient. Taking vaccines out into the community allows us to reach people who may be willing to be vaccinated but have so far been unable — e.g., those who are homebound, don’t have ready access to computers to figure out where to go to get vaccinated, don’t live near a vaccination site, or have questions about vaccines that they haven’t been able to get answered. Though much attention has been given to people who may be deeply opposed to getting vaccinated, we must remember that there are also people out there who have not yet been vaccinated simply because they need more help or information. The privacy of personal health information is an important concern. But it’s not a violation of privacy to go to communities and provide education about the safety and benefits of vaccination and vaccines to people who want them.” — Jennifer Nuzzo , epidemiologist and director of the Outbreak Observatory at Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Health Security

“There are obviously groups of people who continue to be hesitant, so if we can have one-on-one discussions with these people to understand and address these concerns on a granular level, then maybe we can turn the tide in communities where vaccine uptake has not been ideal and prevent future surges. I hope that these door-to-door initiatives will not only encourage individuals to get vaccinated, but also provide more information about what lingering concerns remain in the public so we can better address them on a national scale to increase vaccine uptake.” — Krutika Kuppalli, professor of medicine in the Division of Infectious Diseases at the Medical University of South Carolina

NIGHTLY NUMBER

30

The number of years in prison Michael Avenatti was sentenced to today. Avenatti, the California lawyer who once represented Stormy Daniels in lawsuits against Trump, was sentenced for trying to extort up to $25 million from Nike by threatening the company with bad publicity.

PARTING WORDS

THE GROUP NOT MAKING IT TO CITY HALL — In April, when Andrew Yang’s name was plastered across news sites and the onetime presidential candidate topped polls in New York’s Democratic mayoral primary, it seemed like a sign of changing times: Here was an “ABC” (American-born Chinese) hoping to seize the top seat in the nation’s largest city — and standing a real chance of winning.

But several months later, Yang finished a distant fourth in the mayoral primary, becoming the first serious contender to drop out. For many Asian Americans, the loss came as little surprise. Despite a boost in visibility for AAPI issues over the past few years and recent successes at the congressional level, Asians are underrepresented in the mayoral seat, compared with their share of the urban population, editorial intern Joel Lau writes.

Asians are America’s fastest growing ethnic group. In the past 20 years, the Asian American population has nearly doubled, to 23 million people. Of these, more than 97 percent live in metropolitan areas as of 2016, compared with 81 percent of white people. Asian Americans’ share of the population is particularly high in many coastal cities: 34 percent of San Jose, Calif., is Asian, for instance, as is 14 percent of New York.

Yet, when it comes to municipal contests, Asian Americans consistently underperform, even compared with other minority groups. While Asian people make up 7 percent of the U.S. population overall, they made up just 2 percent of all elected city officials as of 2020. By contrast, Black people, who make up 13 percent of the U.S. population, held 21 percent of municipal seats. Of America’s 100 most populous municipalities, just three were led by Asian mayors in 2019 — all in California. Even looking at the 25 large cities with the highest proportion of AAPI residents, just eight have ever elected an Asian chief executive — again, all in California.

Did someone forward this email to you? Sign up here.

 

Follow us on Twitter

Renuka Rayasam @renurayasam

Chris Suellentrop @suellentrop

Tyler Weyant @tweyant

Myah Ward @myahward

 

FOLLOW US


POLITICO, LLC 1000 Wilson Blvd. Arlington, VA, 22209, USA





"Look Me In The Eye" | Lucas Kunce for Missouri

  Help Lucas Kunce defeat Josh Hawley in November: https://LucasKunce.com/chip-in/ Josh Hawley has been a proud leader in the fight to ...