Mediaboss Marketing

This week the Biden Administration caved to pressure from progressives and tentatively embraced an effort led by India and South Africa to permit widespread international violations of intellectual property (IP) rights related to COVID-19 vaccines, treatments, and diagnostics. The effort, however, will not advance the global fight against COVID-19, as the Biden Administration is surely aware. IP protections are not limiting vaccine availability, but waiving them could have long-term implications for innovation.

Over 100 developing nations along with progressive activists and many Democratic lawmakers in the United States have been pushing for a waiver of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)one of the key founding agreements of the World Trade Organizationarguing that IP protections are preventing developing countries from accessing COVID-19 vaccines. In theory, waiving IP protections for vaccines and other assorted products will allow countries such as India and South Africa to begin manufacturing vaccines themselves, thus speeding up the effort to reach global herd immunity. Given the ongoing public health tragedy in India in particular, any action that would speed access to vaccines and treatment would appear worthwhile. The proposed TRIPS waiver, however, wont help.

The issue is that there is little underutilized manufacturing capacity that can easily be activated if only those manufacturers had the access to patent information about the various vaccines. Adar Poonawalla, CEO of the Serum Institute of Indiacurrently the largest producer of COVID-19 vaccine doses in the worldhas argued that access to IP is not limiting vaccine production; rather it is the time involved in scaling up manufacturing capacity. Similarly, Sai Prasadpresident of the Developing Countries Vaccine Manufactures Network and an executive at Bharat Biotech, and Indian company specializing in vaccine manufacturingtold Reuters that waiving IP will not increase vaccine access because it is the capacity to manufacture the vaccines that is the obstacle, not access to IP.

In reality, vaccine developers have already been contracting with their competitors to make use of any excess manufacturing capacity available. In fact, Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca, and Novavax have all licensed their IP to Indian-based manufacturers. And for all the concern about IP preventing access to vaccines, India has yet to approve vaccines developed by Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, or Moderna for emergency use within the country. Whats more, the Biden Administration knows that IP is not a barrier to vaccine access. Just this last Sunday White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain said in an interview with CBS News that really, manufacturing is the biggest problem. We have a factory here in the U.S. that has the full intellectual property rights to make the vaccine. They arent making doses because the factory has problems.

President Biden has clearly calculated that standing up to progressive demands to undercut IP rights isnt worth the political price, even though he knows that waiving IP will not address the vaccine shortfall. Unfortunately, waiving IP will have downstream impacts. Once the IP has been waived, there is no way to put the knowledge back in the bottle after the pandemic, and the investments in innovation these patent holders made will be much harder to recoup. The Indian government also knows that waiving IP wont fix the problem; instead this push is simply another front in a global fight against the basic idea of IP. But if we allow erosion of IP rights on this issue, its an open question if companies will continue to make the investments needed to address future public health threats.

Tara ONeill Hayes, Director of Human Welfare Policy

Over the past three years, overallhealth care priceshave gradually increased, rising 1.3 percent between March 2018 and March 2019 and 2.5 percent from March 2020 to March of this year. There are, however, noticeably different rates of growth across the various health care product and service lines.For example, hospital prices grew 1.8 percent and 2.5 percent year-over-year by March 2019 and March 2020, respectively, before jumping 4.8 percent by March 2021. Prices for physician and clinical services followed the same trend, but at a slower rate, rising 0.5 percent, 1.2 percent, and 2.9 percent in each of the past three years.Prescription drug prices, on the other hand, have declined in two of the past three years: down 0.4 percent from March 2018 to 2019, rising just 1.5 percent by March 2020, and declining 2.3 percent by March 2021. These figures indicate that health care price growth is not being driven by prescription drug prices, but rather by ever-risinghospital pricesprimarily, particularly given that hospital care accounts for nearly 40 percent of all health care expenditures while prescription drugs account for less than 20 percent.

Christopher Holt, Director of Health Care Policy

To track the progress in vaccinations, the Weekly Checkup will compile the most relevant statistics for the week, with the seven-day period ending on the Wednesday of each week.

Sources: Centers for Disease Control and PreventionTrends in COVID-19 Cases and Deaths in the US, andTrends in COVID-19 Vaccinations in the US

Note: The U.S. population is 330,252,151.

Testimony: Lower Drug Costs Now Expanding Access to Affordable Health Care AAF President Douglas Holtz-EakinThe phrase rising drug costs is riddled with ambiguity, and some recent proposals for government negotiationare instead pushing for government price setting.

Axios:Lawmakers seek COVID-19 money for opioid treatment

Kaiser Health News:In Appalachia and the Mississippi Delta, Millions Face Long Drives to Stroke Care

Read the original here:
Biden Sides with Progressives in Fight Against Intellectual Property - AAF - American Action Forum

Progressive lawmakers pushed back hard after some Republicans and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce called for ending extra $300 weekly unemployment payments to jobless workers amid the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

GOP lawmakers and the Chamber of Congress, a pro-business lobby group that generally backs Republican candidates, blamed extra federal unemployment payments approved by Congress in the American Rescue Plan for the significantly less than expected job growth in April. The Department of Labor released the April jobs report on Friday, showing that the economy added just 266,000 jobs last month despite predictions that it would be closer to 1 million.

But progressives and officials from President Joe Biden's administration were quick to push back against the calls for ending the extra payments, as millions of workers remain unemployed.

"Providing an extra $300 a week in unemployment benefits to low-income families living in desperation is not radical. What's radical is that 719 billionaires became $1.6 trillion richer during the pandemic while the $7.25 federal minimum wage has not been increased in 12 years," Senator Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent and prominent progressive, tweeted on Saturday.

Sanders pushed back against the Republicans' criticism of the supplemental unemployment on Friday as well.

"No. We don't need to end $300 a week in emergency unemployment benefits that workers desperately need. We need to end starvation wages in America. If $300 a week is preventing employers from hiring low-wage workers there's a simple solution: Raise your wages. Pay decent benefits," Sanders wrote on Twitter.

Representative Pramila Jayapal, a Washington Democrat who chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus, shared similar sentiments on social media.

"The federal minimum wage has been $7.25 since 2009. For tipped workers, it's been $2.13 for 30 years. The problem is NOT expanded unemployment assistance," Jayapal tweeted.

Representative Ilhan Omar, a Minnesota Democrat who serves as the Congressional Progressive Caucus whip, blasted the calls to end supplemental payments.

"The interests of big business are at war with the interests of the working class. They will spend millions of dollars to take $300 a month away from you and your family, to force you to work for them for pennies. Their greed has no bounds," Omar tweeted.

"Businesses that pay their workers fairly aren't having trouble finding workers," Omar added. "And if your business can't turn a profit without paying people starvation wages, like the $7.50 an hour federal minimum wage, you shouldn't be in business." Continuing, the progressive congresswoman said "we wouldn't need to have this conversation" if businesses shifted the money they spent on lobbying the government to paying workers higher wages.

After the release of the latest jobs report, the Chamber of Commerce was quick to weigh in with criticism of the extra $300 weekly unemployment payments on Friday.

"The disappointing jobs report makes it clear that paying people not to work is dampening what should be a stronger jobs market," Neil Bradley, the lobby's executive vice president and chief policy officer, said. "We need a comprehensive approach to dealing with our workforce issues and the very real threat unfilled positions poses to our economic recovery from the pandemic."

In a statement emailed to Newsweek, Kasper Zeuthen, vice president of communications for the Chamber of Commerce, argued that his organization is taking into account the best interests of businesses and workers.

"It is no secret that our focus is on what is best for America's companies and their workersand we should all be focused on how we can help our country's recovery and create more jobs," Zeuthen said.

Senator Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican, called Biden "delusional" on Twitter after he told reporters he did not believe the extra unemployment benefits were the cause of the lackluster job numbers. Representative Chris Stewart, a Utah Republican, tweeted that the news in the report was "no surprise," writing that "paying people not to work is bad policy."

"While Dems trap people in a cycle of fear & pay them NOT to work, it's clear the best thing to do is end the crisis-era policies & get Americans back to work," House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, a California Republican, wrote on Twitter, slamming Biden over the job figures.

Meanwhile, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and Labor Secretary Marty Walsh disputed the Republicans' assessment. They pointed to strong job gains in the leisure and hospitality sectors, which generally hire lower wage workers that would be most likely to be paid more on unemployment than to work.

"This month's report, as far as leisure and hospitalitywhich includes restaurantssaw the most significant gains," Walsh told Fox News on Friday. "Lots of restaurants weren't open full time until recently," he added, saying that restaurants are only open at full capacity in about three-quarters of the country.

Yellen shared a similar perspective with reporters. "If the unemployment bonus was slowing down hiring, one would expect lower job growth in states and sectors where unemployment insurance is particularly high. In fact, what one sees is the exact opposite," the treasury secretary explained.

Read this article:
Progressives Blast GOP Calls to End $300 Weekly Unemployment: 'Greed Has No Bounds' - Newsweek

Many progressives have been pleasantly surprised by President Joe Bidens sweeping proposals to repair the United States failing infrastructure, expand health care coverage and address the climate crisis. Some have suggested that one way to pay for such things would be to cut the military budget, especially since Biden has announced that he is ending U.S. involvement in the Afghan war.

Were dumping billions of dollars into a bloated Pentagon budget. Dont increase defense spending. Cut it and invest that money into our communities.

But hopes for a peace dividend were dashed when Biden came out in April with a proposed military budget of $753 billion a $13 billion increase to Trumps already gargantuan sum and one that includes more than $30 billion for new nuclear weapons.

Congressional progressives have long complained about runaway military spending. In 2020, 93 members in the House and 23 in the Senate voted to cut the Pentagon budget by 10% and invest those funds in critical human needs. A House Spending Reduction Caucus, co-chaired by Reps. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), emerged with 22 members on board, including all four members of the Squad but also more moderate or mainstream Democrats.

Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, one of the largest caucuses in Congress with almost 100 members, also want reductions in the military budget.

Were in the midst of a crisis that has left millions of families unable to afford food, rent and bills, Caucus Chair Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) told The Nation magazine. But at the same time, were dumping billions of dollars into a bloated Pentagon budget. Dont increase defense spending. Cut it and invest that money into our communities.

Bidens military and non-military budget resolution, a package deal, is expected to hit the floor in June or July. If Republicans refuse to support it, the president would need every Democrat in the Senate and almost all Democrats in the House to win approval.

In the House, Biden needs at least 212 of the 218 Democratic seats (allowing for current vacancies in both parties. But what if at least seven members of the House voted no or even just threatened to put their foot down because the budget calls for increased military spending and a plan to modernize U.S. nuclear weapons and maintain 800 overseas bases?

Now is the time for congressional progressives like the Squad Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Ayanna Presley (D-Mass.) to unite with Jayapal, Lee, Pocan and others in the Defense Spending Reduction Caucus, to stand as a block against a bloated military budget.

During a pandemic, it makes no sense to approve a military budget that is 95 times the budget of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The billions saved from right-sizing the Pentagon could also provide critical funds for addressing the climate crisis.

And it would be applauded by the Democrats base. Polls show that 70% of Democrats favor not just cutting nuclear weapons, but actually eliminating them. This is in line with the newly passed U.N. Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, as well as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which requires nuclear states to pursue disarmament to avoid a catastrophic accident or intentional nuclear holocaust.

Will progressives in Congress play hardball to threaten Bidens entire budget by insisting he reduce military spending and scrap plans for a new nuclear arsenal? Will they have the courage to unite behind such a noble cause as saving the planet from an existential nuclear threat?

Odds will improve if their constituents flood them with messages insisting that now is the time to finally put an end to the cycle of exponential military spending and invest, instead, in the needs of the people.

This column was produced for The Progressive magazine and distributed by Tribune News Service.

Marcy Winograd of Progressive Democrats of America is a coordinator for CODEPINKCONGRESS, where she spearheads Capitol Hill calling parties to mobilize votes for peace.

May 10, 2021

9:32 AM

Visit link:
Let's Unite to Cut Military Spending - Progressive.org - Progressive.org - Progressive.org

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the White House issued Mother's Day messages on Sunday as some progressives crusadingagainst gendered terms elect to use the term "birthing people" instead.

"Our mothers are our Guardian Angels, and we carry them always in our hearts, whether or not we are blessed to have them with us," Pelosi, D-Calif.,wrote on Sunday. "Happy Mother's Day to you and your family."

REP. CORI BUSH SCORCHED FOR REFERRING TO WOMEN AS BIRTHING PEOPLE'

"Moms have always built, shaped, led, and sustained this country and were committed to fighting for the safe and equitable workplaces, affordable health care, child care, and equal pay that every mom deserves. Happy Mother's Day," the White House wrote on Twitter.

However, Rep. Cori Bush, D-Mo., and pro-choice group NARAL have emphasizedthe term "birthing people" in recent days.

"Every day, Black birthing people and our babies die because our doctors dont believe our pain. My children almost became a statistic. I almost became a statistic. I testified about my experience@OversightDems today. Hear us. Believe us. Because for so long, nobody has," Bush wrote on Twitter on Thursday.

"When we talk about birthing people, we're being inclusive. It's that simple. We use gender neutral language when talking about pregnancy, because it's not just cis-gender women that can get pregnant and give birth. Reproductive freedom is for *every* body," NARAL posted on its official Twitter account on the same day.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, mocked the phrase on Mother's Day.

"Happy Birthing People's Day!" he wrote on Twitter alongside a graphic showing the word "Mother's" erased and replaced with "Birthing People's.

Republicans also mocked House Democrats earlier this year when they unveiled a gender-free rules package.

In an effort to be inclusive to those who don't identify as a specific gender, therules package strips all mention of gender-specific pronouns and terms such as "man," "woman," "mother" and "son."

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., speaks during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Friday, March 19, 2021. (Chip Somodevilla/Pool via AP) (AP)

The Office of theWhistleblower Ombudsman, for instance, is renamed in the rules to the "Office of the Whistleblower Ombuds."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

There's nothing in the rules that prohibit members from using gender-specific terms when speaking on the House floor or conducting business.

House MinorityLeader Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., mocked the inclusionary effort as "stupid."

Fox News' inquiry to Bush's office was not returned at the time of publication.

Fox News' Marisa Schultz contributed to this report.

Go here to see the original:
Pelosi, Biden praise moms on Mother's Day amid progressive talk of 'birthing people' - Fox News

We Texans are used to hearing our state caricatured by Northerners as a desert full of swaggering cowboys, big oil and corrupt conservative politicians. But recently, there's been a new addition to the list of tropes: the elusive Latino vote.

Ever since the 2020 election, pundits have had a field day talking up the supposed erosion of Latino support for Democrats. Don't be misled. While it's true that there was some shift in the Latino vote towards Republicans, those of us who live and labor in Texas are experiencing a groundswell of new, young, liberal engagement, promising a different trajectory is already underway.

As a veteran community and political organizer in the state, the Texas I know is racially diverse, increasingly urban, and getting both younger and more progressive. And to anyone who really wants to change American politics and secure democratic voting practices, a fair economy, racial justice, and climate remediation, I say: Texas is your place.

Nowhere are the demographic trends more favorable. You might know that 40 percent of Texans are Latino. But did you know Texas is also home to the largest population of Black Americans in the country? Almost 13 percent of Texans are African American. Add a growing percentage of Asians, and a healthy smattering of other groups, and you have a microcosm of the growing diversity across the country.

Our age demographics make the prospects for a progressive Texas look even brighter: An eye-popping 43 percent of Texans are under 30, and Latinos comprise 50 percent of those under 18. Furthermore, studies indicate that this base of new and prospective voters veers decidedly progressive. A 2018 report by Jolt Initiative, the civic engagement organization which I led, found that the top priorities for Latino youth in Texas are healthcare for all, immigration reform, and racial equity. In the 2020 election, young people turned out in record numbers--and voted overwhelmingly for President Biden.

The 2020 drift of Latinos in the Rio Grande Valley toward Donald Trump was more an indication of desperation than values. In a part of the state where the pandemic tripled unemployment, the Republican message was, "We will get you back to work, and reopen your schools," while the Democratic message was, "Stay at home, wear a mask."

If you're that mom or dad who just lost your job and are about to get evicted, who do you vote for?

Pundits should beware of overgeneralizing from these trying times and the Democrats' poor messaging. The real Texas is far more nuanced than the current spate of news-spinning suggests, and it's fertile ground for progressives, provided we foster the conditions for change.

That includes moving from a two-dimensional Republicans vs. Democrats model to a multidimensional electoral universe that includes the entire eligible voting-age population. Because the sad truth is, one third of eligible voters rarely or never vote. And statistics indicate that those who don't vote are people of color, the young and the poor.

We need fair laws that allow people to actually exercise their voting rights through equal access and fairly drawn districts. According to the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice, it was harder to cast a ballot in Texas than in any other state across the country in 2020. Texas's regulations have especially disadvantaged urban areas, home to the largest communities of color, and which trend Democratic.

Now, Texas Governor Greg Abbott and the Republican majority advanced new legislation to codify suppression under the false pretense of "election integrity." Reminiscent of the barriers to voting that swept through the Jim Crow South, they are so blatantly racist and anti-democratic that even major corporations have stepped in to object. These laws, and the likely fiesta of gerrymandered new districts we can expect to follow the Census, are an insult to democracy.

We need to give our communities a compelling reason to vote for a progressive vision. Less than a year before 2020, Bernie Sanders was the favorite Democratic candidate for Latino voters, both in South Texas and in the urban areas. Better outcomes lie ahead for Democrats if we pay real attention, invest early, speak to the real needs and dreams of voters of color, and fight for every vote to count, and be counted.

It's well worth the investment. Texas isn't just the vestige of Confederate America that Northerners imagine. In its scale, geography, diversity, and demography is the vision of our best America, the one we've been talking about since our inception, with equality and opportunity for all.

And the road to that America runs deep through the heart of Texas.

Antonio Arellano is a Senior Political Strategist and former Interim Executive Director of Jolt, a progressive civic engagement organization focused on building the political power and influence of young Latinos in Texas. Twitter: @AntonioArellano.

The views in this article are the writer's own.

See original here:
Stop Saying Latinos Are Turning Republican. The Progressive Future Runs Through Texas | Opinion - Newsweek