Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Celerity
Celerity's Journal
Celerity's Journal
February 10, 2024
A spectre is haunting Europe, Paul Mason writes. It is the spectre of Trumpism, mark two.
https://www.socialeurope.eu/europes-nightmare-an-isolationist-america
Brooding presence: Donald Trump at the NATO summit in Brussels in 2018, next to the secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg
On the evidence of the first month of this year’s polling, Donald Trump could beat Joe Biden in the American presidential election in November. There is a long way to go—on the campaign trail and in the courts—but the minds of European leaders are turning to the nightmare question: what happens to Ukraine, and indeed to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, if Trump becomes president again? It haunted Emmanuel Macron, as the French president addressed the Swedish Defence Academy last week. ‘This is a decisive and testing moment for Europe. We must be ready to act to defend and support Ukraine whatever it takes and whatever America decides,’ said Macron, hinting that the project could strengthen Europe’s autonomy from its transatlantic ally.
The same fear lies behind a joint letter, signed by the German chancellor, Olaf Scholz, and the prime ministers of Estonia, Denmark, the Netherlands and the Czech Republic, calling for a major scale-up of European military aid to Ukraine. ‘If Ukraine loses,’ the letter says, ‘the long-term consequences and costs will be much higher for all of us.’ There was relief on Thursday at the unanimous decision by the European Council to raise €50 billion for Ukraine during the next two years—the Hungarian prime minister, Viktor Orbán, having withdrawn under pressure his earlier veto. But the strategic concern remains.
Political capital
Despite Trump’s threat, under his previous presidency, to walk away from NATO, made at the organisation’s Brussels summit in 2018, it is unlikely that the United States would pull out of the alliance altogether, were he re-elected. A decision to abrogate the 1949 North Atlantic Treaty would require a vote in Congress and expend political capital Trump may not have. By executive order he could however draw down American personnel from NATO duties in Europe or—following the model of France from 1966 to 2009—withdraw from the military-command structures of NATO. More particularly, he could pull aid, intelligence support and the supply of ammunition to Ukraine, in an attempt to engineer a sell-out peace deal favouring Russia. So European leaders face three huge challenges. They need to find tens of billions of euro to plug a funding gap left by the US. They must ramp up their fragmented and competing arms industries to supply the weapons, ammunition and intelligence needed.
And they must do all this while mounting a credible force at NATO’s borders—to deter further Russian aggression—with no guarantee of American backing. Let us be honest. Suppose that they could find the money and that they could scale Europe’s defence industrial capacity to support Ukraine—even that the United Kingdom as a NATO though ex-EU member were fully integrated into the project. The intelligence, surveillance, targeting and reconnaissance tasks now carried out under US leadership would be beyond the European powers as currently equipped. Whether they committed to the task and failed or—more likely—folded in the face of the enormity of the problem, the implications for Ukraine would be the same. It would be forced to seek a temporary peace with Russia, to avoid being overrun once again in the summer of 2025.
Strategic concept...............
snip
Europe's nightmare: an isolationist America
A spectre is haunting Europe, Paul Mason writes. It is the spectre of Trumpism, mark two.
https://www.socialeurope.eu/europes-nightmare-an-isolationist-america
Brooding presence: Donald Trump at the NATO summit in Brussels in 2018, next to the secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg
On the evidence of the first month of this year’s polling, Donald Trump could beat Joe Biden in the American presidential election in November. There is a long way to go—on the campaign trail and in the courts—but the minds of European leaders are turning to the nightmare question: what happens to Ukraine, and indeed to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, if Trump becomes president again? It haunted Emmanuel Macron, as the French president addressed the Swedish Defence Academy last week. ‘This is a decisive and testing moment for Europe. We must be ready to act to defend and support Ukraine whatever it takes and whatever America decides,’ said Macron, hinting that the project could strengthen Europe’s autonomy from its transatlantic ally.
The same fear lies behind a joint letter, signed by the German chancellor, Olaf Scholz, and the prime ministers of Estonia, Denmark, the Netherlands and the Czech Republic, calling for a major scale-up of European military aid to Ukraine. ‘If Ukraine loses,’ the letter says, ‘the long-term consequences and costs will be much higher for all of us.’ There was relief on Thursday at the unanimous decision by the European Council to raise €50 billion for Ukraine during the next two years—the Hungarian prime minister, Viktor Orbán, having withdrawn under pressure his earlier veto. But the strategic concern remains.
Political capital
Despite Trump’s threat, under his previous presidency, to walk away from NATO, made at the organisation’s Brussels summit in 2018, it is unlikely that the United States would pull out of the alliance altogether, were he re-elected. A decision to abrogate the 1949 North Atlantic Treaty would require a vote in Congress and expend political capital Trump may not have. By executive order he could however draw down American personnel from NATO duties in Europe or—following the model of France from 1966 to 2009—withdraw from the military-command structures of NATO. More particularly, he could pull aid, intelligence support and the supply of ammunition to Ukraine, in an attempt to engineer a sell-out peace deal favouring Russia. So European leaders face three huge challenges. They need to find tens of billions of euro to plug a funding gap left by the US. They must ramp up their fragmented and competing arms industries to supply the weapons, ammunition and intelligence needed.
And they must do all this while mounting a credible force at NATO’s borders—to deter further Russian aggression—with no guarantee of American backing. Let us be honest. Suppose that they could find the money and that they could scale Europe’s defence industrial capacity to support Ukraine—even that the United Kingdom as a NATO though ex-EU member were fully integrated into the project. The intelligence, surveillance, targeting and reconnaissance tasks now carried out under US leadership would be beyond the European powers as currently equipped. Whether they committed to the task and failed or—more likely—folded in the face of the enormity of the problem, the implications for Ukraine would be the same. It would be forced to seek a temporary peace with Russia, to avoid being overrun once again in the summer of 2025.
Strategic concept...............
snip
February 10, 2024
Collapse in system of currents that helps regulate global climate would be at such speed that adaptation would be impossible
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/feb/09/atlantic-ocean-circulation-nearing-devastating-tipping-point-study-finds
Sea levels in the Atlantic would rise by a metre in some regions and temperatures around the world would fluctuate far more erratically. Photograph: Henrik Egede-Lassen/Zoomedia/PA
The circulation of the Atlantic Ocean is heading towards a tipping point that is “bad news for the climate system and humanity”, a study has found. The scientists behind the research said they were shocked at the forecast speed of collapse once the point is reached, although they said it was not yet possible to predict how soon that would happen. Using computer models and past data, the researchers developed an early warning indicator for the breakdown of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (Amoc), a vast system of ocean currents that is a key component in global climate regulation. They found Amoc is already on track towards an abrupt shift, which has not happened for more than 10,000 years and would have dire implications for large parts of the world.
Amoc, which encompasses part of the Gulf Stream and other powerful currents, is a marine conveyer belt that carries heat, carbon and nutrients from the tropics towards the Arctic Circle, where it cools and sinks into the deep ocean. This churning helps to distribute energy around the Earth and modulates the impact of human-caused global heating. But the system is being eroded by the faster-than-expected melt-off of Greenland’s glaciers and Arctic ice sheets, which pours freshwater into the sea and obstructs the sinking of saltier, warmer water from the south. Amoc has declined 15% since 1950 and is in its weakest state in more than a millennium, according to previous research that prompted speculation about an approaching collapse.
Until now there has been no consensus about how severe this will be. One study last year, based on changes in sea surface temperatures, suggested the tipping point could happen between 2025 and 2095. However, the UK Met Office said large, rapid changes in Amoc were “very unlikely” in the 21st century. The new paper, published in Science Advances, has broken new ground by looking for warning signs in the salinity levels at the southern extent of the Atlantic Ocean between Cape Town and Buenos Aires. Simulating changes over a period of 2,000 years on computer models of the global climate, it found a slow decline can lead to a sudden collapse over less than 100 years, with calamitous consequences.
The paper said the results provided a “clear answer” about whether such an abrupt shift was possible: “This is bad news for the climate system and humanity as up till now one could think that Amoc tipping was only a theoretical concept and tipping would disappear as soon as the full climate system, with all its additional feedbacks, was considered.” It also mapped some of the consequences of Amoc collapse. Sea levels in the Atlantic would rise by a metre in some regions, inundating many coastal cities. The wet and dry seasons in the Amazon would flip, potentially pushing the already weakened rainforest past its own tipping point. Temperatures around the world would fluctuate far more erratically. The southern hemisphere would become warmer. Europe would cool dramatically and have less rainfall. While this might sound appealing compared with the current heating trend, the changes would hit 10 times faster than now, making adaptation almost impossible.
snip
Atlantic Ocean circulation nearing 'devastating' tipping point, study finds
Collapse in system of currents that helps regulate global climate would be at such speed that adaptation would be impossible
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/feb/09/atlantic-ocean-circulation-nearing-devastating-tipping-point-study-finds
Sea levels in the Atlantic would rise by a metre in some regions and temperatures around the world would fluctuate far more erratically. Photograph: Henrik Egede-Lassen/Zoomedia/PA
The circulation of the Atlantic Ocean is heading towards a tipping point that is “bad news for the climate system and humanity”, a study has found. The scientists behind the research said they were shocked at the forecast speed of collapse once the point is reached, although they said it was not yet possible to predict how soon that would happen. Using computer models and past data, the researchers developed an early warning indicator for the breakdown of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (Amoc), a vast system of ocean currents that is a key component in global climate regulation. They found Amoc is already on track towards an abrupt shift, which has not happened for more than 10,000 years and would have dire implications for large parts of the world.
Amoc, which encompasses part of the Gulf Stream and other powerful currents, is a marine conveyer belt that carries heat, carbon and nutrients from the tropics towards the Arctic Circle, where it cools and sinks into the deep ocean. This churning helps to distribute energy around the Earth and modulates the impact of human-caused global heating. But the system is being eroded by the faster-than-expected melt-off of Greenland’s glaciers and Arctic ice sheets, which pours freshwater into the sea and obstructs the sinking of saltier, warmer water from the south. Amoc has declined 15% since 1950 and is in its weakest state in more than a millennium, according to previous research that prompted speculation about an approaching collapse.
Until now there has been no consensus about how severe this will be. One study last year, based on changes in sea surface temperatures, suggested the tipping point could happen between 2025 and 2095. However, the UK Met Office said large, rapid changes in Amoc were “very unlikely” in the 21st century. The new paper, published in Science Advances, has broken new ground by looking for warning signs in the salinity levels at the southern extent of the Atlantic Ocean between Cape Town and Buenos Aires. Simulating changes over a period of 2,000 years on computer models of the global climate, it found a slow decline can lead to a sudden collapse over less than 100 years, with calamitous consequences.
The paper said the results provided a “clear answer” about whether such an abrupt shift was possible: “This is bad news for the climate system and humanity as up till now one could think that Amoc tipping was only a theoretical concept and tipping would disappear as soon as the full climate system, with all its additional feedbacks, was considered.” It also mapped some of the consequences of Amoc collapse. Sea levels in the Atlantic would rise by a metre in some regions, inundating many coastal cities. The wet and dry seasons in the Amazon would flip, potentially pushing the already weakened rainforest past its own tipping point. Temperatures around the world would fluctuate far more erratically. The southern hemisphere would become warmer. Europe would cool dramatically and have less rainfall. While this might sound appealing compared with the current heating trend, the changes would hit 10 times faster than now, making adaptation almost impossible.
snip
February 10, 2024
https://prospect.org/blogs-and-newsletters/tap/2024-02-09-partisan-hit-job-president-biden/
President Joe Biden delivers remarks in response to the release of the special counsel’s report in the classified documents case, February 8, 2024, in the Diplomatic Room at the White House.
Special Counsel Robert Hur, in the course of explaining why he was not filing charges against President Biden for taking home some classified documents, wrote a 345-page report with gratuitous and nasty asides about Biden’s age and memory. It reads like something written by the Trump campaign as a hit job. You’d almost think Hur was a Republican operative. Well, in fact Hur was Donald Trump’s appointee to serve as U.S. attorney for Maryland, a post he held from 2018 to 2021. Before that, Hur was principal associate deputy attorney general in the Trump Justice Department. He is a self-identified Republican.
So why did Attorney General Merrick Garland appoint a partisan Republican as special counsel to investigate President Biden, when dozens of other well-qualified people were available? Good question. Garland, once again, has proven to be Biden’s worst appointee. Out of a colossally naïve sense of fairness, at a time when Republicans are out for blood, Garland also dithered for more than a year before appointing Special Counsel Jack Smith, in November 2022, to investigate Trump’s most flagrant and prosecutable breach of the law, his attempted coup of January 6, 2021, where all the evidence was in plain view. Garland acted reluctantly only after the House Select Committee on January 6th did all the investigative work and provided both the pressure and the road map.
Based on the facts, Hur should have written a short report pointing out that Biden’s actions did not rise to the level of criminal offenses. That, after all, was his conclusion and should have been the headline. Instead, Hur delivered a book-length indictment of Biden’s age and memory, going out of his way to offer politically damaging and snarky assertions, and quotable one-liners. Explaining, disingenuously, why a jury would be unlikely to convict (a separate question from Hur’s own conclusion that Biden had not committed an indictable offense), Hur imagines that a jury would view Biden as “a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.” But these are Hur’s own words; the jury is imaginary. Hur can’t quite make these patronizing assertions himself, so he puts them in the mind of a jury of his own invention. You can just imagine Hur savoring the gimmick, the language, and relishing the political damage.
The timing was also suspicious. Hur picked a moment when Republicans were reeling from their divisions over border policy and Ukraine; their House and Senate leaders were losing the confidence of their respective caucuses; and the toadying to Trump had become its own embarrassment. The report put the spotlight back on Biden’s vulnerabilities and Democratic divisions. This document, as planned, led to a media feeding frenzy. At a hastily called press conference, Biden expressed outrage that Hur would contend that he didn’t remember when his son Beau died, an assertion as implausible as it is deliberately insulting. On the whole, Biden did not do badly on his feet, except when he momentarily referred to Egyptian president Sisi as the president of Mexico. But Biden gave a good accounting of the complex Gaza diplomacy, and the Mexico slip pales compared with Trump’s prolonged confusion of Nikki Haley with Nancy Pelosi.
snip
A Partisan Hit Job on President Biden
https://prospect.org/blogs-and-newsletters/tap/2024-02-09-partisan-hit-job-president-biden/
President Joe Biden delivers remarks in response to the release of the special counsel’s report in the classified documents case, February 8, 2024, in the Diplomatic Room at the White House.
Special Counsel Robert Hur, in the course of explaining why he was not filing charges against President Biden for taking home some classified documents, wrote a 345-page report with gratuitous and nasty asides about Biden’s age and memory. It reads like something written by the Trump campaign as a hit job. You’d almost think Hur was a Republican operative. Well, in fact Hur was Donald Trump’s appointee to serve as U.S. attorney for Maryland, a post he held from 2018 to 2021. Before that, Hur was principal associate deputy attorney general in the Trump Justice Department. He is a self-identified Republican.
So why did Attorney General Merrick Garland appoint a partisan Republican as special counsel to investigate President Biden, when dozens of other well-qualified people were available? Good question. Garland, once again, has proven to be Biden’s worst appointee. Out of a colossally naïve sense of fairness, at a time when Republicans are out for blood, Garland also dithered for more than a year before appointing Special Counsel Jack Smith, in November 2022, to investigate Trump’s most flagrant and prosecutable breach of the law, his attempted coup of January 6, 2021, where all the evidence was in plain view. Garland acted reluctantly only after the House Select Committee on January 6th did all the investigative work and provided both the pressure and the road map.
Based on the facts, Hur should have written a short report pointing out that Biden’s actions did not rise to the level of criminal offenses. That, after all, was his conclusion and should have been the headline. Instead, Hur delivered a book-length indictment of Biden’s age and memory, going out of his way to offer politically damaging and snarky assertions, and quotable one-liners. Explaining, disingenuously, why a jury would be unlikely to convict (a separate question from Hur’s own conclusion that Biden had not committed an indictable offense), Hur imagines that a jury would view Biden as “a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.” But these are Hur’s own words; the jury is imaginary. Hur can’t quite make these patronizing assertions himself, so he puts them in the mind of a jury of his own invention. You can just imagine Hur savoring the gimmick, the language, and relishing the political damage.
The timing was also suspicious. Hur picked a moment when Republicans were reeling from their divisions over border policy and Ukraine; their House and Senate leaders were losing the confidence of their respective caucuses; and the toadying to Trump had become its own embarrassment. The report put the spotlight back on Biden’s vulnerabilities and Democratic divisions. This document, as planned, led to a media feeding frenzy. At a hastily called press conference, Biden expressed outrage that Hur would contend that he didn’t remember when his son Beau died, an assertion as implausible as it is deliberately insulting. On the whole, Biden did not do badly on his feet, except when he momentarily referred to Egyptian president Sisi as the president of Mexico. But Biden gave a good accounting of the complex Gaza diplomacy, and the Mexico slip pales compared with Trump’s prolonged confusion of Nikki Haley with Nancy Pelosi.
snip
February 9, 2024
Omnipollo - Graveyard Shift: I Don't Even Know What I'm Doing Next Friday (IMPERIAL/DUBBEL IPA) 🖤🖤🖤
My weekend recco!
February 9, 2024
A film by Samantha Moore, inspired by the Shropshire sun pendant.
https://psyche.co/films/a-bronze-age-pendant-links-lives-centuries-apart-in-this-wondrous-short
In 2018, a lone metal detectorist made what’s widely considered to be one of the most significant archaeological discoveries of the 21st century. Scanning fields in the English county of Shropshire, the finder unearthed an impeccably well-preserved gold pendant that dates back to roughly 1000 BCE. With only one similar object ever found – and then subsequently lost – in England’s history, the ‘Shropshire bulla’ expresses the centrality of the Sun in Bronze Age mythology. With precise, repeating geometric patterns carved into glimmering gold, it’s also, quite simply, beautiful.
Inspired by the discovery, this short from the UK animator Samantha Moore, who consulted with archeologists and historians in the film’s creation, imagines the stories of the pendant’s owner and discoverer – separated by centuries, yet inextricably linked. In the present day, a metal detector hobbyist heads out to survey the countryside. In the ancient past, the piece is forged, engraved, handed to a young pregnant woman, and ultimately sacrificed as a spiritual offering. Wordlessly told, the parallel tales are united both by their flowing, hand-drawn animations and by the sense of wonder and shared humanity that ripples through them.
Treasure was commissioned by Shrewsbury Museum & Art Gallery, with the support of BFI NETWORK, awarding funds from the National Lottery.
A Bronze Age pendant links lives centuries apart in this wondrous short
Treasure
A film by Samantha Moore, inspired by the Shropshire sun pendant.
https://psyche.co/films/a-bronze-age-pendant-links-lives-centuries-apart-in-this-wondrous-short
In 2018, a lone metal detectorist made what’s widely considered to be one of the most significant archaeological discoveries of the 21st century. Scanning fields in the English county of Shropshire, the finder unearthed an impeccably well-preserved gold pendant that dates back to roughly 1000 BCE. With only one similar object ever found – and then subsequently lost – in England’s history, the ‘Shropshire bulla’ expresses the centrality of the Sun in Bronze Age mythology. With precise, repeating geometric patterns carved into glimmering gold, it’s also, quite simply, beautiful.
Inspired by the discovery, this short from the UK animator Samantha Moore, who consulted with archeologists and historians in the film’s creation, imagines the stories of the pendant’s owner and discoverer – separated by centuries, yet inextricably linked. In the present day, a metal detector hobbyist heads out to survey the countryside. In the ancient past, the piece is forged, engraved, handed to a young pregnant woman, and ultimately sacrificed as a spiritual offering. Wordlessly told, the parallel tales are united both by their flowing, hand-drawn animations and by the sense of wonder and shared humanity that ripples through them.
Treasure was commissioned by Shrewsbury Museum & Art Gallery, with the support of BFI NETWORK, awarding funds from the National Lottery.
February 9, 2024
https://www.axios.com/2024/02/09/larry-hogan-republican-senate-2024
What he's saying: Hogan struck a moderate tone in a video announcing his run, saying he doesn't "come from the performative art school of politics." "We desperately need leaders willing to stand up to both parties – leaders that appreciate that no one of us has all the answers or all the power," he said.
https://twitter.com/GovLarryHogan/status/1755998920981799338
The backdrop: A businessman and son of a former congressman, Hogan was first elected governor in 2014 by nearly four percentage points and reelected by 12 points in 2018. A moderate and harsh critic of former President Trump, Hogan left office in 2023 as one of the most popular governors in the country. Hogan flirted with a third-party presidential bid backed by the non-partisan group No Labels, but ultimately endorsed Republican Nikki Haley for president.
The other side: The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee signaled plans to tie the arch-centrist Hogan to the more conservative national GOP. "A vote for Republican Larry Hogan is a vote to make Mitch McConnell Majority Leader and turn the Senate over to Republicans so they can pass a national abortion ban," DSCC spokesperson Maeve Coyle said in a statement.
"Democrats have won every statewide federal election in Maryland for 44 years and 2024 will be no different."
State of play: Maryland is a heavily Democratic state, having voted for President Biden by more than 33 percentage points in 2020. With a presidential election coinciding with the Senate election in November, Hogan will likely face difficult headwinds.
Democrats have a competitive primary between Rep. David Trone (D-Md.), a self-funding businessman, and Angela Alsobrooks, the executive of Prince George's County.
snip
Former Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan to run for Senate
Former Gov. Larry Hogan (R-Md.) on Friday announced a bid to replace retiring Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.). His run puts a state otherwise out of reach for Republicans into play, further complicating Democrats' already tough 2024 Senate map.https://www.axios.com/2024/02/09/larry-hogan-republican-senate-2024
What he's saying: Hogan struck a moderate tone in a video announcing his run, saying he doesn't "come from the performative art school of politics." "We desperately need leaders willing to stand up to both parties – leaders that appreciate that no one of us has all the answers or all the power," he said.
https://twitter.com/GovLarryHogan/status/1755998920981799338
The backdrop: A businessman and son of a former congressman, Hogan was first elected governor in 2014 by nearly four percentage points and reelected by 12 points in 2018. A moderate and harsh critic of former President Trump, Hogan left office in 2023 as one of the most popular governors in the country. Hogan flirted with a third-party presidential bid backed by the non-partisan group No Labels, but ultimately endorsed Republican Nikki Haley for president.
The other side: The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee signaled plans to tie the arch-centrist Hogan to the more conservative national GOP. "A vote for Republican Larry Hogan is a vote to make Mitch McConnell Majority Leader and turn the Senate over to Republicans so they can pass a national abortion ban," DSCC spokesperson Maeve Coyle said in a statement.
"Democrats have won every statewide federal election in Maryland for 44 years and 2024 will be no different."
State of play: Maryland is a heavily Democratic state, having voted for President Biden by more than 33 percentage points in 2020. With a presidential election coinciding with the Senate election in November, Hogan will likely face difficult headwinds.
Democrats have a competitive primary between Rep. David Trone (D-Md.), a self-funding businessman, and Angela Alsobrooks, the executive of Prince George's County.
snip
February 9, 2024
https://prospect.org/health/2024-02-08-bernie-sanders-congress-high-drug-prices/
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) speaks during a news conference on the Senate HELP Committee’s subpoenas of pharmaceutical company representatives to discuss drug prices, January 25, 2024, at the Capitol in Washington.
Today, CEOs for Johnson & Johnson, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Merck, three of the world’s biggest pharmaceutical companies, testify before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, chaired by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). The CEOs are likely to defend themselves from public outrage over the exorbitant cost of prescription drugs, which has made them and their companies fabulously rich. They will probably not be as blunt as a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed on the subject, which had the headline “Be Thankful for High Drug Prices.” “It’s funny you mention that, I was thinking about it five minutes ago,” Sanders told me with a laugh, in an interview to preview the hearing. “I thought maybe I will send that op-ed to the hundreds of people who have communicated with us, whose spouses have died, family members have died, because they couldn’t afford prescription drugs.”
The argument in the Journal op-ed is a familiar one from defenders of the pharmaceutical industry, which, as Sanders’s committee notes in a pre-hearing report, saw its ten leading companies earn over $112 billion in profits in 2022 alone. Both the op-ed and the Sanders HELP Committee report note that Merck has earned more from its cancer drug Keytruda in the U.S. ($43.4 billion since 2015) than it has in every other nation combined ($30 billion). This imbalance is also true of top drugs from Johnson & Johnson (Stelara) and Bristol Myers Squibb (Eliquis). But op-ed authors David Henderson and Charles Hooper, respectively, a Hoover Institution fellow and the head of a business consulting firm with dozens of pharmaceutical clients, claim that since the rest of the world is free-riding on U.S. drug development, U.S. patients simply have to fund the research that goes into developing lifesaving treatments.
In other words, the fact that Americans pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs, often three times or more than the residents of other industrialized countries, is just a necessary expense for innovation, and reducing prices would destroy the industry. “Suck it up” would be a good summary of their case. Sen. Sanders has a different view. He noted that Johnson & Johnson and Bristol Myers Squibb, two of the companies participating in today’s hearing, spent more on stock buybacks, dividends, and executive compensation in 2022 than on research and development. Moreover, their innovation often goes to “me-too drugs,” where, as Sanders said, “they are trying to make minor alterations to get another patent and maintain their monopoly.” Indeed, the HELP Committee report found that Merck put 168 different patents on Keytruda, 64 percent of them after it received FDA approval. These “patent thickets” are designed to extend the exclusivity period.
Two of the three drugs in the crosshairs of Sanders’s investigation—Johnson & Johnson’s Stelara and Bristol Myers Squibb’s Eliquis—are among the first ten drugs selected by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for price negotiation in Medicare. Both companies have filed suit against the U.S. to block the price negotiation, which is the crown jewel of the drug reforms in the Inflation Reduction Act. Other reforms for Medicare beneficiaries include a cap on out-of-pocket drug costs (down to $3,300 this year and $2,000 in 2025), a $35-per-month cap on insulin, and a rebate from drug companies on price increases that exceed the rate of inflation.
snip
Bernie Sanders Isn't Thankful for High Drug Prices
https://prospect.org/health/2024-02-08-bernie-sanders-congress-high-drug-prices/
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) speaks during a news conference on the Senate HELP Committee’s subpoenas of pharmaceutical company representatives to discuss drug prices, January 25, 2024, at the Capitol in Washington.
Today, CEOs for Johnson & Johnson, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Merck, three of the world’s biggest pharmaceutical companies, testify before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, chaired by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). The CEOs are likely to defend themselves from public outrage over the exorbitant cost of prescription drugs, which has made them and their companies fabulously rich. They will probably not be as blunt as a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed on the subject, which had the headline “Be Thankful for High Drug Prices.” “It’s funny you mention that, I was thinking about it five minutes ago,” Sanders told me with a laugh, in an interview to preview the hearing. “I thought maybe I will send that op-ed to the hundreds of people who have communicated with us, whose spouses have died, family members have died, because they couldn’t afford prescription drugs.”
The argument in the Journal op-ed is a familiar one from defenders of the pharmaceutical industry, which, as Sanders’s committee notes in a pre-hearing report, saw its ten leading companies earn over $112 billion in profits in 2022 alone. Both the op-ed and the Sanders HELP Committee report note that Merck has earned more from its cancer drug Keytruda in the U.S. ($43.4 billion since 2015) than it has in every other nation combined ($30 billion). This imbalance is also true of top drugs from Johnson & Johnson (Stelara) and Bristol Myers Squibb (Eliquis). But op-ed authors David Henderson and Charles Hooper, respectively, a Hoover Institution fellow and the head of a business consulting firm with dozens of pharmaceutical clients, claim that since the rest of the world is free-riding on U.S. drug development, U.S. patients simply have to fund the research that goes into developing lifesaving treatments.
In other words, the fact that Americans pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs, often three times or more than the residents of other industrialized countries, is just a necessary expense for innovation, and reducing prices would destroy the industry. “Suck it up” would be a good summary of their case. Sen. Sanders has a different view. He noted that Johnson & Johnson and Bristol Myers Squibb, two of the companies participating in today’s hearing, spent more on stock buybacks, dividends, and executive compensation in 2022 than on research and development. Moreover, their innovation often goes to “me-too drugs,” where, as Sanders said, “they are trying to make minor alterations to get another patent and maintain their monopoly.” Indeed, the HELP Committee report found that Merck put 168 different patents on Keytruda, 64 percent of them after it received FDA approval. These “patent thickets” are designed to extend the exclusivity period.
Two of the three drugs in the crosshairs of Sanders’s investigation—Johnson & Johnson’s Stelara and Bristol Myers Squibb’s Eliquis—are among the first ten drugs selected by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for price negotiation in Medicare. Both companies have filed suit against the U.S. to block the price negotiation, which is the crown jewel of the drug reforms in the Inflation Reduction Act. Other reforms for Medicare beneficiaries include a cap on out-of-pocket drug costs (down to $3,300 this year and $2,000 in 2025), a $35-per-month cap on insulin, and a rebate from drug companies on price increases that exceed the rate of inflation.
snip
February 9, 2024
The centrist fantasies of his glib, nonpartisan No Labels group aren’t the cure for today’s angry politics. They’re the target.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/04/no-labels-centrist-fantasies-are-the-problem-not-the-solution.html
Former Sen. Joe Lieberman, co-chairman of the nonpartisan “problem-solving” advocacy group No Labels, has a novel theory of what we’re seeing this campaign. “Take a look at the two most interesting, surprising candidacies of the presidential year,” he said Thursday at an event celebrating the release of No Labels’ “policy playbook” for the 2016 election. “They want people to do something different. The best politics may be unconventional politics.” Lieberman, unconventionally, was explaining why he believes the moment is ripe for entitlement reform.
Perhaps No Labels has been watching a different election. Anger and the appetite for breaking the status quo in Washington are absolutely the gusts lifting the campaigns of Donald Trump and Sen. Bernie Sanders. But working people across the country are not packing these rallies to demand the sort of technocratic dickering No Labels offers in its new 60-point policy platform, introduced Thursday at a luncheon in Washington’s luxury Mayflower Hotel. There has been bipartisan energy linking the anti-establishment bases of both parties this year, which theoretically should please No Labels. That energy, however, has been populist and directed at the sort of Washington elites whom they no longer trust to represent their interests. For today’s discontented voters, the sort of ballroom-luncheon centrism practiced for so long by the likes of Lieberman is more the target than the solution.
No Labels was founded in 2010 as a group comprising centrist Democrats and Republicans to counteract the entrenched gridlock that had begun to define the Obama era. (Another purpose: to offer sinecures to figures like co-chairmen Lieberman and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, whose political careers were ended due to lack of popularity within their respective political parties.) A cursory glance at the news suggests that such gridlock still exists six years later and shows little sign of abating, ever.
No Labels aspires to change all that through its 2016 election project, the National Strategic Agenda, a name clearly devised without much thought to its acronym. On Thursday, the nonprofit released a list of centrist policy proposals that it believes the next president and Congress, whether Democratic or Republican, can implement. It employed one gimmick that it hopes will critic-proof its proposals: A pollster tested out each idea under consideration, and the final list of 60 ideas includes only those that earned a majority of support from Democrats, Republicans, and independents.
snip
What Election Is Joe Lieberman Watching?
flashback.................................................The centrist fantasies of his glib, nonpartisan No Labels group aren’t the cure for today’s angry politics. They’re the target.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/04/no-labels-centrist-fantasies-are-the-problem-not-the-solution.html
Former Sen. Joe Lieberman, co-chairman of the nonpartisan “problem-solving” advocacy group No Labels, has a novel theory of what we’re seeing this campaign. “Take a look at the two most interesting, surprising candidacies of the presidential year,” he said Thursday at an event celebrating the release of No Labels’ “policy playbook” for the 2016 election. “They want people to do something different. The best politics may be unconventional politics.” Lieberman, unconventionally, was explaining why he believes the moment is ripe for entitlement reform.
Perhaps No Labels has been watching a different election. Anger and the appetite for breaking the status quo in Washington are absolutely the gusts lifting the campaigns of Donald Trump and Sen. Bernie Sanders. But working people across the country are not packing these rallies to demand the sort of technocratic dickering No Labels offers in its new 60-point policy platform, introduced Thursday at a luncheon in Washington’s luxury Mayflower Hotel. There has been bipartisan energy linking the anti-establishment bases of both parties this year, which theoretically should please No Labels. That energy, however, has been populist and directed at the sort of Washington elites whom they no longer trust to represent their interests. For today’s discontented voters, the sort of ballroom-luncheon centrism practiced for so long by the likes of Lieberman is more the target than the solution.
No Labels was founded in 2010 as a group comprising centrist Democrats and Republicans to counteract the entrenched gridlock that had begun to define the Obama era. (Another purpose: to offer sinecures to figures like co-chairmen Lieberman and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, whose political careers were ended due to lack of popularity within their respective political parties.) A cursory glance at the news suggests that such gridlock still exists six years later and shows little sign of abating, ever.
No Labels aspires to change all that through its 2016 election project, the National Strategic Agenda, a name clearly devised without much thought to its acronym. On Thursday, the nonprofit released a list of centrist policy proposals that it believes the next president and Congress, whether Democratic or Republican, can implement. It employed one gimmick that it hopes will critic-proof its proposals: A pollster tested out each idea under consideration, and the final list of 60 ideas includes only those that earned a majority of support from Democrats, Republicans, and independents.
snip
Profile Information
Gender: FemaleHometown: London
Home country: US/UK/Sweden
Current location: Stockholm, Sweden
Member since: Sun Jul 1, 2018, 07:25 PM
Number of posts: 43,933
