You’ve Got to See This GOP Hawk’s Grisly Ad Opposing the Iran Deal
A group led by John Bolton, the aggressively hawkish Republican insider who served as George W. Bush's ambassador to the United Nations, has released an unusually grisly ad that vividly portrays a nuclear attack on the United States.
The 30-second video was produced by the Foundation for American Security and Freedom, which Bolton leads. It shows an all-American family of four sitting down to a dinner of pasta and red sauce. The father kindly asks, “How was your day?” As his wife and children enthusiastically reply, a blinding flash rips through the scene to the sound of burning and destruction. The screen fades to black, and then we see and hear Sen. Rand Paul speaking, with his words also written on the screen: “Rand Paul: ‘our national security is not threatened by Iran having one nuclear weapon’.” The screen fades to black again, and then we see a nuclear explosion, with the words: “It only takes one.” As the nuclear cloud boils up into the sky, we see the final message: “A nuclear threat is a threat to our national security.”
The 30-second video seems to consciously mimic Lyndon Johnson's infamous "Daisy" ad from the 1964 presidential election. That ad was widely criticized for using a nuclear explosion to frighten the audience into believing that, if elected, Republican nominee Barry Goldwater would risk all-out war with the Soviet Union. The ad was shown only once (on September 7, 1964) but that proved to be enough.
Several differences between the Bolton group’s ad and “Daisy” stand out. For one, the new ad shows a family being destroyed by a nuclear blast. By contrast, the Johnson ad implied the death of a small girl and many others, but without showing the blast and its victims together.
Another difference is the target. The “Daisy” ad took aim at a hawkish Republican candidate for president, implying that an aggressive attitude toward a major enemy could lead to the destruction of the world. The Bolton group’s ad takes aim at a dovish Republican candidate — and, by implication, a dovish American president — while suggesting that a diplomatic approach toward a major enemy could lead to war on American soil.
A final difference: The Johnson campaign withdrew the “Daisy” ad as the criticism poured in. The Bolton group’s ad is on the Internet, where it can be seen over and over again. And thanks to the dynamics of social media, it will likely reach a larger audience than “Daisy” ever did — though to what effect, it remains to be seen.
Here’s the Daisy ad:
Chart of the Day: High Deductible Blues
The higher the deductible in your health insurance plan, the less happy you probably are with it. That’s according to a new report on employer-sponsored health insurance from the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Los Angeles Times.
Chart of the Day: Tax Cuts and the Missing Capex Boom
Despite the Republican tax overhaul, businesses aren’t significantly increasing their capital expenditures. “The federal government will have to borrow an added $1 trillion through 2027 to pay for the corporate tax breaks,” says Bloomberg’s Mark Whitehouse. “So far, it’s hard to see what the country is getting in return.”
Chart of the Day: 2019’s Lobbying Leaders
Roll Call reports that trade, infrastructure and health care issues including prescription drug prices “dominated the lobbying agendas of some of the biggest spenders on K Street early this year.” Here’s Roll Call’s look at the top lobbying spenders so far this year:
Can You Fix Social Security? A New Tool Lets You Try
The Congressional Budget Office released an interactive tool Wednesday that shows how some widely discussed policy changes would affect the long-run financial health of the Social Security system.
“This interactive tool allows the user to explore seven policy options that could be used to improve the Social Security program’s finances and delay the trust funds’ exhaustion,” CBO said. “Four options would reduce benefits, and three options would increase payroll taxes. The tool allows for any combination of those options. It also lets the user change implementation dates and choose whether to show scheduled or payable benefits. … The tool also shows the impact of the options on different groups of people.”
Click here to view the interactive tool on the CBO website.
Why Prescription Drug Prices Keep Rising – and 3 Ways to Bring Them Down
Prescription drug prices have been rising at a blistering rate over the last few decades. Between 1980 and 2016, overall spending on prescription drugs rose from about $12 billion to roughly $330 billion, while its share of total health care spending doubled, from 5% to 10%.
Although lawmakers have shown renewed interest in addressing the problem, with pharmaceutical CEOs testifying before the Senate Finance Committee in February and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMS) scheduled to do so this week, no comprehensive plan to halt the relentless increase in prices has been proposed, let alone agreed upon.
Robin Feldman, a professor at the University of California Hastings College of Law, takes a look at the drug pricing system in a new book, “Drugs, Money and Secret Handshakes: The Unstoppable Growth of Prescription Drug Prices.” In a recent conversation with Bloomberg’s Joe Nocera, Feldman said that one of the key drivers of rising prices is the ongoing effort of pharmaceutical companies to maintain control of the market.
Fearing competition from lower-cost generics, drugmakers began over the last 10 or 15 years to focus on innovations “outside of the lab,” Feldman said. These innovations include paying PBMs to reduce competition from generics; creating complex systems of rebates to PBMs, hospitals and doctors to maintain high prices; and gaming the patent system to extend monopoly pricing power.
Feldman’s research on the dynamics of the drug market led her to formulate three general solutions for the problem of ever-rising prices:
1) Transparency: The current system thrives on secret deals between drug companies and middlemen. Transparency “lets competitors figure out how to compete and it lets regulators see where the bad behaviors occur,” Feldman says.
2) Patent limitations: Drugmakers have become experts at extending patents on existing drugs, often by making minor modifications in formulation, dosage or delivery. Feldman says that 78% of drugs getting new patents are actually old drugs gaining another round of protection, and thus another round of production and pricing exclusivity. A “one-and-done” patent system would eliminate this increasingly common strategy.
3) Simplification: Feldman says that “complexity breeds opportunity,” and warns that the U.S. “drug price system is so complex that the gaming opportunities are endless.” While “ruthless simplification” of regulatory rules and approval systems could help eliminate some of those opportunities, Feldman says that the U.S. doesn’t seem to be moving in this direction.
Read the full interview at Bloomberg News.