The sight of ObamaCare on life support has many Democrats disappointed. It could be worse. They could be Pfizer CEO Jeffrey Kindler.
The twin events of an Obama presidency and a financial crisis rattled corporate America. Public anger put companies on the defensive. A liberal president vowing to punish firms that didn’t aid his agenda got companies scared.
Fortune 500 execs could stand up for a free market that benefits consumers and shareholders, or hitch their cart to the new Democratic majority. Pfizer’s Mr. Kindler is a case study in the hitch-and-hope mentality—a CEO who became the motivating force behind Big Pharma’s $80 billion "deal" on reform, and industry support of ObamaCare. With that health agenda burning, the choice isn’t looking so grand.
…
Mr. Kindler surely believed Democrats would treat his industry gently. The strategy: The industry would pledge $80 billion to reform. In return it would get greater volume and a requirement that people buy brand-name drugs. Democrats would also fight against drug reimportation and forgo price controls.
No one pushed harder than Mr. Kindler. The CEO made no fewer than five trips to the White House last year. He was the man prodding Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America head Billy Tauzin every step. He wrote an op-ed with the SEIU’s Mr. Stern demanding reform. He pressed the industry’s $150 million ad campaign promoting ObamaCare, rolled out with liberal activist groups.
Critics warned the legislation would lead to a government takeover and price controls. They warned Democrats would take the money and double-cross them. None of it fazed the industry, right up until ObamaCare imploded.
Mr. Kindler and Co. are left with the ashes. Having got this far (with Big Pharma’s help), Democrats are more desperate than ever to pass "something." It won’t include any upside for drug companies. There is talk instead of "popular" stand-alone legislation, including reimportation, Medicare price controls, and slashing the industry’s 12-year exclusivity on biologics.
Big Pharma can’t count on former conservative protectors. Republicans were sympathetic to its decision to "sit at the table," but grew furious when it engaged in active advocacy of the Democratic agenda. One House Republican staffer predicts the next time drug companies "ask us to stand in front of the train," the answer will be: "Since you were so happy to work with Democrats, call them. Go on, go: Call Rahm [Emanuel]. Call [Henry] Waxman."
Public anger over ObamaCare doesn’t help the industry’s reputation. Many Americans now view drug companies in the same light as "crony capitalist" banks or energy firms that turn to government to bolster the temporary bottom line. Pfizer’s stock price has been decent (due mostly to Mr. Kindler’s business restructuring), but the industry faces threats from a slowdown in innovation.
Bill Waterson, the creator of Calvin and Hobbes, recent gave an interview to a reporter. It’s not much of an interview, but it shows how idiosyncratic Watterson is.
What I admire about Watterson is that he did everything on his own terms. He didn’t want his art to be made into toys and that’s why there never was any Calvin and Hobbes toys and he quit the cartoon because he wanted to quit while he was still good. There’s something to be admired about that.
Did it matter that this elephant was legally in the United States and died of natural causes? Of course not. The Fish and Wildlife Service isn’t concerned about right and wrong. They are concerned about enforcing the law. It doesn’t matter whether or not it actually protects species.
There are good reason for the Fish and Wildlife Service to zealously prosecute the law as written. But no one should ever assume that bureaucrats enforcing the laws actually leads to good outcomes.
At least four times during the campaign, Obama argued against a spending freeze such as the one he is now promoting. I’m glad that Obama has come around on the issue. There is no shame in him changing his mind, but it raises the question of whether he is sincere this time.
Yesterday Obama’s proposed the lame idea of a comission on fiscal responsibility afterthe November elections. Apparently this idea was treated with a great deal of scorn because he’s back today with a decent idea—a spending freeze:
President Obama plans to announce a three-year freeze on discretionary, “non-security” spending in the lead-up to Wednesday’s State of the Union address, Hill Democratic sources familiar with the plan tell POLITICO.
The move, intended to blunt the populist backlash against Obama’s $787 billion stimulus and an era of trillion-dollar deficits — and to quell Democratic anxiety over last Tuesday’s Massachusetts Senate election — is projected to save $250 billion, the Democrats said.
The freeze would not apply to defense spending or spending on intelligence, homeland security or veterans.
The proposal is in line with a plan floated by Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), a fiscal hawk, who told Bloomberg’s Al Hunt last week that there was a “fighting chance” Obama would propose a freeze in most discretionary spending by the federal government as part of his address.
Two days after Inauguration Day, Obama apparently thought it would get his Administration off to a good start by announcing that he was going to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay without one year. I assumed, (incorrectly it turns out) that his Administration had a plan for doing this. I didn’t think this was necessarily a bad move. I don’t agree with Obama on much, but I thought he had some common ground on Gitmo. I’m not sure we do.
A year has gone past and Guantanamo is still open. And for good reason. We need some place to keep people who we arrest on battlefields, but aren’t affiliated with a country. Also, for these enemy combatants, there are good reasons to keep them outside of the United States. I don’t have a problem with Guantanamo being open for these reasons, but that was never my problem with Guantanamo.
My problem with Guantanamo is that people are kept there without a trial. How in the world can we keep people detained for year after year without trial? I’m not arguing they should be given full Constitutional rights, but they deserve a trial. I just wish Obama understood the most important issue at Gitmo and would have made sure people got trials.
Trying to win the votes of fiscal moderates, President Barack Obama formally endorsed legislation Saturday creating an independent commission with the power to force Congress to vote on major deficit reduction steps this year, after the November elections.
Obama’s statement gives new momentum to efforts in the Senate now to attach such legislation this coming week to a pending debt ceiling bill. But the endorsement comes so late that it risks being seen as just a ploy to win over swing Democratic senators whose votes the White House needs to lift the federal debt ceiling.
Unlike Obama, fiscal moderates would like to see something done about record deficits now, not 10 months from now. Why would Obama think this would change anyone’s mind that he promises someday to care to about the deficit?
So, a Republican has convincingly won Ted Kennedy’s former Senate seat. After opposing health reform. And supporting the waterboarding of terrorists. And appearing as a nude centerfold. In a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans by three to one. And where Republicans haven’t won a Senate election since 1972. After a high-profile visit by President Obama. Who won the state by 26 points last year. But who now carries no political weight in the bluest state in the country. With vicious, public recriminations starting among Democrats even before election day. Following major losses in Virginia and New Jersey.
All of which led one popular Democratic blog to argue: “Why Massachusetts doesn’t matter.”
Well, it does matter. It means a president who no longer inspires political fear. It means moderate Senate Democrats — such as Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln — who now feel nothing but fear from angry voters. It means that cap-and-trade legislation and immigration reform are on life support. It means that Rahm Emanuel’s “big bang” theory of legislative liberalism is the most foolish political strategy in recent memory. It means that spending political capital on health reform instead of economic recovery and growth was a dreadful error. It means that a crisis that Obama didn’t want to waste has largely been wasted.
