RESISTING PROTECTIONISM IN THE PHARMACEUTICAL SUPPLY CHAIN

By Clark Packard and Bill Watson

INTRODUCTION

For about 80 years, the United States has aggressively pursued a policy of expanding overseas markets and lowering domestic tariffs and other non-tariff barriers. This process was achieved through a series of bilateral and regional free trade agreements (FTAs), as well as multilateral agreements through the World Trade Organization (WTO) and its precursor system, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Liberalizing international trade in this manner increased the U.S. Gross Domestic Product per capita by about $7,000 and by more than $18,000 (in 2016 dollars) per household.1 Not only that, the poor benefitted disproportionately because they tend to “concentrate spending in more traded sectors.”2 Through these agreements, American firms also were able to establish the certainty they needed to invest abroad, foreign firms invested here and a system of complicated supply chains quickly developed that lowered prices for consumers and enhanced the competitiveness of American firms in globalized markets.

Despite these successes, protectionist opponents on the left and right have long criticized the prevailing consensus for its effect on the domestic manufacturing base.3 “Offshoring,” critics contend, has favored multinational corporations at the expense of the working class.4 Critics also argue that, as a services-heavy economy, the United States is too dependent on imported products from hostile countries and that the U.S. “doesn’t make anything anymore.”5

But, these charges are largely untrue. Today, the United States is the second-largest exporter in the world.6 And, although manufacturing employment (as a percentage of the overall workforce) in the United States has declined, its peak occurred shortly after World War II and began declining in the late 1970s—“long before the North American Free Trade Agreement existed or Chinese imports were more than a rounding error in U.S. GDP.”7 In fact, before the outbreak of COVID-19, manufacturing output was near record highs.8 Instead, it is productivity gains and technological improvements that are the primary drivers of America’s shift away from labor-intensive manufacturing, not import competition or offshoring.9

Despite this reality, American politicians are increasingly interested in reshoring supply chains of various products, especially those deemed “strategic” or required for U.S. national security.10 Hawkish politicians are concerned about U.S. reliance on imports from China and have pushed the United States to embrace a new era of industrial policy.11 Such arguments have intensified since the outbreak of COVID-19, particularly with respect to pharmaceuticals and other products necessary to combat the pandemic. The justification is that non-allies may withhold exports of these critical products, particularly when we need them most. And, accordingly, the administration and Congress are currently considering ways to re-shore some or all of the pharmaceutical supply chain, including a blunt protectionist requirement for the federal government to purchase only pharmaceutical products that are made in the United States.12

Such “Buy American” proposals recently drew a stern rebuke from over 250 leading economists, including Nobel laureates and officials from previous presidential administrations, who warned in a letter organized by the National Taxpayers Union that: “The variety, supply and price of goods available to Americans will suffer under a Buy American regime. Taxpayers and patients will pay more for drugs and medical supplies.”13 And, in fact, any such risk is unnecessary, as there are ways to responsibly increase domestic manufacturing of various pharmaceuticals and active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) without resorting to misguided protectionism.

What’s more, to exploit this crisis as a way to radically overhaul pharmaceutical supply chains could be disastrous, especially if done in a haphazard way. For this reason, the present study first explains the costs of re-shoring pharmaceutical supply chains and the benefits of diversity. It then dispels the dubious national security arguments made by politicians, and makes concrete recommendations for the consideration of policymakers who wish to ensure a secure U.S. pharmaceutical supply chain, including steps to responsibly increase domestic production.

DISPELLING MYTHS

In a May 11 op-ed in The New York Times, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer criticized the “blind pursuit of efficiency” that resulted in “extended, overseas supply lines.”14 He went on to accuse American businesses of following an offshoring “craze,” as they were “swept up by the herd mentality” and a “lemming-like desire for ‘efficiency’” but without adequately considering the risks that come when “long supply lines flow at the whim of local politics, labor unrest and corruption.” He then claimed that the pandemic “has revealed our over reliance on other countries as sources of critical medicines” and called on policymakers to “remedy this strategic vulnerability […] by shifting production back to the United States.”15

This general antipathy toward globalization has been further energized by concerns that the Chinese government has too much power over the American medical supply. Last December, for example, four U.S. senators warned that “overreliance on Chinese API exports raises the possibility that China could terminate or raise the cost of prescription drugs.”16 They further warned that the Chinese government could choose to “weaponize pharmaceuticals, by restricting exports to the United States” or “incorporating lethal ingredients in final products,” and concluded ominously that this “national security threat cannot be overstated.”17 In fact, such a threat is constantly and dramatically overstated, primarily because of the faulty assumption upon which it is based: namely, that our supply chain is over-reliant on China. Like all products created through complex global supply chains, understanding the country of origin for all components of a finished product can be challenging, and pharmaceuticals are certainly no exception. However, the promotion of false statistics is hardly helpful. For example, in the midst of the current pandemic, irresponsible policymakers and even mainstream media outlets persist in promoting the figure that “80 percent of our drugs come from China.”18 And, while that may sound scary (and is likely designed specifically for that purpose), it is simply false.19

To accurately analyze the source of drug imports is complicated in two important ways. One is the distinction between finished drugs and active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs), which are the chemicals (like acetaminophen and dextromethorphan) used to make the drugs (like NyQuil) people actually consume. The second is the fact that both finished drugs and APIs are scattered across multiple product codes in national trade databases, and some of those codes include non-pharmaceutical products. It is therefore difficult to accurately estimate the true value and origin of API imports and impossible to know the origin of all APIs that are imported as existing components of finished drugs.

For at least the last 20 years, the FDA has “estimated” that imports from all foreign countries make up “approximately” 40 percent of finished drugs and 80 percent of APIs used by U.S. manufacturers of finished drugs.20 But, in addition to the fact that it is unclear how the agency arrived at this estimate, the number also does not tell us where the APIs in the imported drugs are coming from. And, what’s more, any reasonable attempt to approximate these values does not indicate that anything close to 80 percent of finished drugs—or even 80 percent of the APIs consumed by Americans—are made in China. For example, we know that Chinese manufacturers supply only a small share of the APIs used to make finished drugs in the United States, because the source of those imports is recorded in U.S. trade data. According to analysis by the American Action Forum, a mere “18 percent of total active pharmaceutical ingredient imports, 9 percent of total antibiotic imports, and less than 1 percent of total vaccine imports” come from China.21 In reality, the largest source of imported APIs is Ireland—at about 30 percent.22 And certainly no one would credibly claim that Ireland poses any national security threat to the United States.

Moreover, in recent testimony to Congress, even the director of the FDA’s drug division stated that the agency “cannot determine with any precision the volume of API that China is actually producing, or the volume of APIs manufactured in China that is entering the U.S. market.”23 They do, however, have data on the location of facilities registered with the agency to produce APIs for specific approved drugs. For example, the FDA reports that there are 1,788 facilities in the world that manufacture APIs for drugs consumed in the United States.24 Only 13 percent of these facilities are in China.25 India and the European Union actually produce more of these APIs—at 18 and 26 percent, respectively. Twentyeight percent of the facilities are located here in the United States.26 Of course, even looking at the number of facilities does not tell us the actual volume of APIs from each country, as some facilities may be producing vastly greater quantities than others. But the data we do have does not indicate an excessive reliance on China. On the contrary, it shows that the U.S. pharmaceutical market is served by a diverse array of suppliers from all over the world, including here at home. It also shows that these market-driven supply chains are not, as Ambassador Lighthizer argues, the result of an irrational craze to cut costs at the expense of jobs. In truth, globalization has enabled the U.S. pharmaceutical industry to become a dynamic driver of economic growth in the United States

In a global economy, it is true that the United States is not the best place to invest in large-scale, labor-intensive chemical manufacturing. But America has excelled at inventing new drugs that improve lives and at developing innovative manufacturing techniques that make drug treatments safer, more effective and more affordable. Indeed, the U.S. Dept. of Commerce’s most recent report on the state of the pharmaceutical market certainly does not describe an industry hollowed out by short-sightedness: “Large, diversified and global, the U.S. pharmaceutical industry is one of the most critical and competitive sectors in the economy.”27 The U.S. market for pharmaceuticals is enormous and the United States is indeed the world’s number one importer of finished drugs. But because most drugs made in the world are not consumed in America, the United States is also a major exporter.

While the industry was developing “extended, overseas supply lines,” the value of U.S. pharmaceutical exports tripled to over $50 billion per year.28 The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that approximately 300,000 Americans work in the pharmaceutical industry with a median wage 56 percent higher than the national average.29 This is only made possible by access to the very global network of suppliers that reshoring advocates want to eliminate.

And global supply chains have also not made the market more vulnerable to disruption—intentional or otherwise. Supply chain risk is a well-studied phenomenon, and experts have not found that reliance on domestic production and short supply lines is the best way to avoid risk.30 The robustness of a supply chain (that is, its ability to continue operating when faced with an unforeseen disruption like a natural disaster) can be negatively affected by complexity because it takes more resources and oversight to maintain operations.31 But robustness can also be harmed by geographic concentration because a greater portion of the system is susceptible to a single incident.32 It makes sense, therefore, for companies to seek a diverse network of suppliers and potential suppliers with constant knowledge of their relative capacities. Forcing pharmaceutical companies to rely only on U.S. suppliers would likely expose their operations to greater risk of disruption by prohibiting them from adequately spreading risk.

Rather than reveal dangerous vulnerabilities, the coronavirus pandemic has actually demonstrated that supply lines for the U.S. pharmaceutical market are quite robust compared to other industries. We have seen notable problems in markets for face masks, household goods and food, but the U.S. medicine supply has been almost entirely unaffected. In fact, in its most recent update on the status of drug supplies during the COVID-19 outbreak, the FDA stated that only one drug had been added to the drug shortage list due to a pandemic related factory shutdown in China and that “there are other alternatives that can be used by patients.”33 The agency also identified only 20 drugs (all non-critical) with APIs sourced only from China, and none of those had reported any short-ages.34 Put simply, the evidence to date strongly suggests that the U.S. pharmaceutical supply chain is adequately diverse and robust in the face of unforeseen disruption. Efforts to re-shore all manufacturing of APIs is therefore likely to do more harm than good.

COSTS OF PHARMACEUTICAL AUTARKY

Because of the complex and efficient pharmaceutical supply chains that have developed over the years, prices of prescription drugs are lower than they would be if they were entirely manufactured in the United States. With a growing bipartisan chorus of policymakers in the Trump administration and Congress looking at ways to reduce drug prices, reshoring the entire pharmaceutical supply chain would not only undermine that worthwhile goal, but would raise drug prices.35

In fact, there are a number of reasons why the United States imports finished pharmaceuticals and active pharmaceutical ingredients, which include tax laws, simple comparative advantage and access to raw materials.36 Indeed, a 2011 study from the Food and Drug Administration noted:

Both India and China offer a number of cost advantages, most notably the cost of skilled labor. India in particular trains six times the number of chemists annually than the U.S. produces and companies can access this talent for 10% of the cost of the same talent in America.37

The study also finds that manufacturing in India, for example, can “reduce costs for U.S. and European companies by 30 to 40%.”38 These cheaper production costs mean cheaper drug prices for American consumers. If the United States were to entirely re-shore the pharmaceutical supply chain, it would dramatically increase prescription drug costs for American purchasers, including individuals, federal and state governments, hospitals and insurance companies.

Ironically, forced re-shoring could also bring about the exact result its proponents fear from Chinese interference. That is, by prohibiting American patients, pharmacists and doctors from acquiring safe and effective medicines available on the global market merely because they have a Chinese or other foreign ingredient, the U.S. government may cause the very shortages and price hikes it fears could result from malevolent foreign action. Consider, for example, the recent recall of metformin. Americans managing Type 2 diabetes spend over $3 billion per year filling prescriptions for metformin.39 After the FDA discovered potentially unsafe levels of nitrosamine in some batches of the drug, numerous drug makers pulled their metformin pills off the market.40 But the recall is not expected to affect patients at all because, according to the FDA, “there are additional manufacturers of the metformin ER formulation that supply a significant portion of the U.S. market, and their products are not being recalled.”41 Without access to global supplies, a single instance like this of drug contamination at a manufacturing plant would severely cut the nation’s supply and force patients to go without treatment. Instead, the FDA merely advises anyone currently taking one of the recalled products to “consult with their health care professional who can prescribe a replacement.”42

OVERVIEW OF CURRENT PROPOSALS

Even before the outbreak of COVID-19, policymakers had already begun proposing government interventions in the pharmaceutical chain in order to minimize or eliminate the role of Chinese manufacturing. For example, in October 2019, the House Energy and Commerce Committee held a hearing following a report from the U.S.–China Economic and Security Review Commission, which warned that the Chinese could “use U.S. dependence on China as an economic weapon and cut supplies of critical drugs.”43 That report made a number of recommendations, including additional monitoring and reporting by the FDA, mandatory country-of-origin labels for API and a requirement that all federally funded health systems (including Medicare and Medicaid) “purchase their pharmaceuticals only from U.S. production facilities” subject to some broad exceptions.44 It’s also worth noting that some of the recommendations are directed at all imported drugs and APIs instead of just ones from China, which certainly suggests that protectionism rather than national security is the true motivation behind such measures.

Moreover, a number of bills have been proposed recently in Congress that would enact reforms similar to one or more of the report’s recommendations. The most appropriate, common-sense proposals offered so far in Congress are ones meant to improve our knowledge of the existing supply arrangement through enhanced monitoring and reporting.45 Such knowledge may assuage rising anxiety about Chinese dominance but, even if it does not, a better understanding of the situation is crucial for government planners trying to redesign any major American industry.

In addition to this, a provision of the already enacted CARES Act calls for a report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine to examine the current state of pharmaceutical and medical device supply chains and to recommend ways to improve resiliency.46 Other bills have called on the FDA to track API production with greater detail so we can know the volume of APIs originating in every country for each approved drug.47 Some proposals seek to promote domestic manufacturing of APIs through targeted tax breaks, grants or regulatory reform. One example of this approach is Senator Marsha Blackburn’s (R-Tenn.) “Securing America’s Medicine Cabinet Act,” which would reform the FDA’s Emerging Technology Program in order to fast-track the approval of new manufacturing methods that could help prevent supply chain disruptions.48

A number of more drastic proposals have been offered that would actively restrict access to drugs with foreign-sourced APIs. One ambitious example is the “Protecting our Pharmaceutical Supply Chain from China Act” proposed by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.). In addition to having the FDA better track the origin of APIs, requiring country-of-origin information on labels and giving tax breaks to companies expanding domestic manufacturing, the bill would also prohibit U.S. government entities from buying any drugs made from APIs produced in China.49 Such a policy would undoubtedly incentivize pharmaceutical companies to source APIs from elsewhere, but it would also deny patients at VA and other federal hospitals access to drugs. The result would be healthcare decisions driven by industrial policy rather than medical needs. It would also expand the gap between private and public health systems, with the latter burdened by politically motivated inefficiencies that raise costs and reduce the quality of care.

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) has offered a similarly broad bill with four Democratic co-sponsors that also employs a Buy-American strategy but is less targeted at China specifically. Their “Strengthening America’s Supply Chain and National Security Act” would deny any Buy American preferences to U.S.-manufactured drugs made with foreign-sourced APIs.50 Rather than embracing aggressive protectionism through Buy American requirements for federal pharmaceutical purchases, there are better ways to ensure the security of the supply chain and provide proper incentives to re-shore some portions of it to maintain affordable pharmaceuticals and a globally competitive industry. The following sections outline some of the most effective strategies.

Get better data and a clearer picture

As a preliminary matter, better data is needed before policymakers can truly make informed decisions about the future of the pharmaceutical supply chain. Data exists to determine the exact portion of imported APIs used by U.S. drug manufacturers and the countries from which they come. But, there is no data to determine the portion of APIs and their countries of origin used by foreign drug manufacturers exporting to the United States. In order to rectify this, Congress could mandate the disclosure of APIs to the FDA for any drug exported to the United States by foreign drug manufacturers. If such a method is adopted, precautions should be taken to ensure that trade secrets are protected.

Likewise, as mentioned, the CARES Act, passed by Congress in March 2020, requires the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine to perform a study on the security of the pharmaceutical supply chain.51 Rather than exploiting a crisis to make swift and dramatic changes without a clear picture, policymakers should wait for and then use this study to carefully craft an appropriate response.

Lead the charge for liberalization

Since World War II, the United States has been the global leader in the creation and cultivation of the rules-based trading system. The bulwark of this system is the WTO. Every president from Harry Truman to Barack Obama was largely supportive of the WTO and its predecessor, the GATT. Today, that is not the case. The Trump administration has a wellknown antipathy for the Geneva-based forum.52

To be sure, the WTO’s negotiating function has been stuck in neutral for the last several years.53 This is partially understandable, as new rules are necessary to cover various disciplines, such as trade in digital products, that have risen in popularity with the emergence of internet-based commerce but were not accounted for originally. With the outbreak of COVID-19, there is an opportunity for the WTO to reestablish itself as the primary forum for crafting new rules to facilitate predictable rules-based trade in pharmaceutical and other medical products. As the world’s largest economy, the United States should play a leading role in facilitating such trade negotiations.

Additionally, Phil Hogan, the European Union’s Trade Commissioner, recently proposed a global trade negotiation that seeks to “permanently eliminate tariffs on medical goods needed to respond to the COVID-19 health crisis.”54 While lowering tariffs on pharmaceuticals and other medical supplies would be good, it does not go far enough. The larger concern during emergencies is that countries will restrict exports in an attempt to ensure sufficient quantities of certain products are available for domestic consumption. Since the outbreak of COVID-19, about 70 countries have imposed export restrictions on certain medical supplies.55 Unfortunately, WTO rules largely work to restrict only import protectionism, not export protectionism, both of which tend to proliferate during crises and economic downturns.

For these reasons, the United States should be leading the 163 other countries in the WTO to create new rules that prohibit restricting exports of pharmaceuticals and medical supplies during outbreaks.56 Such a move is not unprecedented; in April 2020, the agriculture ministers of the G-20 countries, including the United States, issued a pledge to prohibit food and agricultural export restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic.57 Likewise, during the financial crisis of 2008, the United States and the other G-20 members issued a pledge that for the next year, they would “refrain from raising new barriers to investment or to trade in goods and services, imposing new export restrictions, or implementing World Trade Organization (WTO) inconsistent measures to stimulate exports.”58

If multilateral WTO negotiations to prohibit export restrictions of medical equipment and pharmaceuticals during emergencies are too difficult, too time consuming or face intractable opposition from, say, China, the United States could pursue plurilateral negotiations with some, but not all, WTO members. The United States would likely find willing partners with close allies like Australia, the European Union, Mexico, Canada, Japan, the United Kingdom, Taiwan, Israel and India. Such a group of close U.S. allies could agree not to impose export restrictions and other protectionist measures on medical supplies and pharmaceuticals during emergencies such as pandemics and natural disasters.

Outside the WTO context, the United States should include similar prohibitions on export restrictions during emergencies in future free-trade agreement (FTA) negotiations and consider narrowly revising existing FTAs to include such language.

Another possibility would be for the United States to rejoin the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a promising trade pact between Pacific Rim nations that President Trump abandoned.59 A primary goal of the TPP was to establish better and more reliable trading relationships with a number of Asian countries in China’s orbit. Rejoining the TPP would therefore strengthen Asian supply chains and provide an alternative to reliance on China. As part of rejoining the TPP, the United States could insist on a provision that would prohibit export restrictions on pharmaceuticals and other medical supplies. It could also look to expand the trade bloc by negotiating accession with countries like India and Taiwan. All of these options are consistent with existing WTO obligations and are preferable to crude attempts to re-shore the entire pharmaceutical supply chain.

Offer full expensing for manufacturing facilities

However, if the goal is to re-shore some of the pharmaceutical supply chain, there are positive steps policymakers can take. As part of the Tax Cut and Jobs Act (TCJA) passed in late 2017, Congress provided temporary full expensing of short-lived investments through 2022, which will phase out entirely by 2026.60 This means that when a firm makes a short-term investment, it can write off the full value of the investment from its tax liability in the year of the investment, rather than phasing it out as the asset depreciates. In order to qualify for full immediate expensing, the asset must have a cost-recovery period of 20 years or less.61

In order to make the United States a more attractive and competitive country in which to produce pharmaceuticals and APIs, policymakers should consider making full expensing permanent and applying it to long-term investments like non-residential structures or manufacturing facilities. This would provide an incentive for pharmaceutical manufacturers to open production facilities in the United States or to move facilities from overseas. Recent legislation was introduced in the House of Representatives that would provide this type of tax treatment to medical supply companies and pharmaceutical manufacturers for their non-residential real-property investments.62 Such a tax change is vastly superior to protectionist Buy American schemes.

Improve tax treatment of research and development costs

Currently, when an American firm makes investments into research and development (R&D), it can deduct those costs from its tax liability during the year in which they occur. This is the right policy. But under the TCJA, Congress mandated that beginning in 2022, firms making R&D investments must amortize those expenses over a five-year period. As the National Taxpayers Union Foundation has noted:

The policy will raise the cost of investments in research and development, meaning companies will be less likely to do R&D. That means less innovation and new technologies for the U.S. economy, leading to lower levels of productivity, lower wages, and a smaller economy.63

In order to incentivize more domestic production of pharmaceuticals and APIs, Congress should correct the TCJA’s treatment of R&D expenses. Full, immediate expensing is vastly preferable to an amortized approach, given the time-value of money.

Deregulate

The regulatory review process for building a pharmaceutical manufacturing facility can be cumbersome, time consuming and costly. If policymakers decide it is important to re-shore some portion of the pharmaceutical supply chain, the FDA should expedite and streamline the approvals of such facilities in order to eliminate costly delays and duplication.

Stockpile essential medicines

In addition to the measures already suggested, the federal government should identify and stockpile essential medicines in a deliberate and careful manner. A recent study by the Mercatus Center argues that policymakers should be utilizing the Defense Production Act to establish purchase guarantees for certain medical equipment necessary to combat COVID-19—along with targeted deregulation—in order to bolster production.64 A similar approach could be used to secure sufficient quantities of essential drugs.

By providing purchase commitments for the essential pharmaceuticals at above-market prices for a sustained period of time, the federal government can provide the proper marketbased incentives to significantly increase the supply of such drugs. Admittedly, the shelf-life of pharmaceuticals is probably shorter than protective masks, but the drugs could be purchased on a more regular basis than other medical equipment. Alternatively, companies could hold the extra stock and cycle in and out of their supplies. In other words, the government would be paying companies to have a rolling surplus of those pharmaceuticals that are deemed essential.

CONCLUSION

The simple reality is that the United States cannot—and should not—produce all pharmaceuticals domestically. Importing finished pharmaceuticals and APIs helps keep costs down. Existing pharmaceutical supply chains are diverse and produce benefits that accrue to American consumers. Exploiting the COVID-19 pandemic to haphazardly undo these supply chains would be a grave mistake that could result in higher prices or shortages of various drugs.

At the same time, if policymakers are concerned that the United States is too dependent on China for pharmaceuticals and APIs, there are steps they can take to lessen that dependence without resorting to costly pharmaceutical autarky or aggressive protectionism. The United States could go a long way toward ensuring a secure supply of pharmaceuticals by exerting global leadership through trade negotiations with like-minded allies. Likewise, policymakers can bolster

FOOTNOTES

1. Gary Clyde Hufbauer and Zhiyao (Lucy) Lu, “The Payoff to America from Globalization: A Fresh Look with a Focus on Cost to Workers,” The Peterson Institute for International Economics, May 2017. https://piie.com/system/files/documents/pb17-16.pdf.

2. Pablo D. Fajgelbaum and Amit K. Khandelwal, “Measuring the Unequal Gains from Trade,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 131:3 (August 2016), pp. 1113-80. https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/131/3/1113/2461162?redirectedFrom=fulltext.

3. See, e.g., Tom Hamburger, Carol D. Leonnig, and Zachary A. Goldfarb, “Obama’s record on outsourcing draws criticism from the left,” The Washington Post, July 9, 2012. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obamas-record-on-outsourcing- draws-criticism-from-the-left/2012/07/09/gJQAljJCZW_story.html; Patrick J. Buchanan, “Is Free Trade Falling Out of Fashion,” Buchanan.org, Feb. 18, 2004. https://buchanan.org/blog/pjb-is-free-trade-falling-out-of-fashion-578.

4. Robert E. Lighthizer, “The Era of Offshoring U.S. Jobs is Over,” The New York Times, May 11, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/11/opinion/coronavirus-jobs-offshoring.html.

5. Chris Wallace, “Interview with Donald Trump,” Fox News Sunday, Oct. 18, 2015. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXqEcU0W5JI.

6. Jeff Desjardins, “These are the world’s biggest exporters,” World Economic Forum,June 25, 2018. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/06/these-are-the-worldsbiggest-exporters.

7. Scott Lincicome, “The Truth about Trade,” National Review, April 4, 2016. https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/04/trade-jobs-free-trade-hurting-american-economy.

8. Laura Beth Harris, “Manufacturing Output Hits All-Time High, Signaling Industry’s Strength,” National Association of Manufacturers, July 29, 2019. https://www. nam.org/manufacturing-output-hits-all-time-high-signaling-industrys-strength-5546/?stream=workforce.

9. Michael J. Hicks and Srikant Devaraj, “The Myth and the Reality of Manufacturing in America,” Ball State University, April 2017. https://conexus.cberdata.org/files/Mfg-Reality.pdf.

10. Olivia Beavers, “Momentum grows to change medical supply chain from China,” The Hill, April 5, 2020. https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/491119-momentum-grows-to-change-medical-supply-chain-from-china.

11. Marco Rubio, “We Need a More Resilient American Economy,” The New York Times, April 20, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/20/opinion/marco-rubio-coronavirus-economy.html.

12. Ana Swanson, “Coronavirus Spurs U.S. Efforts to End China’s Chokehold on Drugs,” The New York Times, March 11, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/business/economy/coronavirus-china-trump-drugs.html.

13. Economists’ Letter to President Trump, Speaker Pelosi and Leader McConnell, May 2020. https://www.ntu.org/library/doclib/2020/05/economist-letter-2-.pdf.

14. Robert Lighthizer, “The Era of Offshoring U.S. Jobs is Over,” The New York Times, May 11, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/11/opinion/coronavirus-jobs-offshoring. html.

15. Ibid.

16. Sen. Elizabeth Warren et al., Letter to Mark T. Esper, Dec. 5, 2019. https://www.warren.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2019.12.05%20Letter%20to%20DoD%20re%20pharmaceutical%20product%20supply%20chain.pdf.

17. Ibid.

18. Eric Boehm, “Why You Shouldn’t Trust Anyone Who Claims 80 Percent of America’s Drugs Come From China,” Reason, April 6, 2020. https://reason.com/2020/04/06/why-you-shouldnt-trust-anyone-who-claims-80-percent-of-americas-drugs-come-from-china.

19. Ibid.

20. See, e.g., “Food and Drug Administration: Improvements Needed in the Foreign Drug Inspection Program,” U.S. General Accounting Office, March 17, 1998, p. 1. https://www.gao.gov/assets/230/225564.pdf; “Drug Safety: FDA Has Improved Its Foreign Drug Inspection Program, but Needs to Assess the Effectiveness and Staffing of its Foreign Offices,” U.S. General Accounting Office, Dec. 16, 2016, p. 1. https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/681689.pdf.

21. Jacqueline Varas, “U.S. Dependence on Chinese Pharmaceuticals is Overstated,” American Action Forum, May 20, 2020. https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/u-s-dependence-on-chinese-pharmaceuticals-overstated.

22. Ibid.

23. Statement of Janet Woodcock, “Safeguarding Pharmaceutical Supply Chains in a Global Economy,” House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Health, Committee on Energy and Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives, 116th Congress, Oct. 30, 2019. https://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/files/documents/Testimony-Woodcock-API_103019.pdf.

24. Ibid.

25. Ibid.

26. Ibid.

27. International Trade Administration, “2016 Top Market Report: Pharmaceuticals,” U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 2016, p.3. https://legacy.trade.gov/topmarkets/pdf/Pharmaceuticals_Executive_Summary.pdf.

28. “U.S. Biopharmaceutical Goods Export Volume from 2002 to 2018,” Statista, lastaccessed June 8, 2020. https://www.statista.com/statistics/215814/us-biopharmaceutical-export-volume.

29. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “May 2019 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates: NAICS 325400 – Pharmaceutical and Medicine Manufacturing,” U.S. Dept. of Labor, May 2019. https://www.bls.gov/oes/2019/may/naics4_325400.htm.

30. Sébastien Mirodout, “Resilience Versus Robustness in Global Value Chains: Some Policy Implications,” Richard Baldwin and Simon Evenett eds., COVID-19 and Trade Policy: Why Turning Inward Won’t Work (CEPR Press, 2020), p. 123. https://voxeu.org/content/covid-19-and-trade-policy-why-turning-inward-won-t-work.

31. Christian F. Durach et al., “Antecedents and Dimensions of Supply Chain Robustness:A Systematic Literature Review,” International Journal of Physical Distributionand Logistics Management 45:1 (2015), pp. 125-32.

32. Ibid.

33. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, “Coronavirus (COVID-19) Supply Chain Update,” Press Release, Feb. 27, 2020. https://www.fda.gov/news-

34. Ibid.

35. Yasmeen Abutaleb and Erica Warner, “Trump’s support for bipartisan Senate drug pricing bill may not be enough to push it into law,” The Washington Post, Feb. 18, 2020. https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/02/18/trumps-support-bipartisan-senate-drug-pricing-bill-might-not-be-enough-push-it-into-law.

36. Sally C. Pipes, “Proposed ‘Buy American’ Requirements Would Hurt Patients and the Economy,” Pacific Research Institute, April 2020, p. 6. https://www.pacificresearch. org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/BuyAmerica_F.pdf.

37. “Pathway to Global Product Safety and Quality,” U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2011, p. 20.

38. Ibid.

39. Richard Franki, “Top-selling drugs going to patients with diabetes,” MDEdge, March 12, 2018. https://www.mdedge.com/cardiology/article/160612/diabetes/topsellingdrugs-going-patients-diabetes.

40. David J. Neal, “Diabetes medicine recalled for having too much of a carcinogen. More recalls are likely,” Miami Herald, May 29, 2020. https://www.miamiherald.com/news/health-care/article243081016.html.

41. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, “FDA Alerts Patients and Health Care Professionals to Nitrosamine Impurity Findings in Certain Metformin Extended-Release Products,” Press Release, May 28, 2020. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/pressannouncements/fda-alerts-patients-and-health-care-professionals-nitrosamineimpurity-findings-certain-metformin.

42. Ibid.

43. “2019 Annual Report,” U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, Nov. 14, 2019, p. 248. https://www.uscc.gov/annual-report/2019-annual-report.

44. Ibid., p. 249.

45. See, e.g., H.R. 5982, Safe Medicine Act, §3, 116th Congress.

46. CARES ACT, Sec. 3101.

47. See, e.g., H.R. 6049, Medical Supply Chain Security Act, §2(a)(5), 116th Congress.

48. S. 3432, Securing America’s Medicine Cabinet Act of 2020, 116th Congress.

49. Office of Sen. Tom Cotton, “Cotton, Gallagher Introduce Bill to End U.S. Dependence on Chinese-Manufactured Pharmaceuticals,” Press Release, March 18, 2020. https://www.cotton.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1342.

50. Office of Sen. Marco Rubio, “Rubio, Colleagues Introduce the Strengthening America’s Supply Chain and National Security Act,” Press Release, March 19, 2020. https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2020/3/rubio-colleagues-introducethe-

51. Section 3101 of Public Law 116-136.

52. See, e.g., Lauren L. Rollins and Clark Packard, “Trump is Trying to Dismantle the WTO. That Can’t Happen,” The Bulwark, April 26, 2019. https://thebulwark.com/trump-is-trying-to-dismantle-the-wto-that-cant-happen; Clark Packard, “Trump’s Real Trade War Is Being Waged on the WTO,” Foreign Policy, Jan. 9, 2020. https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/09/trumps-real-trade-war-is-being-waged-on-the-wto.

53. See, e.g., Clark Packard, “Crisis and Opportunity: The Multilateral Trading System at a Crossroads,” R Street Policy Study No. 167, March 2019. https://www.rstreet.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Final-167.pdf.

54. Bryce Baschuk, “Europe Seeks to Abolish Tariffs in $597 Billion Medical Trade,” Bloomberg, April 16, 2020. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-16/europe-seeks-to-abolish-tariffs-in-597-billion-medical-trade.

55. Jason Douglas, “As Countries Bar Medical Exports, Some Suggest Bans May Backfire,” The Wall Street Journal, April 4, 2020. https://www.wsj.com/articles/ascountries-bar-medical-exports-some-suggest-bans-may-backfire-11585992600.

56. Dr. Mona Pinchis-Paulsen, “Thinking Creatively and Learning from COVID-19—How the WTO can Maintain Open Trade on Critical Supplies,” OpinioJuris, April 2, 2020. https://opiniojuris.org/2020/04/02/covid-19-symposium-thinking-creatively-andlearning-from-covid-19-how-the-wto-can-maintain-open-trade-on-critical-supplies.

57. Agriculture Ministers, “Ministerial Statement on COVID-19,” G-20, April 21,2020.https://g20.org/en/media/Documents/G20_Agriculture%20Ministers%20Meeting_Statement_EN.pdf.

58. Chad P. Bown, “COVID-19 Could Bring Down the Trading System,” Foreign Affairs, April 28, 2020. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2020-04-28/covid-19-could-bring-down-trading-system.

59. Note: the TPP moved forward without the United States. It is now called the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership.

60. Erica York and Alex Muresianu, “The TCJA’s Expensing Provision Alleviates the Tax Code’s Bias Against Certain Investments,” Tax Foundation, Sept. 5, 2018. https://taxfoundation.org/tcja-expensing-provision-benefits.

61. Ibid.

62. H.R. 6690, The Beat China Act, 116th Cong.

63. Nicole Kaeding, “Correcting the TCJA’s Mistreatment of R&D Costs,” National Taxpayers Union Foundation, Oct. 8, 2019. https://www.ntu.org/foundation/detail/correcting-the-tcjas-mistreatment-of-rd-costs.

64. Caleb Watney and Alec Stapp, “Masks for All: Using Purchase Guarantees and Targeted Deregulation to Boost Production of Essential Medical Equipment,” Mercatus Center, April 8, 2020.https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/watney_and_stapp_-_policy_brief_-_covid_series_-_masks_for_all_-_v1.pdf.

Arizona Conservatives bash FDA for regulatory assault on e-cigarettes

Arizona’s own Goldwater institute has joined a number of center-right leaders in urging Trump’s FDA to stop government overreach into personal health decisions. The coalition is calling a proposed crackdown on e-cigarettes a regulatory assault. Conservative groups nationwide are calling on President Trump to halt FDA commissioner Gottlieb’s panic driven regulatory action.

“FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb’s effort to curb the $6.6 billion electronic cigarette industry and an even larger reduced risk tobacco alternatives market is inconsistent with your clearly articulated deregulatory objectives and will destroy jobs, limit consumer freedoms, and harm public health.  

This week, a Washington Post op-ed bashed the FDA over its recent crackdown on vaping and e cigarettes

As the column noted, “Last week, a large trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine and led by British researchers showed people trying to quit cigarettes were almost twice as likely to succeed if they used e-cigarettes instead of conventional nicotine-replacement therapies such as patches and gum.”

Nevertheless, FDA commissioner Gottlieb shows no sign of backing down. In an interview Sunday, he said that while the FDA supports the role of e-cigarettes in helping adults quit smoking, “it’s now clear that widespread and sometimes reckless marketing of these products has come at the expense of addicting a new generation of kids on tobacco.”

This is irresponsible at best, and completely inaccurate. Vaping technology is not marketed to kids, and is a great resource for adults who wish to quit smoking.

The letter to President Trump was signed by more than a dozen conservative groups, including Arizona’s Goldwater Institute, ALEC action, Americans for Tax Reform among others. A copy of the letter can be read here.

Torkelson: Voters asked to retain Supreme Court Justice Clint Bolick

On his first day at the Arizona Supreme Court, Justice Clint Bolick posted a sign in his office. It had two simple rules he expected staff to follow.

Rule One: Call me Clint; Rule Two: There are no other rules.  Although the first rule was never followed, I can think of no better example of the humility with which Justice Bolick has approached his job as the 44th justice of the Arizona Supreme Court—always taking his work, but never himself, seriously.

I had the honor and privilege of serving as Justice Bolick’s law clerk for almost two years. From the moment he took the bench, he demonstrated a passion to execute his civic duty and fiercely protect both the federal and state constitutions. He did this every day with a smile, a venti Starbucks hot chocolate, and respect for his colleagues and attorneys who argued before him.

Of the attorneys who argued before him, those surveyed gave him a 100 percent score on legal ability, integrity, and administrative performance.  The high marks extended to those that worked behind the scenes, as well.  Court staff joked he needed a Supreme Court greeter vest because he always stopped to say hello to everyone.

In November, voters will be faced with a survey of their own.  On the back of the ballot Arizonans will determine whether to retain Justice Bolick on the high court.  This vote is based upon whether he has the judicial temperament, ability, and skill to remain on the bench.  I know Justice Bolick exhibits these characteristics because I saw it every day without waiver.

Since his time on the court, Justice Bolick has written 32 opinions. Of the 15 times he wrote for the majority, 14 of them were unanimous opinions. This amounts to hundreds, if not thousands, of pages where Justice Bolick outlines exactly how he came to his decision.  Importantly, in not one of those decisions will you find “the party’s identity” a deciding factor.

And there is no reason you would.  Justice Bolick is the only Independent to ever serve on the Arizona Supreme Court.  Indeed, independence is the cornerstone of his jurisprudence. The only common denominator throughout his writings is the plain language of the law.  What it says is what it means.  If you don’t like what it says, look to the Legislature.

Some say true bravery comes in dissent.  Justice Bolick has never shied from writing in opposition.  In fact, he began his first dissent praising our freedom-loving state, while noting the very words on the Supreme Court building, “Where law ends, tyranny begins,” informing readers of a “draconian” Arizona law affecting a homeless man.

Beyond judicial temperament, ability, and skill, Justice Bolick also has an unparalleled dedication to our great state.  I remember two times where Justice Bolick was overcome with excitement. The first was when the Pokémon Go craze was at its height and some of the clerks found a Pokémon on his desk.  The second was when he found out he would once again be teaching, this time Constitutional Law at ASU.  Teaching, in any form, has always been a source of pride for Justice Bolick.  It is why he insists on hiring an intern to work alongside his clerks every semester in chambers. There are countless mentees, just like me, who are forever grateful to learn from him.

Before November, I hope you read his opinions (azjustice44.com) and watch the oral arguments (azcourts.gov). There you will see a justice whose impartiality and independence allows him to look beyond party and political favor to address each case anew.  When you reach the back of your ballot consider what Arizona needs in the black robe.  Then, grab a hot chocolate and join me in voting to retain Justice Bolick.

Ashley Torkelson is currently an attorney serving in the United States Air Force. The views expressed are those of Ms. Torkelson only and not those of the United States Air Force or Department of Defense.

Frank Schmuck Will Protect Your Right To Protect Yourself

Not even Pepper Spray? That’s right! Sean Bowie voted to deny campus women their right to carry pepper spray or even a taser to defend themselves against sexual predators. What kind of person does that?

As a deputized law enforcement officer and a parent of a daughter in college this is both professional and personal for me.

Students, teachers and all employees of our universities in Arizona should feel safe, and not made to feel like they are breaking the law by protecting themselves with something as simple as pepper spray.

With thousands of sexual assaults and even worse dozens of rapes reported to Police over the last few years, Sean Bowie and his extreme ideology left women defenseless when he voted against House Bill 2172 three times.

See and hear what these women have to say…

To see all our videos visit www.FrankSchmuck.com/videos

Senator Bob Worsley: Why I’m Leaving Political Office

Monday, June 18, Arizona State Senator Bob Worsley, Republican from LD-25, announced he will not seek re-election exiting political office at the end of his term. Senator Worsley released the following guest opinion:

Bob Worsley

Sen. Bob Worsley

After six years in the Arizona Senate, I will not seek re-election.

Public office was never a position I sought. But when I was recruited by concerned constituents in 2012, I set aside personal endeavors to answer the call.

Since that time, an increasingly caustic political climate has devolved both in Arizona and in Washington. Regrettably, I now feel I can better impact society through resuming my private endeavors than by continuing in elected office while the GOP takes a nap.

We’ve lost the art of compromise

As legislators, we are elected under the banner of a party flag. Yet the districts we represent are comprised of diverse people with an array of needs and opinions.

Irrespective of those differences, voters and legislators alike are asked to cut, squeeze, twist and trim their worldviews into one of two buckets: Republican or Democrat.

Alarmingly, blind ideological allegiance to only one of the two buckets has created a political atmosphere where the most poisonous word an elected official can mutter is “compromise.”

The byproduct of a climate where compromise is viewed with such disdain is the loss of truly lasting solutions to difficult problems.

Oversimplification only hurts us

Issues are almost never black and white. There is nuance and complexity in nearly every challenge facing society. We do ourselves a disservice when we oversimplify complex issues to fit a strict adherence to political ideology.

I am generally conservative but prefer to be thought of as a governing Republican rather than as a conservative ideologue. While in office I used my life’s experiences and best judgment to vote with Republicans when I believed the party represented my constituents and Arizona’s best interests.

When there were common sense solutions that did not fit into party platforms but did fit into the best interest of the voters, I sided with the voters.

We’ve also forgotten civility

Sometimes, difficult political decisions require immunity to fevered backlash from those prone to oversimplification and demagoguery.

Whether promoting a kinder, more empathetic approach to immigration than Senate Bill 1070, or providing a responsible safety net to those in need through Medicaid expansion, I am no stranger to such backlash. But in these instances, and others, I weighed all options with deliberate consideration and voted for human dignity over ideology.

Differences and disagreements are a given anytime there is more than one person involved. What should not be a given, however, is debasing and vitriolic rhetoric toward those with whom there is disagreement.

Civility has become a rare commodity in political debate, a fact that worries me greatly.

Aim higher than where we are now

Lack of civility in politics is not a confined phenomenon. It has bled into our neighborhoods. Increasingly, we associate only with those who share our opinions while viewing those who do not as bad actors.

This is not only detrimental to the political process, it is harmful to our communities. On this issue, I agree with Sen. John McCain who recently said, “we are more alike than different.”

I ran my campaigns on one word: Elevate. It is the singular value that has guided my life. If a problem cannot be solved on the plane on which you stand, step higher.

I still have great hope in a bright future for our state and our country. It has been my honor to serve for a season and now allow for others to have their season.

I hope I have left a legacy of genuine concern for all people and the notion that good solutions should never be bad politics.

Arizona Sen. Bob Worsley, R-Mesa, represents Legislative District 25. Follow him on Twitter: @bob_worsley.

Meet Commissioner Justin Olson

Last October, Governor Doug Ducey appointed Justin Olson to the Arizona Corporation Commission in confidence that he would serve with ethics and integrity.

Since his appointment, Olson has enacted rate reductions that have lowered our electric bills. He has a long history in Arizona and really cares about serving ratepayers. He’s passionate about tax policy and is already bringing the kind of tax savings home to us.

Justin Olson is able to do this because he brings experience and expertise that the commission has never had before. He earned an MBA from ASU and understands business and finance. Olson also served in the Arizona Legislature where he worked to balance the budget without increasing debt, using gimmicks or raising our taxes.

Justin Olson is a true conservative who is looking out for Arizonans. After viewing this video you will see why he is the real deal and is acting in our best interests. Olson represents us and is sincerely looking out for Arizona ratepayers.

If you’d like to learn more about Commissioner Olson, check out his website at votejustinolson.com

Remembering Carole Joyce

Good Morning,

Earlier this week, we lost a true believer in the Republican cause. Carole Joyce was a strong conservative, a committed Republican, but beyond that, she was a kind, welcoming soul. Carole knew that the best way to grow our party was to be inclusive, welcoming and accepting of everyone who wants to see more Republicans elected. She was a model activist, a natural leader, and a friend to anyone who knew her.

My predecessor, Robert Graham, knew Carole very well, and he wrote a few words as a tribute to this strong, vibrant, kind spirit.

I hope you will take the time to read it, and as we head into the weekend, please keep Carole and her family in your thoughts and prayers.

Thank you,

Chairman Lines

 

Remembering Carole Joyce

Standing 5 feet, 1 inch tall and weighing close to 100 lbs. soaking wet, Carole Joyce is proof that size does not matter.  Carole and her infamous email handle paddywagon@cox.net were a combined force not to be taken lightly.

Naturally, Carole was a wife, mother, nurturer and a loyal friend.  She cared deeply about those around her and had an unwavering love for the greatest country in the world – The United States of America.

Her love of people and love of nation motivated Carole to lifelong service as Republican Activist.  By word and deed, Carole would tell anyone interested that the Republican party has the best governing principles and values anywhere.

If someone proved to be a “hard sell” with respect to the Republican Party, Carole would invite them over for a homemade lunch, dinner or surprise them with her tasty baked goods.  On more than one occasion Carole fed the State’s electeds at her home.  Her guests ranged from Governors, Secretaries of State, State Treasures, Congressmen, and Senators – among others.

Over her well-baked meals, she would compliment their service, share her concerns and encourage new paths.  Carole understood the simple principle that serving with love would convert people to the GOP and open meaningful discussions with our representatives at all levels of government.  An approach that has helped shape policy in Arizona by protecting the lives of the unborn, gun rights, traditional marriage, free markets, education and public safety.

Most have little idea about the remarkable history behind Carole Joyce and the influence she has had on this country.  Carole Joyce was a former Board Member of the NRA and always a Life Member, an Olympic Small-bore Rifle Shooting Coach, Nurse working with First Responders, volunteer, Precinct Committeeman, State Committeeman, Corresponding Secretary for Legislative District 24, Member of the 2016 Electoral College and recipient of The Lifetime Achievement Award from the Arizona Republican Party.

Carole was the “action” in Activist. She made phone calls, walked neighborhoods, donated to candidates and the GOP.  Not having the ability to drive did not keep her from finding speakers, organizing events and attending state and county meetings. No name-calling, no idleness…she worked.  Her ambition was to win and do whatever it would take to protect the people of Arizona.

She had a mind of her own and would fight for what she believed was right. Some will remember her as a faithful wife, loving mom, best friend, great cook, fearless activist or someone who cared. Carole did not remove humanity from politics she brought them together.  She will be missed.

Robert Graham served as the Chairman of the Arizona Republican Party from January 2013 though January, 2017.

Paul Boyer: Tax reform will help Ariz. small businesses, add jobs

Paul BoyerBy Paul Boyer

2018 is an exciting year for Arizona small businesses, which will be able to take advantage of a new 20 percent tax deduction associated with the recently passed federal tax legislation. These savings will not only benefit state small businesses, but employees, job seekers, and communities as well.

Arizona runs on small business. Our state is home to over 500,000 small businesses (defined by the Small Business Administration as employing 500 or fewer), helping employ nearly one million people. And these numbers are not unique to Arizona. Across the country, small businesses account for over 99 percent of all businesses and a net two-thirds of all new private sector jobs.

But despite the invaluable contribution small businesses had on the economy, for far too long, the structure of the old tax system actively worked against growth, with marginal federal rates reaching 40 percent. This over-taxation put small businesses at an inherent disadvantage.

Under the new tax law, a 20 percent deduction is established for all small business income less than $315,000, and non-professional service business income above that threshold. Roughly 95 percent of small businesses earn less than $315,000, meaning the overwhelming majority will benefit from the full 20 percent deduction.

Consider, for example, how this deduction would help an average Arizona small business earning $200,000 a year. This 20 percent deduction would protect $40,000 from federal taxation, freeing up much-needed resources to create jobs and raise wages. I am already hearing from dozens of businesses around the state about their plans to raise wages, hire employees, and expand with their tax savings.

This excess capital in the private economy will fuel economic growth. Contrary to popular belief, business owners will not simply pocket their tax savings. “They will follow the lead of their big business counterparts, hundreds of which, including AT&T, Comcast, and PNC Bank have used their tax savings to give workers bonuses or raise their wages, creating wealthier and more vibrant communities that touch nearly everyone.

We are even seeing specific examples of these savings here in our home state. Arizona’s largest utility, Arizona Public Service Co, announced its intention to reduce consumer bills, citing the lower corporate tax rate as the driving force behind the decision. These collective cuts could reach nearly $120 million, impacting over 25 million customers.

Arizona Public Service is giving the entirety of their tax cut back to customers. For families on a fixed income, these savings are crucial. They are able to live with a stronger sense of financial security thanks to the recent tax bill.

During my time in the Arizona State Legislature, I’ve encountered businesses longing to share their passions with the world. I witnessed humble business ventures transform into leaders of the Arizona business community. From my experience, a tax cut, like the one recently signed into law, would have done wonders in helping get these businesses off the ground. Now new businesses will finally get the relief they’ve needed for so long.

Tax cuts will give small businesses a lot to look forward to this year, meanwhile all Arizonans will reap the benefits.

Republican Paul Boyer, a high-school literature teacher, is chairman of the Arizona House Education Committee and represents Legislative District 20, based in Phoenix and Glendale. Email him at pboyer@azleg.gov

Frosty’s Fake News Amplifies More Lies

By Calamity June

This morning, Frosty Taylor, the author of the FakeNews “Republican Briefs,” defended the campaign of lies that she has been amplifying on behalf of La Paz County Chairman Russell Sias. For weeks, Sias has been denigrating the hard work being done at the Arizona GOP, attacking the year-long Bylaws process, and hurling personal insults at anyone who does not subscribe to his hateful tactics.

Russell Sias

To dispense with the latest Sias-fueled fever dream: the bylaws revision process has been transparent and fair, with every corner of the state represented. Any suggestion to the contrary is without merit; all bylaw changes will be given an up or down vote at next month’s Mandatory Meeting.

But beyond that, Frosty resurrected the absurd narrative, also being pushed by Sias and others, that there has been a “cleansing” of “conservative worker-bee” PCs over the last 5 or 6 years.

Last we checked, there were plenty of hard working conservative PCs who continue to form the backbone of the Arizona GOP.

Workers like Kim Owens and Lisa James, who run the Dodie Londen Excellence in Public Service program…hundreds of women from across Arizona have learned the nuts and bolts of campaigning and governing, and several have gone on to elective office, including Senator Kelli Ward, AZ GOP Secretary Gabby Mercer, and Lisa Askey, the Chairwoman of the Chandler GOP Women. And the list goes on and on.

Another victim of Frosty’s smears is Lisa Gray, a dedicated conservative and hard working PC who VOLUNTEERS her time as the Executive Director of the Maricopa County Republicans. And yet, Frosty has focused her bile at Gray, resorting to name calling and personal bile at every opportunity.

And let’s not forget Jonathan Lines, a true product of the grassroots movement and a champion of conservative causes dating back to Ronald Reagan’s election. Frosty, Sias, and their ilk have waged a near-constant effort to destroy Lines, all in the name of power and control. And yet Lines, while running multiple businesses and raising a family of 11 kids, has sacrificed countless hours to promote the Republican Party and President Trump.

The Arizona GOP is governed by strong, conservative and active precinct committeemen. And just this week, saw the fruits of their labor when Congress, finally, voted for real tax reform! This came about in no small part because Chairman Lines and the AZ GOP rallied their PCs to insist that Congress keep its promise to Arizona taxpayers. Every single Republican in the Arizona delegation supported the President’s tax reform bill. Sounds like real conservative results to us!

Frosty Taylor, Russell Sias and the rest of the “dead end caucus” do not stand for conservative results. They don’t believe in party unity. They thrive on chaos, disunity, and lies. The truth is, there is no conspiracy to “cleanse” the party of conservatives…there is no “secret” process to reform the bylaws. There are only conservative, hard-working PCs, doing their best, every day, to grow the party, elect Republicans, and Make America Great Again.

Frosty Taylor represents none of this. She’s the mouthpiece of dysfunction and lies. And more and more true Republicans are finally taking notice.

===

As always, the aforementioned parties are welcome to submit a counterpoint response to Sonoran Alliance.

Statement from Chairman Herring on the Resignation of Congressman Franks

Maricopa County Republicans

Phoenix, AZ – Maricopa County GOP Chairman Chris Herring released the following statement regarding the resignation of Congressman Trent Franks.

“We thank Congressman Trent Franks for his service to Arizona and Congressional District 8,” said County Chairman Chris Herring. “Congressman Franks was my representative since I moved to Arizona and I respect his decision.”

“We expect a healthy field of Republicans to contend for the seat. We look forward to the voters of District 8 deciding on their new representation.”