Mediaboss Marketing

Although the 2020 election cycle has been dominated by the covid-19 pandemic and widespread social justice movements, the election will have profound implications for U.S. trade policy and particularly, for our state. Texas exports totaled $330 billion dollars in 2019, roughly 20% of total U.S. exports, and account for more than 30% of the states GDP. Where do the presidential candidates stand on trade? There are some key differences.

Donald Trump ran in 2016 on a populist, anti-globalization platform promising to put America first and get tough on trade partners like China. Since taking office, he has followed through on many of his goals, announcing U.S. withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (proposed but not ratified under the Obama Administration), renegotiating several aspects of NAFTA to produce the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement, and engaging China in a trade war, putting tariffs on many of its products.

These policies help some segments of the population but hurt others. Some manufacturing workers in industries that compete with Chinese imports benefit, as do workers in industries that have chosen to keep production in the U.S. because of new local content requirements in the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement.

But all tariffs create higher prices for consumers, as importers within the U.S. pay tax revenue to the government and must adjust their prices to offset those costs. And many exporters, such as farmers in Midwest states like Iowa, Illinois, or Wisconsin, have been hurt by retaliatory tariffs from China.

Finally, job loss in some sectors of the U.S. economy are driven by larger, long-term structural forces that tariffs cant address, such as automation in manufacturing.

The Trump Administration has also rejected multilateral governance of trade, opting to operate outside of the World Trade Organizations Dispute Settlement Mechanism a court of sorts for resolving trade disputes. In fact, the U.S. has now effectively paralyzed the mechanism by refusing to approve the appointment of new appellate judges. This has undermined the ability of other countries to seek redress for allegations of unfair trading practices.

As for Joe Biden, he comes from a tradition of centrist, pragmatic democrats that generally embrace free trade. Yet he has also been supportive of labor protections, and may seek to do more to compensate those displaced by foreign competition, especially with pressure from the far left of the Democratic Party.

He has criticized many of Donald Trumps trade policies as overly erratic, which may undermine U.S. credibility. He has also argued for a tough stance on China, but in the past supported multilateral initiatives like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which would have positioned the U.S. as an alternative trade partner to China for many Asian countries.

Biden has been critical of the Trump Administrations negotiations with China, arguing that China has been let off easy. It is likely that a Biden Presidential Administration would seek to repair many of the frayed relations with traditional U.S. trading partners, while seeking greater multilateral cooperation to push back against Chinas growing economic influence.

Biden would also most likely seek to restore American leadership within international institutions, such as the Word Trade Organization. As a senator and later as Vice President, Biden was known for his foreign policy expertise. He views a robust U.S. presence in the world as critical to U.S. power and prosperity, and one way the U.S. has helped maintain a liberal order since 1945 is by wielding its power through institutions. The Obama Administration attempted to utilize the Dispute Settlement Mechanism to put pressure on China, filing multiple disputes that resulted in several policy concessions.

The candidates pose a stark contrast on many issues, including their approach to international trade policy. Their only point of agreement would seem to be confronting China, although they differ on the approach. The choice will be an important one for Texas, given the size of its export sector.

Terrence Chapman is an associate professor of government at The University of Texas at Austin.

A version of this op-ed appeared in the San Antonio Express News.

See the original post:
Joe Biden vs. Donald Trump on US Trade Policy - UT News - UT News | The University of Texas at Austin

Sign up for The Brief, our daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

President Donald Trump on Wednesday named U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, as a potential nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Trump included Cruz among 20 possible picks for the high court if Trump wins a second term in November and a seat later becomes open. The 20 new names come in addition to a group of prospective justices that Trump named during the 2016 campaign and has since drawn from to fill two vacancies on the court.

Cruz's name has come up before as a potential Supreme Court appointee, and he has said he isn't interested. In a statement released moments after Trump's announcement, Cruz was noncommittal and seemed to suggest he was satisfied with serving in the Senate.

"It's humbling and an immense honor to be considered for the Supreme Court," Cruz said. "In the Senate, I have been blessed to lead the fight to preserve our constitutional liberties every day, to defend the rights of 29 million Texans and I look forward to continuing to do so for many years to come.

Trump also added a second Texan, James Ho, to his list of potential Supreme Court picks. Ho is a judge on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and former Texas solicitor general.

Since Trump locked down the GOP nomination in 2016, Cruz has occasionally fielded questions about the possibility of serving on the Supreme Court, given his background in constitutional law. He usually denies interest and says he is more interested in shaping the court as a U.S. senator and politician.

Four years ago, Trump's commitment to naming the justices he could appoint to the court was one of the reasons that Cruz endorsed him after their bitter primary battle.

Ho, who succeeded Cruz as Texas solicitor general, has earned a reputation as one of Trump's most hard-line picks for the federal appellate courts.

Ho has been pivotal in inching the 5th Circuit, already one of the country's most conservative federal appellate courts, further right. He wrote that the Second Amendment has been treated as a "'second-class' right."

In his very first writing for the court, Ho panned campaign donation limits, writing, "if there is too much money in politics, it's because there's too much government." He suggested a long-serving federal judge had shown bias in allowing a subpoena of a religious group in a lawsuit over the handling fetal remains, decrying "the moral tragedy of abortion." In March 2019, he misgendered a transgender plaintiff.

Another 5th Circuit judge with Texas ties, Kyle Duncan, is also on the list. Duncan, who is from Louisiana, is a former assistant Texas solicitor general.

Emma Platoff contributed reporting.

Visit link:
Ted Cruz is on Donald Trump's list of potential Supreme Court picks - The Texas Tribune

Nine pharmaceutical giants pledge to uphold scientific and ethical standards rather than rush a coronavirus vaccine

Sep 12th 2020

THE WORLDS 7.5bn people want a vaccine for covid-19 as soon as possible. One person needs it by November 3rd. As President Donald Trump limps towards election day, he wants to report real medical progress against the disease. Earlier this year it seemed possible that one or two pharmaceutical firms might be able to obtain some sort of limited approval by the time Americans cast their ballots. That may still be possible. It is certainly desirable, given the pandemics toll on lives and livelihoods. But on September 8th, in an unprecedented move, nine global drugmakers, including AstraZeneca, GSK, Pfizer and Sanofi, announced a pledge to uphold scientific and ethical standards in the search for a coronavirus vaccine.

The message is intended to reassure the public that the companies will not bow to mounting political pressure from the White House to rush through a vaccine without the proper safety and efficacy tests. But it is also a rebuke to the president, who has been politicising the drug-approval processand eroding public confidence in the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This could undermine trust in any vaccine that arrives, as sooner or later one almost certainly will.

Mr Trump has already successfully harried the FDA to authorise drugs, such as hydroxychloroquine, with no scientific evidence for their efficacy. He has accused the regulator (unfairly) of being part of a deep state effort to try to slow down vaccine development until after the election. It looked like part of a strategy to get the regulator to hurry up.

Big pharma is clearly worried. Drug firms stand to lose a great deal if their products are seen as being waved through prematurely. The industry relies on the FDA to make business possible. In the same way that people fly because they trust the aviation regulator, they take medicines because these are believed to be safe and effective. Take away the trust and the medicines makers would suffer.

So would investment in research. Pharmaceutical firms have little incentive to develop better drugs if they can simply claim a new product is superior without having to prove it. When Mr Trump came into office, some in his entourage lobbied him to install as head of the FDA someone with a more relaxed approach to efficacy standards. Doctors and patients immediately raised the alarm. But so did drugmakers, who pushed for a more serious candidate to assume the position.

The industry statement makes it clear that vaccine development will move at the pace of science, not politics. More evidence of this came the same day, when AstraZeneca halted clinical trials around the world after one participant showed an adverse reaction. This may slow down vaccine development. But it is also par for the course. Indeed, AstraZenecas decision shows that the system is working. Not so much deep state as deep science.

Editors note: Some of our covid-19 coverage is free for readers of The Economist Today, our daily newsletter. For more stories and our pandemic tracker, see our hub

This article appeared in the Business section of the print edition under the headline "Strong medicine"

See the original post here:
Why drugmakers are telling Donald Trump to cool his heels - The Economist

Welcome to theFiercePharmapolitical roundup, where each Monday well highlight developments in Washington, D.C., and elsewherethat could affect drug pricing and howdrugmakersoperate.

After toutinga series ofexecutive orders on drug pricing in late July, President Donald Trump has now unveiledthe most significant among theman order tying Medicare's drug prices to much lower costs in other developedcountries. Thebiopharmaindustry pushed back hard, and its unclear exactly when or how the changes would be implemented.

Theexecutive order, released Sunday, saysMedicare should not buycertainPart B or Part D drugs unless at prices paid byat a minimum, the lowest price atwhich the manufacturer sells that drug to any other developed nation.In Part D, the plan would apply where insufficient competition exists and where seniors are faced with prices" higher thanthose in other developed nations.

ESMO Post Show: Highlights from the Virtual Conference

Cancer experts and pharma execs will break down the headline-making data from ESMO, sharing their insights and analysis around the conferences most closely watched studies. This discussion will examine how groundbreaking research unveiled over the weekend will change clinical practice and prime drugs for key new indications, and panelists will fill you in on the need-to-know takeaways from oncologys hottest fields. Register today.

Under the order,HHS secretary Alex Azaristo begin developing payment plans and working throughtherulemakingprocess.Experts said the order wont be immediately implementable.

Sundaysorder does not by itself do anything, Kaiser Family Foundationexecutive vice president of health policyLarry Levittwroteon Twitter. It has to be followed up by regulations, which will take time.

Trump has a history of bold talk on drug prices, only to pull back when it comes to putting actual regulations in place, he said.

But by expanding the order toinclude drugs in MedicarePart D, the policy would apply much more broadly than any policy change we've seen so far from the administration, and is an exciting new development, drug pricing expert Rachel Sachswroteon Twitter.

RELATED:Trump's drug pricing executive orders won't bring real change: experts

The biopharma industry responded swiftly, with both major trade groups calling the order reckless.BIO threatened legal action.

PhRMA is committed to working through drug pricing issues with the government, CEO Stephen Ubl said in a statement.Butthe administration has doubled down on a reckless attack on the very companies working around the clock to beat COVID-19," he said.

The order isan irresponsible and unworkable policy that will give foreign governments a say in how America provides access to treatments and cures for seniors and people struggling with devastating diseases, Ubl said.

BIO CEOMichelle McMurry-Heathechoed the sentiment. Amid the pandemic,its simply dumbfounding that the Trump administration would move forward with its threat to import foreign price controls and the inevitable delays to innovation that will follow, she said.

This reckless scheme will eliminate hope for vulnerable seniors and other patients waiting for new treatments by drastically reducing investment in cutting-edge scientific research and development, she added. That is why we will use every tool availableincluding legal action if necessaryto fight this risky foreign price control scheme.

RELATED:Pharma execs, upset by Trump's drug pricing executive orders, refuse White House meeting

The order follows a series of others unveiled in late July that center on creating discountsfor insulin and epinephrine, eliminating rebates andallowing drug imports. The Trump administration said it gave the pharma industry time to negotiate on the favored-nations clause, but those talks didnt yield an acceptable alternative, White House deputy press secretary said, asquotedby CNN.

See the original post:
FiercePharmaPoliticsTrump unveils favored-nation drug pricing executive order, and pharma hits back - FiercePharma

After blissfully escaping Los Angeles to go on a long road trip with his family this summer, Jimmy Kimmel is officially back to the grind in a city that is full of smoke from the surrounding wildfires. Everything tastes like a barbecue without the food, he jokes.

When I ask the late-night host if he had trouble disconnecting from the news while he was away, he says, I mean at first it was hard and then it was not hard. I feel like its either non-stop or stop. But it was nice to be able to get off the treadmill for a minute.

This coming Sunday, Kimmel will get back on the treadmill to host an entirely virtual Emmy Awards. While he will deliver his monologue and other bits from an empty stage at the Staples Center, all of the presenters and nominees will appear from their homes.

Kimmel explains that hes been honing the unique skill of telling jokes without any expectation of laughter starting with his early days as a radio DJ in Phoenix, Arizona. He perfected it during his monologues from home starting back in March when the coronavirus pandemic shut down production at Jimmy Kimmel Live! and every other late-night talk show.

After three months of quarantine shows, Kimmel revealed his plans to take the entire summer off, with a series of guest-hosts filling in for him until he ultimately returns to his theater the Monday after the Emmys. The announcement came amidst the George Floyd protests and a reckoning in the media that prompted Jimmy Fallon to apologize on his show for previously wearing blackface to portray Chris Rock on Saturday Night Live.

The next night, Kimmel delivered an emotional monologue about acknowledging his white privilege, but it wasnt until after he went off the air for the summer that he decided to issue a public apology for his own unfortunate appearances in blackface to impersonate NBA player Karl Malone on The Man Show.

As the increasingly outspoken comedian tells me during our interview, he wanted to tell the truth about those embarrassing sketches from early in his career. But he also questions the intentions of the Donald Trump Jr.s of the world who claim to be against cancel culture while at the same time doing everything they can to cancel comedians who make fun of them.

Weve now blurred the line between candidates and comedians, he says. They are very different and should be treated differently.

Kimmel also explains why he is one of the few comics still willing to host award shows despite the inevitable backlash, how he maintains hope that Trump will be ousted from office in the fall, and a lot more.

So youre currently preparing to host this entirely virtual Emmys, which is unlike anything weve seen before. Whats the plan, hows it going to work?

I was hoping you were going to tell me. Isnt that why were having this conversation?

Oh yeah, I forgot that was my job.

The plan is Im going to be at the Staples Center essentially by myself. And people are going to be like 40 feet away from me, those who are there. There will be no audience. There will be no one to laugh, which is bad and also good because at least it wont be a surprise if nobody laughs.

Yeah, I was wondering if you had to get used to telling jokes without getting laughs. Because that was the case when you were doing your show from home as well.

I just decided to try to think of it as a radio show with no co-host. And that seems to be what works for me.

Because youve hosted so many of these awards now, does the opportunity to do something really different appeal to you?

No, not at all. I will not lie to you. I would rather be doing this in front of an audience. You know, the fun part of it is getting laughs from people and this is like all of the work and none of the fun.

But you will get to kind of beam into all the nominees homes though, right? Is that how its going to work, where there are actually cameras in everybodys homes for their acceptance speeches?

Yes, everyone will have the cameras positioned in such a way that it doesnt seem like theyre very, very rich. I would imagine well see people in their garages, people Zooming in from their kids rooms and that sort of thing.

What did you think about the recent trend of award shows going without hosts? Because that seems to be where we were headed until this and now it seems like it would be even harder to do a virtual award show without a host.

Honestly, it was kind of funny to me that they positioned it as if it was a conscious decision when the reality is they asked a whole bunch of people and they all said no. And then they made it seem like it was some kind of brilliant programming decision, which it turns out it wasnt. The key is not to cut the host. The key is to make the show shorter. Thats how you do it if you want bigger ratings. But I like a host. I dont like getting in a driverless car and I like to watch an award show with a host.

Youre just old-fashioned that way. But why do you think so many people were saying no to these award shows? You keep saying yes.

Because theres almost no upside to it. It goes one of two ways. Either people go OK, or Oh my God, that was terrible! Lets put a stake through this guys heart. Everything has become so unpleasant. Its a tough thing for most people to navigate.

Do you think that the critics will be any more forgiving for you since youre doing it in such a different way?

You know, I dont worry about the critics. I think the critics write what they believe. Listen, were now split right down the middle. So I know going in, 50 percent of the people are gonna hate me. That wasnt the case 10 years ago.

So the day after the Emmys, youre going back to your theater in L.A. to do Jimmy Kimmel Live! with no audience. I remember you saying at the beginning of the pandemic that you were starting to worry that the networks are going to realize that they dont need to pay for theaters and sets and everything else now that everybody can do this from home. Is that something that youre still worried about at all?

I wouldnt say Im actually worried about it, but I do think that the future is smaller when it comes to television and television shows. And I think that thats just going to be the way it is. Because a lot of it is show business and we dont seem to be as interested in show business anymore now that we have TikTok and Instagram. I guess in a way, if you think about the 40s and 50s, even how people spoke in movies, it became more natural as the years went on. Its kind of like that.

Yeah, its all becoming more similar to our everyday lives when theres not as much of a line between show business and everybody else.

Yeah, when you see so many people behaving naturally, anything other than that feels more artificial I think.

Were headed into these final weeks before the election. Im wondering how youre thinking about that in terms of how youre going to approach what you talk about on the show. Do you feel like thats going to change at all in this final stretch?

Well, there was a lot of Trump over the past three years and I dont see why there would be any less over the next couple of months. I mean, it seems to be all anyone is talking about besides COVID in this election. And I know that theres a lot of anxiety surrounding it. And when theres a lot of anxiety, I think thats when shows like mine have an opportunity to maybe, hopefully lessen that anxiety a little bit by pointing out the humor, pointing out the things that are funny about something that isnt funny at all. So thats a long way of saying, yeah, well be talking about the election a lot.

I know a lot of people who support Donald Trump. I dont know why they do, but I do know people who fall into that category. And I also know that theyre not all a bunch of racist lame-brains.

Were talking the day after Bob Woodwards revelations about Trump deliberately downplaying the pandemic came out. The week before you have the comments about calling the military losers and suckers. After making jokes about him for so long, do you get a sense at this point that any of it will have an impact on the election or change peoples minds?

Oh, I hope so. I have this conversation a lot. And listen, I know a lot of Republicans, I know a lot of people who support Donald Trump. I dont know why they do, but I do know people who fall into that category. And I also know that theyre not all a bunch of racist lame-brains. And I have been heartened to learn that there are a number of people in my life who voted for Trump the first time around who wont do it again. And I think that even if 5 percent of his base feels that wayand boy, I hope we can get more than 5 percent of his base to feel that waythen that is a death knell for him.

It does feel like if anything is going to tip the election towards Joe Biden, its going to be the COVID crisis. And especially now knowing how much Trump misled the American public about itwhich is something we basically knew already, but this is just confirming itand him basically admitting it.

Isnt it crazy that it took this to give Biden the edge? I mean, really, it seems like we should have figured this out the first day when he announced his crowd size was three times bigger than it actually was, when he challenged the veracity of photographs. But thats how divided we are, I guess.

Im curious if you ever find yourself hesitant to make jokes about Joe Biden given the stakes of the election.

No, I do still feel a sense of fairness and if a joke feels true and if I think its going to work, Im going to tell it. Because I am not part of the campaign team, as much as some would like to believe. I think that we have to hold our politicians accountable and find humor in what they do, no matter which side theyre on.

I think that we have to hold our politicians accountable and find humor in what they do, no matter which side theyre on.

Do you have any plans to have either Joe Biden or Kamala Harris on your show and what do you feel like they arent being asked that you would want to ask them?

Yes. I mean, we dont have a date set for any of them, but I think that they know that if it works out for their schedules that wed love to have them on the show. As far as what Id like to ask them, I dont know, I havent really given that a lot of thought. But I am interested in the idea of, how do you approach running against a maniac, running against someone who has no rules? Are you at a disadvantage if you have a sense of decency and behave that way? I always feel like if I was debating Donald Trump, it would devolve into a roast immediately. Id begin insulting him from the first minute until the end of the debate. And it seems to me that it would take a lot of self-control not to.

And hard to know if that would be the most effective approach or not.

Im sure it probably wouldnt, especially for them, but, you know, Im not particularly mature.

So you were off during the conventions, but one thing that really stood out from the Republican convention was how much cancel culture was the huge theme that they decided to focus on. Since then weve seen Trump try to cancel Fox News reporters or companies that he doesnt like. And then theres also the irony of conservatives, like Sean Hannity and others trying to cancel you repeatedly over the years. How do you think about all of that, both from a personal and a political perspective?

Well, I think its unfortunate that that has become something they can grab onto, because I know thats not something that is particular to the right side of the aisle. I think a lot of people feel like this cancel culture goes too far and that theres just no room for apology anymore, that everybody is constantly digging through your trash. And that its not particularly beneficial as far as a functioning society goes. But I do think its unfortunate, because [Trump] is able to grab onto that and to use it as a tool. But most of that has nothing to do with politics. Weve now blurred the line between candidates and comedians and they are very different and should be treated differently. And it does bother me that there are comedians who go into a club that might be fearful about saying something that runs afoul of the political-correctness police. Because you have to be able to say the wrong things to figure out what the right things are and to speak the truth. That kind of self-censorship is dangerous. And I dont think we even know that its happening when it happens. I mean, who wants to go into a comedy club where everyones being careful? Thats not the America I want to live in.

At the same time, obviously at the beginning of your hiatus, you did release a long statement apologizing for these past blackface sketches that you had done a long time ago and explaining your reluctance to address it because of some of these issues. So what went into that decision to issue that long apology?

Well, you used the word blackface, I did not. What went into that decision is just more than anything, just telling the truth, that it is embarrassing to me. And also, I questioned the intentions of most of those who were complaining about it. I know where it was coming from. It was coming from the Donald Trump Jr.s of the world, people who do a tremendous amount of damage to this country in order to elevate themselves and to make themselves famous and to make money. And it just seemed like things were taken out of context and I wanted to put them back into context and move past it.

Another thing that happened during all of the protests and mostly after you went off the air, was that late-night TV got very serious. And I know youve been known to get emotional on your show as well, over some really serious things. Do you ever worry that the humor on these shows is getting lost in any way?

No. I think, you know, were on every night and most nights are jokes. So no, I dont think the humor is getting lost. Im not interested in seeing a guy read a bunch of monologue jokes in a row. I want to know what the person thinks and I want something more. I think it goes back to what we talked about before about show business becoming less showy. I like it when I see [Stephen] Colbert or Seth [Meyers] or any of these guys really talk about something serious. I feel like there are things I learn from it.

For more, listen and subscribe toThe Last Laughpodcast.

See more here:
Jimmy Kimmel Sounds Off on Don Jr.'s Attempts to 'Cancel' Him - The Daily Beast