The Obama Administration has been widely criticized for being captured by the pharmaceutical industry, which has gotten the White House to block efforts to guarantee lower cost drugs and increase profits for these companies. Pharmaceutical lobbyists have in turn given huge amounts of campaign money to President Obama and Democratic members as well as jobs to former members. Even with this record, however, many are shocked by the White House pushing of a trade agreement that would undermine international efforts to reduce the cost of drugs and extend the patents for these companies to further increase their profits. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) allows for techniques like “evergreening” to extend patents for the industry, which in turn has continued its own evergreen record of high-paying jobs for political allies and massive campaign contributions for the White House and Congress. Everyone wins . . . except the tens of millions who cannot afford medicine. While these companies have valid interests in recouping their investment and making profits on new drugs (which are expensive to develop), the secrecy and sweeping impact of the TPP deserves far greater attention in the media.
The Obama Administration is in Salt Lake City to push 11 other countries to agree to the changes on intellectual property rules. Of course, Obama’s self-described “most transparent” administration has kept the public out of the proceedings and much of the work has been in secret. Cloaked from the public eye, the Obama Administration has carried out the demands of the industry over the international need for lower priced drugs.
While the public is barred, companies like Walmart and Monsanto are allowed to participate. The former Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson joined protests of the Administration’s “horrible betrayal of the American promise of liberty, of equality.” The Administration and its partners clearly picked Salt Lake City in winter as the least likely to generate protests, but still faced protesters in the street outside of the hotel.
In the meantime, the White House is touting the agreement to extend patent rights (and prices) for companies as “a model for future trade agreements.” It includes extending drug patent terms from 20 years to at least 25 years and would allow companies to patent new formulations of existing medicines. This is called “evergreening,” which involves small changes like a shift from a gel to a tablet to continue to control the sale and prices of a drug. It also has provisions to make it more difficult to market lower cost generic drugs until the long patent periods have run. It is a bonanza for drug companies and lobbyists. Public interest groups have denounced the effort but few people in Congress are willing to oppose the drug lobby.
Lobbying remains one of the most profitable areas for former members. Ironically, the pharmaceutical industry has been repeatedly denounced for the hiring of former members and staffers in what some view as a award for the passage of windfall legislation.
The hold of these companies on the White House and Congress is remarkable . . . as is the open revolving door of influence. For example, former Congressman Billy Tauzin, R-La., pushed the bill through the House over objections from members and public interest organizations. He then accepted a $2 million a year job as president of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the main industry lobbying group. Medicare head Thomas Scully, who was accused of coercing employees to hide the true costs of the program, was given a job as a pharmaceutical lobbyist as were 14 congressional aides who worked on the passage of the bill. Twenty-five former members and high-ranking staffers returned to lobby for the industry with huge salaries — an example to others how to profiteer at the public expense.
With our current duopoly of power, there is little threat to this lobby which has deep hold of both parties. When confronted, the two parties simply return to the same blue state/red state rhetoric and portray the other side as worse. In fact, they are on the same side and the only people made worse are millions of Americans who are being bled financially to get access to needed drugs.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership treaty is the complete opposite of ‘free trade’
The TPP would strip our constitutional rights, while offering no gains for the majority of Americans. It’s a win for corporations
Mark Weisbrot
19 November 2013
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/19/trans-pacific-partnership-corporate-usurp-congress
Excerpt:
One part of the TPP that shows why negotiators want to minimize public awareness of the agreement consists of provisions giving corporations the right – as is the case under the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) – to directly sue governments for regulations that infringe upon their profits or potential profits. This, too, is much worse than the WTO, where a corporation has to convince its government to file a case against another government. These private enforcement actions – which if won collect from the defendant government – are judged by special tribunals outside of either country’s judicial system, without the kinds of due process or openness that exists, for example, in the US legal system. A currently infamous example is the action by Lone Pine Resources, a Delaware-incorporated company, against the government of Quebec for its moratorium on fracking.
Perhaps less known than its other failings, the TPP doesn’t even offer any economic gains for the majority of Americans who are being asked to sacrifice their constitutional rights. The gains from increased trade turn out to be so small that they are equivalent to a rounding error in the measurement of our GDP. The study most touted by proponents of the agreement, published by the Peterson Institute of International Economics, shows a cumulative increase of 0.13% of GDP by 2025. This would be trivial in any case; but the worse news is that, taking into account some of the unequalizing effects of the agreement – these treaties tend to redistribute income upwards – a Centre for Economic and Policy Research study showed that most Americans will actually lose because of the TPP.
US corporate interests are, rather obviously in this case, driving the agenda of the TPP. The agreement is in many ways a “plan B” after the last 12 years of WTO negotiations have stagnated – in large part due to considerable, well-organized public resistance in dozens of countries – and failed to achieve many of the goals of its corporate architects. But other branches of the US government have geostrategic goals as well. The world’s would-be rulers also hope to separate the “bad kids” from the “good kids” among developing countries. It is no coincidence that in Latin America, the negotiating partners are Mexico, Chile, and Peru, and none of the leftist governments that now prevail in most of the region. And of course, a main goal of the agreement is to try and “isolate” China.
The Obama administration will no doubt appeal to some members of Congress on the basis of this neocolonial world view. But for Americans who are learning about the agreement, it is clear that the real “us against them” is not America against the more independent nations of the developing world, but TPP countries’ citizens against a corporate swindle being negotiated behind their backs.
If one travels abroad they hear the complaint of people from the US calling themselves “American.” I’ve heard the complaints from South and Central Americans as well as Canadians travelling to their beautiful countries; and I happen to understand it. Only once have I heard it in Europe. However, being a great country vis a vis free speech, I support anyone who wishes to be an “Ugly American.”
The United States is isolated in the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations
BY HENRY FARRELL
November 18, 2013
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2013/11/18/the-united-states-is-isolated-in-the-trans-pacific-partnership-negotiations/
Excerpt:
Last Thursday, WikiLeaks released a draft text of the intellectual property (IP) chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement. The TPP is a free-trade agreement currently being negotiated between 12 countries: the United States, Canada, Mexico, Peru, Chile, New Zealand, Australia, Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei, Vietnam, and Japan. Like many such trade agreements, the TPP has been negotiated secretly, with access to draft texts provided only to lobbyists and the like. Even Congress feels like it’s been left out. WikiLeaks’s release thus provides an opportunity for academics, public interest groups, and citizens to examine what is being negotiated in their name.
There are a number of excellent analyses of the leaked text; if you’re interested, I recommend checking out pieces by Susan Sell, Jamie Love, and Margot Kaminski. Canadians will appreciate Michael Geist’s take. In addition to what the text says, however, draft treaties also include information about who is saying what. And that information reveals how isolated the United States is relative to other countries.
Hundreds of markers sprinkled throughout the chapter identify which country or groups of countries support or oppose various provisions in the treaty. Take the following snippet, from Article QQ.A.5:
“(a) The obligations of this Chapter do not and should not prevent a Party from taking measures to protect public health by promoting access to medicines for all, in particular concerning cases such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, [US oppose: chagas] and other epidemics as well as circumstances of extreme urgency or national emergency.”
Here, “[US oppose: chagas]” indicates the word “chagas” is disputed, with the United States opposing its inclusion in the treaty. This is a reference to Chagas disease, a form of trypanosomiasis, a parasitic disease primarily affecting Latin America. U.S. opposition can probably be attributed to pressure from the pharmaceutical industry.
Thanks O Bluefish!
SmilingAtheist, Amen.
“Sovereign Corporations” Kinda scares the crap out of me.
This video may be considered crude by some, swear words within.
The woman “Thanks Obama” for all the difficulties in her life.
Obama, the greatest political disappointment of my 69 years…
More milking the cash cow.
Worth repeating from Professors Turleys post.
“For example, former Congressman Billy Tauzin, R-La., pushed the bill through the House over objections from members and public interest organizations. He then accepted a $2 million a year job as president of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the main industry lobbying group. Medicare head Thomas Scully, who was accused of coercing employees to hide the true costs of the program, was given a job as a pharmaceutical lobbyist as were 14 congressional aides who worked on the passage of the bill. Twenty-five former members and high-ranking staffers returned to lobby for the industry with huge salaries — an example to others how to profiteer at the public expense”
“My father made your yoke heavy, and I will add to your yoke: my father also chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions.”
— Kings II, 12, 14
Nick, Nick, Nick. You are my HEEE-RO. What part of praising your life and how you prevailed lacks respect? Did you miss the part where I said you were right on target? Who disbelieves anything you have deigned to share with us? Not I. Oh no. My only sad is that we have only heard a small percentage of your adventures. *Sigh*
But then I cheer myself right up and say: Never fear! Nick will tell us many more stories of his adventures and my boring life will continue to be worth living.
Thank you, Nick.
Ooo.
Special pleading. That’s always . . . special.
h/t: the good stuff on my note of 3:59 is cribbed from Charlie Pierce. I’m not nearly that funny.
Doncha love it when Nick sets us straight? Imagine calling ourselves Americans (or ‘Mericans as our beloved half-gov Palin does). Pompous and Provincial indeed!
Nick knows. It’s his gift to us. He’s been readin’ all them books on the Old Country so we don’t have to.
Thank you, Nick.
Those who desire to be respected should take care to be respectful.
Mr/Ms. pdm, It seems people w/ sad and boring lives have a hard time coming to grips w/ people who have lived interesting ones. As you might imagine, I’ve run into my share of your ilk. Everything I say is true. As you might imagine, being shot as is scary. And, of course, I “ran to the police” to report it. Actually in one of the shootings the police ran to me[Wi.]. In the other shooting, my wife and 2 friends were in the vehicle. I blew through a red light when my wife’s window was struck and shattered, and drove to a nearby police precinct in KC. Your attitude says everything about you and nothing about me. “Shooting” and “ammunition” means a lot more to me than most. In the KC shooting, as my wife’s head moved toward my lap, I remember looking for a bullet wound as a sped from the shooting scene. By the grace of God she was not hit. I don’t have any expectation of empathy from you, Mr./Ms. pdm. You obviously don’t like me. I accept that. I do require simple respect, and hope that is something of which you are capable.
Gene,
I had been gathering more information on TPP because I had planned to write another post on the subject.
*****
Why can’t Australian citizens read the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement?
Journalists have been banned from a briefing about the TPP. Why the secrecy – and why can only wealthy lobbyists access the text?
Brendan Molloy
29 October 2013
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/30/trans-pacific-partnership-tpp-dfat
Excerpt:
So much for a public briefing … Photograph: RGB Ventures LLC dba SuperStock/Alamy
Only in Australia could the phrase “public briefing” mean that the meeting will be held behind closed doors, where journalists are not welcome.
Yesterday, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) rescinded the invitations of several journalists to attend a public briefing regarding a multilateral trade agreement under negotiation called the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP).
The TPP is an extensive agreement that covers typical topics such as goods and services, but also contains chapters on labour laws, intellectual property, the environment and investor-state dispute settlement provisions. This agreement is currently being negotiated completely opaquely between the US, Japan, Australia, Peru, Malaysia, Vietnam, New Zealand, Chile, Singapore, Canada, Mexico, and Brunei Darussalam. DFAT claims that it will be finished negotiating by the end of the year.
If you’ve never heard of the TPP, here’s a summary of the major issues:
Complete lack of transparency. Beyond limited information handed out in public briefings and private meetings, there is almost no information as to the specifics of the text. We only know what is in the agreement due to leaks, and from what little we can glean, it is bad.
The intellectual property chapter. There have been very few leaks of TPP text, but when the IP chapter leaked in 2011 it showed that a concluded agreement containing a chapter similar to this would include extensive negative provisions that affect Australia’s ability to maintain or reform its own patent and copyright legislation in the best interests of Australia.
The inclusion of investor-state dispute settlement provisions. DFAT attests that any such clause would not apply to Australia, but the Liberals have previously stated they would support the introduction of ISDS, so this position is subject to change.
The TPP could criminalise copyright infringement done without commercial benefit, ban parallel importation, expand copyright terms, and limit our ability to enact the reforms recommended by the Australian Law Reform Committee’s copyright review.
Nick, sorry. I lost my head. I forgot about the amazing and picarisque life you have lived. Bullets zooming and all that. It is amazing you have prevailed.
Ed Schultz was summoned to the White House along w/ other liberal media folks. I imagine he’s got his mind right now and will probably avoid this topic. I hope I’m wrong actually.
One of the accepted usages of the word “ammunition” is as a modifier, to wit: considerations that can be used to support one’s case in debate. Example: “These figures provide ammunition to the argument for more resources.”
It is puzzling why someone would find that threatening.
Or maybe not.