Mediaboss Marketing

OPINION:

On his third day in the White House, President Biden stopped a Trump-era plan to lower the price of insulin for low-income and uninsured Americans. It was part of the new administrations blitz to unravel anything and everything related to former President Donald Trump. That blind hatred came at a cost, though. In this case, it was a higher price for life-saving treatments paid by Americans in need.

More than a year later, the Biden administration and Democrats in Congress have still not delivered on their promise to lower insulin prices for our countrys most vulnerable. In fact, they are actively voting against Republican-led efforts to do just that.

On a sleepy Sunday morning, every single Democrat rejected a Republican amendment to provide insulin at $10 per prescription for anyone who is low-income (below 350% of the federal poverty level), including the uninsured. I voted yes because it was common sense. So did every single Senate Republican. Yet the Democrats unanimously rejected the provision.

Later that day, Democrats and their media enablers proclaimed, GOP senators blocked a $35 insulin price cap.

Republicans have just gone on the record in favor of expensive insulin, declared Sen. Ron Wyden. Those lines are factually untrue and totally misleading. Republicans blocked a Democrat counter-amendment, all right, but in doing so they ensured that insulin will become more affordable, not less.

The Democrats grand proposal was to cap the price of insulin at $35. Thats not much of a bargain its more than 300% what low-income Americans would have paid under the Republican amendment. Whats more, that arbitrary price cap would have only applied to the already insured, leaving some of the most vulnerable out in the cold. Most importantly, however, the Democrats plan would have actually made insulin more expensive in the long term.

Though still too high for many Americans, the price of insulin is falling. The annual net cost per insulin treatment decreased by 20% between 2007 and 2021. In Florida, some Medicare enrollees pay as little as $24 for a monthlong supply of the drug. Meanwhile, under private insurance, last years average insulin cost was only $23.19, more than $6 below 2018 levels.

This is happening because of economic competition. Pharmaceutical companies and insurance agencies are jockeying for the lowest price to attract more buyers. Competition will continue to lower the price of insulin as time goes on unless, that is, the federal government implements heavy-handed interventions like price controls.

If Congress mandated $35 insulin, do we really think pharmaceutical companies would keep competing for the lowest price? More likely they would play it safe and congregate around $35. That would raise insulin costs for most Americans, not lower them.

The Democrats price controls would also have stifled innovation in insulin production. In 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the development of generic insulin drugs. Over time, that will bring down the cost of insulin even further. But companies would invest less in the research and development of new drugs under price controls because there would be less incentive to innovate.

In contrast, the Republican plan would have preserved market competition while ensuring people with the greatest need get the treatment they require. That the Democrats rejected it shows they care more about maintaining support from their radical base and scoring partisan points on Twitter than helping real Americans.

If the Democrats have a serious proposal to lower drug prices, Republicans like me will come to the table. But we will not indulge in political gamesmanship or impose medicines that are worse than the disease on the American people.

Marco Rubio is an American politician and lawyer serving as the senior United States senator from Florida, a seat he has held since 2011.

See the rest here:
Democrats reject cheap insulin for the uninsured - Washington Times

Heading into November, look for Republicans to hammer Democratic Gov. Tony Evers on crime and police funding.

Indeed, they already have been.

As Republicans were still picking Tim Michels as their nominee to face Evers, the Republican Governors Association sent an email blast to Wisconsin reporters on July 29, 2022 that contained this quote from spokeswoman Maddie Anderson:

"Wisconsin families are desperate for a leader whose top priority is keeping their communities safe. Instead, Governor Tony Evers gave counties the green light to defund Wisconsin's police departments. Elections have consequences, and Evers will come to find that out very soon."

The email came after a violent week in Milwaukee left a 6-year-old girl dead.

The defund the police angle is an echo of attacks on Democrats that began after the May 2020 murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer sparked protests across the nation. Many protests called for police budgets to be dramatically cut or, in some cases, the departments eliminated and replaced.

We rated False a previous claim by Republican gubernatorial candidate Rebecca Kleefisch that Evers is "a big proponent of this defund the police movement." In fact, Evers has said slashing police budgets "goes too far" and directed $100 million in COVID relief money toward enhancing law enforcement.

So, lets look at the RGA claim that Evers gave cities and counties "the green light" to defund police departments.

A veto and a message

When asked for backup, Anderson pointed to an Aug. 6, 2021, veto by Evers of a bill that would have cut state aid to cities and counties that reduced any part of their police budgets and given that money instead to cities that didnt cut police spending.

He vetoed it on the same day he signed a separate Republican bill to set use of force standards for police departments.

In an Aug. 1, 2022 email, Anderson argued: "He vetoed a bill that would have dissuaded counties from defunding police departments. Sent a clear message to counties that there is no penalty for defunding or reallocating resources from police departments. Hence the green light."

Lets dig deeper.

First, we should note that the veto means there is something behind the claim, even if its now being misrepresented. Despite how Anderson framed it, the Evers veto leaves the status quo in place. In that respect, nothing changes. And, as we know, state aid and local governments, particularly as it relates to police spending, can get sticky.

In his veto message, Evers said he killed the bill because it placed "onerous restrictions" on the ability of local governments to set their budgets.

The bill would have reduced shared revenue payments to municipalities that decreased spending on police, fire and emergency services or reduced the number of people employed in those areas. The legislation specifically targeted municipalities employing at least 30 people in those areas and only applied to portions of the emergency service budget for hiring, training and retaining employees.

The nonpartisan Wisconsin Policy Forum issued reports in June 2020 and August 2021 on police funding trends in Wisconsin. The reports found spending on policing n Wisconsin peaked in 2013 and was trending downward well before the rise of the "defund the police" approach captured national attention.

Even as funding has fallen, spending on police remains the largest piece of municipal spending in the state. The forum concluded those declines in funding are more related to counties and municipalities struggling under state-imposed limits on how much they can collect in the property tax levy and flat state aid. Local governments have largely shielded police and fire services from budget cuts in the past decade, the report found.

Andersons argument that the veto gives a green light on cutting budgets runs counter to the governors own statements and actions.

Just days after the Floyd case, Evers specifically opposed cutting spending on law enforcement in a meeting with Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reporters and editors.

In a June 4, 2020 article, Evers was quoted as saying: "We're always going to need police service" and that "to completely defund police departments ... that isn't going to work."

Later, as noted, Evers provided more than $100 million to law enforcement through federal relief funds.

Our ruling

The Republican Governors Association claimed Evers gave Wisconsin counties "the green light" to defund the police.

A spokesperson for the association pointed to a veto of a Republican bill that would penalize counties and municipalities that reduce police budgets regardless of context. So, its not like there is nothing there. But that veto simply kept the status quo it was not a proactive step by Evers to force or encourage cities and counties to cut law enforcement.

Whats more, Evers has flatly stated he does not support defunding the police, and directed $100 million in pandemic aid to law enforcement.

So, the statement "contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression."

Thats what we call Mostly False.

Excerpt from:
Democrat Evers didnt give Wisconsin counties 'the green light' to defund police - PolitiFact

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

President Obama's former senior adviser David Axelrod said that "fear and panic" over their midterm election chances were driving Democrats to grumble about President Biden.

Axelrod told CNN's "New Day" on Friday that the complaints from within his own party were partly from Democrats in Congress worried about losing to Republicans in the upcoming elections.

"Well, fear and panic iswhat's driving it, John [Berman].People are worried about themidterm elections, much of theclamor is coming from Capitol Hill, where, you know, manymembers are up for re-electionin November.So that's part of it," he stated.

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS - OCTOBER 18: David Axelrod, former advisor to President Barack Obama, asks Democratic presidential candidate South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg questions during an event at the University of Chicago on October 18, 2019 in Chicago, Illinois. The event was hosted by the University of Chicago Institute of Politics. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

DAVID AXELROD SEES BAD NEWS FOR BIDEN: THINGS LOOK OUT OF CONTROL AND HES NOT IN COMMAND'

The senior political commentator for the network went on to defend Democrats who wanted "vigorous" action from Biden over the "shocking" Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, while also defending Biden for having a tough job to handle.

"I have great sympathy forthe people in the White House.I was in the White House duringa similarly freighted time back in2010, it is not pleasant to beon the receiving end of all of these very helpful suggestions," Axelrod said. But he claimed Democrats were faulting Biden for not being politically aggressive when he ran on an opposing platform as a candidate.

"But, when Democrats choseJoe Biden, when Joe Biden waselected, he was elected for thevery things he's beingcriticized for.He was elected because he was considered a calm, conciliatoryfigure after the tumultuous years of Donald Trump," he argued.

President Joe Biden delivers remarks on the recent mass shootings from the White House on June 02, 2022 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

DAVID AXELROD URGES BIDEN TO SHOW HUMILITY AHEAD OF SOTU ADDRESS: PROCEED WITH CAUTION IF YOU BOAST RECORD

Axelrod went on to say that Biden's "done better than his numbers reflect" and that criticism from Democrats is mostly a result of Biden not acting quickly or aggressively enough.

But Axelrod himself has contributed to the negativity coming from within the Democratic Party.

Just last week, he told CNN's Jake Tapper that the economy was making Biden look weak. Last month, he earned the ire of "The View" co-host Joy Behar for telling the Times that the president's age was a "major" stumbling block to running in 2024. In response, Behar scolded the former White House adviser to "keep his mouth shut."

President Biden announces a ban on Russian oil imports, toughening the toll on Russia's economy in retaliation for its invasion of Ukraine, Tuesday, March 8, 2022, in the Roosevelt Room at the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

According to that Times report published in June, Democrats outside the White House are questioning if President Biden run again in the 2024 election, citing his age and ineffective leadership reasons why he shouldn't.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez drew headlines when she dodged answering whether she'd support Biden running again, during a CNN interview.

A Fox News poll in June found 57% of voters view the president negatively.

Kristine Parks is an associate editor for Fox News Digital. Story tips can be sent to kristine.parks@fox.com.

Continue reading here:
David Axelrod tells CNN 'fear and panic' over midterms driving Democrat grumbling about Biden - Fox News

In a ridiculous new campaign ad released this week, Jerone Davison, a Black Republican in Arizona whos running for Congress, scares off what he calls Ku Klux Klan Democrats by brandishing an assault-style rifle.

Anybody arguing that todays Klan and todays Democrats are simpatico doesnt have good walking-around sense.

A Black man claiming he needs an AR-15 to keep a dozen Ku Klux Dems from invading his home may believe hes being clever, but really, hes just making an argument for putting would-be gun owners through a battery of cognitive tests. Because anybody arguing that todays Klan and todays Democrats are simpatico doesnt have good walking-around sense, to say nothing of good walking-around-with-a-gun sense.

But Davison must know that nonsense is more likely to make him attractive to the voters he wants to send him to the House, especially the kind of nonsense that implies that Black people are fools to vote blue.

Democrats like to say that no one needs an AR-15 for self-defense, that no one could possibly need all 30 rounds, we hear a voice say as Davison stands in his window with an AR-15-style rifle watching a whole klavern of Klansmen approach with a barbed bat and, for some reason, an assortment of garden tools. But when this rifle is the only thing standing between your family and a dozen angry Democrats in Klan hoods, you just might need that semi-automatic. And all 30 rounds.

Before we get to the main point, lets pause to point out the ads assumption that a dozen Klansmen looking to invade this Black mans home would themselves eschew AR-15s in favor of garden rakes and hatchets. In what part of Arizona would a homeowner have 30 rounds and a dozen Klansmen not have 360?

But thats the reality that the GOPs gun fetishists consistently ignore as they promote a political philosophy based on old Westerns: Theres nothing about being a so-called good guy with a gun that provides an advantage over a bad guy with the same.

On one level, Davisons false charge against Democrats is as flippant and reflexively dishonest as the claims that the Jan. 6, 2021, invasion of the U.S. Capitol was carried out not by Trump loyalists but by those opposed to Donald Trump. It doubles as an iteration of an older Republican argument: Because the Emancipation Proclamation, the preservation of the Union and a constitutional amendment ending slavery were Republican victories, Black people are fools to vote for anybody but Republicans but especially foolish to vote for Democrats, given that many were on the wrong side of the war, made up the bulk of the opposition to emancipation and, yes, included people who belonged to the Ku Klux Klan.

If theres a politician caught up in some kind of, er, klandal, safe money is on its being a Republican.

Had Republicans remained devoted to championing Black causes over Democrats objections, then puzzlement over Black peoples voting habits would be warranted. But to repeat a point previously made in this space, white Americans began their great migration out of the Democratic Party when it embraced civil rights, voting rights and anti-poverty programs. No Democrat running for the White House has won the white vote since.

At the same time, if theres a politician caught up in some kind of, er, klandal, safe money is on it being a Republican. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., attended a white nationalist conference in Orlando, Florida, and Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., with whom Davison would represent Arizona if hes elected, sent a recorded greeting to the same conference. Years ago, Steve Scalise of Louisiana, now the second-highest-ranking Republican in the House, accepted an invitation from David Dukes campaign manager and political adviser to address a meeting of the European American Rights Organization, or EURO. As for Duke, who founded the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan decades before he founded EURO, he says hes a Republican, and he has run for office as such, greatly embarrassing Louisianas Republican Party leadership. (Duke's political history is also emblematic of the political shift mentioned above, in that he first ran for office (in 1979) as a conservative Democrat.)

Then there's Trump. When a coalition of white supremacist groups followed the Ku Klux Klan to Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017, Trump declared that there were good people among them even after a woman protesting their evil presence was run over and killed. If Trump had thought the Klan was made up of Democrats, hed have said so.

Davisons ad is a reminder that Republicans rarely try to attract Black voters to the party; they try to shame and insult them into it. How could you possibly vote for a party that fought for slavery, they ask? As if Black people would be better off choosing the party thats looking to finish off the Voting Rights Act.

Its past time that Republican candidates stop insulting Black peoples intelligence and acting as if we cant separate the past from the present. Arguing that every Ku Klux Klan member is a Democrat because of what happened in the past makes about as much sense as arguing that Davisons peering out of a window with a rifle pointed upward makes him Malcolm X.

Original post:
Campaign ad criticizing KKK Democrats is nonsensical and insulting - MSNBC

President Joe Bidens economic agenda might be back from the dead. If the original proposal was Build Back Better, this is more like Build Back a Bit.

Democrats this week took the first formal step toward reviving a stripped-down version of the nearly $2 trillion plan that Senator Joe Manchin killed late last year. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer asked the Senate parliamentarian to review a proposed agreement that aims to reduce the cost of prescription drugs by allowing Medicare to negotiate prices directlya long-sought Democratic priority that Manchin supports. That is one major component of a deal Schumer and Manchin have been discussing that would include hundreds of billions of dollars to combat climate change along with deficit-slashing tax increases on the wealthy.

The deal could be ready for votes on the Senate floor by the end of this month, according to a Democrat familiar with the talks who described the development as major progress toward enacting a chunk of Bidens program before the midterm elections. Caveats abound: Schumer and Manchin have yet to complete either the tax or the climate portions of the bill, and the West Virginia centrist has abandoned negotiations before. With no Republican support, Democrats need the parliamentarian to determine whether their proposal can qualify for the process known as budget reconciliation, which would circumvent an expected filibuster and allow a bill to pass with a simple majority vote. A second Democratic aide, who like the first spoke anonymously to describe the delicate discussions, told me that a final deal would probably take several weeks and characterized the hopes for a vote before Congress breaks for its August recess as ambitious.

Read: Its not just Manchin

Yet the fact that the Schumer-Manchin talks have advanced even this far counts as a welcome surprise for Democrats, especially considering how acrimoniously the original Build Back Better negotiations collapsed in December. Manchin walked away after accusing the White House of putting his family at risk by singling him out in an otherwise anodyne statement describing the status of the discussions. In announcing his decision on Fox News, he further complained that the Democrats proposal was full of budget gimmicks and could worsen inflation. Because Manchin represented the crucial 50th vote in the evenly divided Senate, his departure ended Bidens hopes of delivering on a progressive agenda that initially included a federal paid-leave program, universal pre-kindergarten, free community college, and an extension of the presidents expanded child tax credit.

The negotiations remained dormant through the winter. There is no Build Back Better bill, Manchin told reporters in February. Its dead. But he and Schumer quietly began talking again in the spring, keeping their negotiations secret both to avoid the daily pestering of the Capitol Hill press corps and to prevent Democrats from getting their hopes up. Gone are many of the items on Bidens original wish list, as is the original $3.5 trillion price tag. The total revenue Schumer and Manchin now hope to generate through tax increases and drug-pricing reform is likely to be in the area of $1 trillion, with about $500 billion in new spending on climate and energy policies.

Any deal that Schumer and Manchin strike will probably win applause from the bulk of the Democratic Party, including progressives. A $1 trillion bill might seem paltry next to the dream of $3.5 trillion, but its a lot better than the nothing that most Democrats have expected to get for the past six months. The contours are fine, Adam Green, a co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, told me about the potential deal. He said the climate piece was by far the most important aspect of the package for progressives, especially in light of last months Supreme Court decision limiting the EPAs ability to fight climate change. We cant reverse the Trump tax cuts if the planet disintegrates. The other two [proposals] are political winners, Green said of the drug-pricing reforms and tax increases. Climate change is just existential for the planet, and this might be our last chance.

Robinson Meyer: The Supreme Courts EPA ruling is going to be very, very expensive

Another sign that the negotiations are serious is that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell tried to torpedo them last week by threatening to pull GOP support from a bipartisan high-tech manufacturing bill if the Democrats moved forward with the one-party reconciliation progress. Schumers move today suggests that at least for now, McConnells warning hasnt scared off Manchin.

As I wrote last year, the political advantage of Bidens economic agenda was always its size and ambition, because that meant with slim margins in Congress, it could withstand plenty of cuts and still represent a significant legislative accomplishment. That remains true today, perhaps even more so. An agreement on drug pricing, climate spending, and tax increases, combined with Bidens $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, the $1 trillion infrastructure law, and the recent bipartisan gun-safety compromise, would make the presidents legislative record look a lot more robust.

Politically, a scaled-down bill that passes close to the midterm elections, when it will be fresh in voters minds, might be just as beneficial to Democrats as a larger bill enacted months earlier. Each of the major components has clear constituencies. Lowering the cost of prescription drugs is a particular hit with seniors, a key voting bloc, and Democrats also plan to sell the change as a way to offset the impact of inflation. Combatting climate change is a priority of progressive and younger voters, whom Democrats need to turn out in November. And polls have long shown that tax increases on the wealthy are among the most broadly popular proposals in Bidens plan.

Members of Congress love their sports metaphors, and in that spirit, the emerging Schumer-Manchin proposal is less a Hail Mary pass than a long-field-goal attempt right before halftime. Substantively, none of the proposals would fully solve the problems they aim to address. The drug-pricing scheme is less ambitious than what Democrats initially wanted, and Manchin has already watered down some of the climate policies backed by progressives. Electorally, given persistent inflation and Bidens approval rating dipping into the 30s, maintaining the House majority may be impossible for Democrats (the Senate is another story). But taken as a whole, the package could help Democrats keep the score closeboth in their bid to deliver tangible results for their voters and in the battle for power in Congress this fall.

Link:
Democrats Try to Build Back (A Bit) Better - The Atlantic