Biden HHS Pick Backed Medicare for All, Pressed Obama For Tough Action Against Pharma

To run the Department of Health and Human Services, Joe Biden has selected a Democrat who has touted his support for Medicare for All and previously demanded the Obama administration take tough action against the pharmaceutical industry to lower the price of prescription drugs.

The New York Times reported on Sunday that Biden is nominating former Congressman and current California Attorney General Xavier Becerra to run HHS. The announcement follows Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo abruptly dropping out of consideration for the job, following The Daily Poster’s report on her agreeing to health care lobbyists’ demands that she provide legal immunity to nursing home corporations during the COVID-19 pandemic.

As recently as 2017, Becerra declared, “I've been a supporter of Medicare for all for the 24 years that I was in Congress,” and he said he would fight to create such a system in California, where it was considered in the legislature.

As HHS Secretary, Becerra would be in a position to facilitate states waivers to make it easier for states to create Medicare for All systems.

If confirmed to the job, Becerra would also be in a position to take the action on drug prices that he previously urged the Obama administration to take — though it remains unclear whether Biden would support such a move.

Back in 2016, Becerra was one of the 51 House Democratic lawmakers who signed a letter calling on Obama’s Health and Human Services Secretary to use so-called “march-in rights” to effectively rescind exclusive patents for medicines whose research and development was originally funded by government agencies.

“Too many families and providers are facing an extraordinary challenge from unreasonably priced pharmaceuticals,” the lawmakers wrote. “The failure to act in the past has undoubtedly sent an unfortunate signal that prices for federally-funded inventions can be set as high as a sick or dying consumer will pay.”

Between 2010 and 2016, the federal government invested more than $100 billion in research that led to new medicines, according to Bentley University researchers -- but the Clinton administration gave a huge gift to pharmaceutical lobbyists in 1996 when it repealed a rule requiring that those medicines be offered to consumers at a reasonable price. The federal government, however, still has “march in rights” to produce patented medicines when prices become exorbitant, according to the Congressional Research Service.

That’s exactly what Becerra and his colleagues were asking Obama’s administration to do -- but Obama’s administration delivered yet another win for the pharmaceutical industry by rejecting the initiative. The HHS secretary at the time was Sylvia Burwell, who was also reportedly under consideration for the position under Biden.

This year, Becerra was one of 34 state attorneys general to sign a letter demanding the federal government use march-in rights to make the early-onset COVID treatment remdesivir -- whose research and development was sponsored by the government -- more widely available and affordable to all.

“We urge the federal government to use its march-in rights to help increase the supply of this drug and lower the price so it is accessible to our state residents,” the attorneys general wrote in August.

During the 2020 presidential campaign, Sludge reported that “unlike many of the leading Democrats who ran in the presidential primary, former Vice President Joe Biden has not embraced the use of march-in rights against pharmaceutical companies.”

As HHS secretary, Becerra will also be in a position to facilitate proposals to allow American pharmacists and wholesalers to import lower-priced FDA-approved medicines from other countries. Becerra voted for drug importation as a House lawmaker. Clinton’s HHS Secretary Donna Shalala killed a drug importation plan in 2000 after a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers passed it through Congress.

Six corporations that talk green and spend dirty

For months, this newsletter has exposed the spread of vaccine misinformation on Facebook. Why? The United States will only free itself from the grips of the pandemic once the number of people vaccinated reaches a critical mass. Studies show that social media is a major driver of vaccine hesitancy.

On November 18, Popular Information reported that Facebook still did not have a policy against vaccine misinformation. On December 3, that finally changed. Facebook announced that it would begin removing "false claims about the safety, efficacy, ingredients or side effects of [COVID] vaccines."

Popular Information will be monitoring Facebook closely to see if the company makes good on its promise. But the new policy is significant and demonstrates the ability of independent accountability journalism to drive positive change.



Six corporations that talk green and spend dirty
Judd Legum Dec 7



This is a special joint edition of Popular Information and HEATED, a climate newsletter by journalist Emily Atkin. HEATED is a must-read for anyone who cares about the future of the planet earth. Sign up HERE.


U.S. Sen David Perdue (R-GA) and Sen Kelly Loeffler (R-GA) speak at a campaign event on November 13, 2020. (Photo by Megan Varner/Getty Images)


Last week, 42 major corporations signed a letter calling on President-elect Joe Biden to work with Congress to enact "ambitious” climate policies. But, since Election Day, at least six of those companies have also donated to Republican candidates whose victories in the Georgia Senate run-offs would make meaningful climate legislation effectively impossible.

Organized by the non-profit Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES), the letter says the world is already experiencing "rising costs of climate change," including "record wildfires, flooding, hurricanes, and other extreme weather." It says swift action in 2021 is "a business imperative," and that unless Congress takes steps now, "future generations will face far greater environmental, economic, and health impacts."

The public statement stands in stark contrast to recent political spending of several participating corporations. Since Election Day, signatories including Microsoft, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, and General Motors have contributed thousands of dollars to the high-stakes re-election bids of Senators Kelly Loeffler (R-GA) and David Perdue (R-GA)—races which will determine control of the Senate.

If either Loeffler or Perdue win on January 5, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) will remain in charge—an outcome which experts agree would cripple the outlook for ambitious climate policy. Comprehensive climate legislation would be “off the table for at least two more years,” Scott Irwin, an agricultural economist at the University of Illinois, recently told Reuters.

Climate scientists say a further delay of two years for comprehensive climate policy would be enormously consequential. Still, many companies had no problem quietly funding races that would almost certainly prevent that outcome, while loudly declaring their commitment to climate action.
Microsoft defends its $5,000 campaign contribution to Perdue as “engagement”

One of the signatories of the C2ES letter is Microsoft. The company has positioned itself as an advocate not just for aggressive climate action, but against corporate greenwashing.

“The time of raised ambitions and grand announcements without clear action plans is also past,” the company’s chief environmental officer wrote last year. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella has said the world "is confronted with an urgent carbon crisis," and Microsoft President Brad Smith pledged that the company will "use its voice" to "advance public policies" to address climate change.

Just days before signing the letter, however, Microsoft was knowingly funding a candidate whose victory would keep the Senate in Republican hands. On November 19, Microsoft's corporate PAC donated $5,000 — the maximum allowable contribution — to Perdue's campaign.

In a statement to Popular Information and HEATED, a Microsoft spokesperson defended its donation:


We recognize that to make progress on the issues that matter to our customers and to our business, we must engage with candidates and officeholders who hold a range of views. Given the breadth of our policy agenda, it’s unlikely we’ll agree on every issue, but we’ve learned that engagement—even when individuals hold different positions—is an essential part of achieving progress.

Microsoft is trying to have it both ways. When its executives are making a glitzy announcement, climate change is an issue of paramount importance. But when Microsoft is asked to justify a contribution to a political candidate who would obstruct climate action for years, climate change is just one of many issues. Donating to a candidate that denies basic climate science is part of Microsoft's strategy of "engagement" with politicians that hold "a range of views."

Microsoft's approach is not atypical, and helps explain why a robust response to the climate crisis remains elusive. Big corporations will do anything to convince their customers they are committed to addressing climate change, unless that thing is changing the current U.S. political landscape to be less hostile to climate policy.
Five other corporations that signed the climate letter and then donated to Perdue, Loeffler or both

Popular Information and HEATED found five other companies that signed the C2ES letter but also donated to Perdue and Loeffler since Election Day. There may be more; the most recent campaign finance data from corporate PACs, filed on December 3, only includes donations made until November 23.

Bank of America signed the letter urging Congress to act. The company has said there is a "climate crisis" and "climate change can no longer be ignored." “The 2010s were a lost decade when it comes to ameliorating climate change. As we head into the 2020s, we need to move forward very fast,” Bank of America's Haim Israel said.

At the same time, on November 10, Bank of America's corporate PAC donated $5,000 to Perdue.

Asked how that donation was consistent with its call for ambitious action on climate in the next Congress, a Bank of America spokesperson said the company had no comment.

General Motors also signed the C2ES letter as part of a broader public relations offensive on climate change. In a November 23 letter to environmental groups, it embraced President-elect Biden's call to move the U.S. auto industry into an "all-electric future."

On November 16, General Motors' corporate PAC also donated $5,000 to Perdue.

The company did not respond to a request for comment.

Goldman Sachs has said that "climate change is one of the most significant environmental challenges of the 21st century," and "urgent action by government...is necessary to curb greenhouse gas emissions." It also said that "delaying action on climate change will be costly for our natural environment, to humans and to the economy."

Goldman Sachs signed the C2ES letter calling on Biden and the new Congress to take aggressive action on climate change. But on November 12, Goldman Sachs' corporate PAC donated $5,000 to support Perdue, and thus the effort to keep McConnell in control of the Senate.

The company did not respond to a request for comment.

Ford has said that "addressing climate change impact is a salient human rights issue and a strategic priority for Ford." The company pledged to work with "elected officials to shape policy actions that address climate change, protect the environment and promote technology innovation."

The company, which signed the letter urging the new Congress to act on climate, has claimed it has "consistent internal and external policy and messaging that is aligned with our overall climate change strategy."

On November 10, Ford's corporate PAC donated $5,000 to Loeffler. On November 17, it donated $1,000 to Perdue.

The company did not respond to a request for comment.

Dominion Energy, which operates coal-fired power plants and lobbies for the construction of natural gas pipelines, is an unlikely signatory of the letter urging action on climate change. But it is attempting to craft a more progressive image on the issue. "Climate change is one of the most challenging issues of our time, and Dominion Energy is committed to doing our part to reduce carbon and methane emissions," the company website says.

On November 18, Dominion Energy's corporate PAC donated $5,000 to Perdue.

The company did not respond to a request for comment.
“The stakes could not be higher”

The outcome of the Georgia Senate run-offs will define Joe Biden’s presidency. They will also define the fight for a livable planet.

The stakes of the upcoming Congressional term “could not be higher” when it comes to climate change, the Washington Post reports. “As Biden’s term soon begins, the world faces ever more dangerous and irreversible levels of warming because of the continued buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from not just the United States but countries around the world.”

The safest level of warming is 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Achieving that, according to the IPCC, requires the world to slash its carbon emissions by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030. Then it must reach net-zero around 2050. This is the only scenario at which the catastrophic health, economic, and ecological impacts of warming are reversible.

Meaningful climate policy is, in other words, a gargantuan task that must be accomplished very quickly. And it’s very unlikely the entire world will achieve it if the United States does not lead, because the United States has contributed more to climate change than any other country in the world.

There’s a lot Biden could do on climate change without the support of a Democratic Congress — re-joining the Paris climate accord, reinstating Obama’s climate regulations, and implementing more executive-level climate regulations across the federal bureaucracy, to name a few. But that only brings the U.S. back to where it was four years ago. The fastest way Biden could advance the U.S. toward effective climate action would be to pass an economic stimulus package focused on clean energy. But experts agree that likely wouldn’t happen with a Republican Senate.

Fossil fuel executives, for their part, are counting on this to be the case. “Biden is not going to be able to ram through a costly, zero-carbon mandate through a Republican Senate,” Dan Eberhart, a Republican donor and oil executive, recently told Bloomberg. “Obama couldn’t do it with control of both the House and the Senate.”
Perdue and Loeffler have no record of supporting bipartisan action

The climate-friendly corporations donating to Perdue and Loeffler aren’t just supporting a Republican-led Senate. They’re supporting two candidates with no record of supporting the type bipartisan climate policy they claim is an urgent priority.

Perdue has long been an outspoken climate denier, and has shown little evidence of changing his stripes. In a debate with Democratic challenger Jon Ossoff in October, he said the climate was changing but refused to acknowledge that greenhouse gases are the cause. Perdue also is “a first cousin of Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue and golfing buddy of Trump,” who “vowed to protect the coal industry and was endorsed by the Koch-affiliated Super PAC, Americans for Prosperity," the Intercept reported.

Loeffler, according to InsideClimate News, is a “former energy executive” and “the richest member of the U.S. Senate.” Though she’s said little about climate change in general, she doesn’t have to; she’s positioned herself “as an ardent supporter of President Trump and his pro-fossil fuel agenda.” That agenda is not just to ignore climate change, but to make it worse by propping up fossil fuels and slowing down the clean energy transition.

Pros And Cons Of Prosecuting Trump After His Presidency

https://www.theonion.com/pros-and-cons-of-prosecuting-trump-after-his-presidency-1845807991




Both state and federal prosecutors have reportedly considered filing charges against President Donald Trump for charges stemming from before his presidency and his time in office, but many warn that such a move could cause more harm than good for the country. The Onion looks at the pros and cons of prosecuting Trump.



PRO

Constant litigation would be huge hit among nostalgic Trump supporters.

Courtroom sketch artists could use the work.

What good is having a Deep State if you can’t take down a few true-blue patriots?

Well, it is a customary thing you do to criminals.

Would make his 2024 comeback story that much more impressive.

CON

Derails Trump’s plans to dedicate remaining years to charitable endeavors.

That smug look on Chuck Todd’s face.

Would end his 74-year streak of not being held accountable for actions.

Jury duty such a pain in the ass.

Rest of nation could be charged with aiding and abetting.

Biden Campaign Pushing Away Progressives

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xN-JSxYeobk&ab_channel=HardLensMedia

Bernie Sanders HAMMERS no Second Check Stimulus Deal and Corporate Liability Shield on MSNBC

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ypujwjh2cKI&ab_channel=ChristoAivalis

Confused Again — is Joe Biden Senile? Watch!

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gm-FhSUFb6o&ab_channel=RTAmerica

Can Progressives Win in Biden Era?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShH0idIaAS8&ab_channel=StatusCoup