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 Business Owners React to Hearing in U.S. House Ways and Means Committee

Americans for Affordable Products

Hearing Showcases Border Adjustment Tax Based on Academic Theory, Not Real-World Reality

Scottsdale, AZ – Local business owners throughout Phoenix are sharing their reactions on the U.S. House’s recently-concluded Ways & Means Committee hearing focused on the border adjustment tax.  Anthony Cantelmo, owner of Fifth and Ford Cigars, said “The Border Adjustment Tax will cripple my business here in Scottsdale.  I cannot absorb a 20% increase in costs for the items that I import, which is everything. I’ll have to make some very painful decisions—scale back business, let employees go or close my doors. None of these are desirable. I hope that the committee will reconsider this proposal and think of the small business owners like myself.”

John Arterburn, owner of Ace Hardware in Scottsdale, also had a strong reaction to the hearing, saying “The committee wants tax reform that’s based on fairness and simplicity. The Border Adjustment Tax provides neither. Everyone will be touched one way or another by the price hikes it will impose.”

Jim Mapstead, owner of Accurate Signs and Engraving, released the following statement, saying “Retail accounts for 20 percent of the jobs in the U.S. That’s a big chunk of the economy to hit with a 20 percent price hike on the cost of doing business.  There must be a better way and hopefully the Ways and Means Committee is looking at alternatives.”

Americans for Affordable Products is a coalition of job creators, entrepreneurs, business leaders and consumers united against higher prices on everyday necessities. To learn more, please visit:

www.KeepAmericaAffordable.com.

Additional Information:

Sen. Jeff Flake Stands Up for Arizona’s Consumers and Businesses

Takes to the Senate Floor to Raise Concerns with Border Adjustment Tax

Phoenix, AZ – Today, Americans for Affordable Products, a coalition of nearly 200 businesses, local organizations, and trade associations united to stop the Border Adjustment Tax or BAT, and its resulting increased prices on everyday necessities, thanked Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) for speaking out on the U.S. Senate floor to raise his concerns with the BAT.

The Border Adjustment Tax is a provision of House Speaker Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) tax reform plan, which, if enacted, would levy a 20 percent tax on imported goods.

During the floor speech, Senator Flake expressed his worry that BAT “could make everyday consumer products more expensive at the very places that middle-class families shop the most…[and] household staples could be pushed out of reach for those who can least afford it.” He went on to say that he’s looking forward to working with his colleagues on tax reform, “but we ought to make sure that the middle class isn’t in the losing column.”

“Senator Flake’s stout defense of Arizona’s businesses and consumers earlier today cannot be lauded enough,” said John Arterburn, owner of Ace Hardware in Pinnacle Peak. “A 20 percent tax on imported products could threaten the viability of my business, forcing me to make tough choices – I’d either have to raise prices or eliminate staff.”

If enacted, the Border Adjustment Tax could result in American consumers spending an additional $1,700 per year on basic necessities like food, clothing, medicine and gasoline.

“Everyone agrees, simplifying our complicated tax code is very much needed, but shifting the burden onto the backs of the middle class while killing U.S. jobs is not the way to do it,” said Robert Medler, VP of Government Affairs for the Tucson Metro Chamber. “Senator Flake hit the nail on the head today – we need tax reform in this country, but introducing a Border Adjustment Tax which amounts to a hidden tax on consumers and punishes those that are the least fortunate dampens what would otherwise be a popular plan.”

Americans for Affordable Products is a coalition of job creators, entrepreneurs, business leaders and consumers united against higher prices on everyday necessities. To learn more, please visit: www.KeepAmericaAffordable.com.

Additional Information:

  • Resources: Coalition Infographic, Myth vs. Fact, and More
  • Press Release: AAP Launches Opposition to BAT

To schedule an interview with an Americans for Affordable Products representative, please email press@KeepAmericaAffordable.com.

Maricopa GOP Chair Rallies LD Censures

To all Arizona County and LD Republican Committee Chairmen –
Below is the front page article of the July 15 Arizona Capitol Times. I want to express my appreciation to those courageous and principled County and LD Republican Committees who have already conducted votes of “censure” and/or “no confidence.”
Jan Brewer, the legislators and their crony capitalist friends that support ObamaCare and Medicaid expansion have betrayed Americans, Arizona Republicans and the Republican Party Platform.  Their lack of ethics, integrity and egregious acts are motivated by only two things – greed and the lust for power – at the expense of hard working tax paying Americans.
The law was expected to cost $898 billion over the first decade when the bill was first passed, but this year the Congressional Budget Office revised that estimate to $1.85 trillion.  Money that will have to be borrowed from the Chinese or printed in the backroom of the Federal Reserve.  Latest polls indicate a majority of Americans are opposed to ObamaCare and Medicaid expansion with an overwhelming majority of Republicans in opposition.
During the past six months, we did everything we could to make a solid argument against ObamaCare and Medicaid expansion, we tried to reason with these people and even tried to make them see the light.  Unfortunately, our lobbying efforts fell on deaf ears and without success.
During one of Ronald Reagan’s difficult political battles he said,
               “When you can’t make them see the light, make them feel the heat.”
I’m asking all the County and LD Republican Committees to make these people feel the heat by passing public censures for their actions.  They are elitists who think what they have done should be forgiven. They are mistaken.  We are not going to be able to defeat all of them, but we can defeat a majority of them in the 2014 Primary Election.
You can go to “MCRC Briefs” and get examples of public censures that have already been passed.  http://briefs.maricopagop.org/  Just type “censure” in the search field on the left.
Warmest regards,
 A. J. LaFaro
Chairman, Maricopa County Republican Committee
P.S.  Please encourage all of your PCs to keep up their daily efforts in getting petition signatures for www.urapc.org  Getting ObamaCare and Medicaid expansion on the November 2014 ballot will be historic for Arizona’s grassroots conservatives.

E-Verify is a Tool to Stop Illegals, Right? FALSE

  Wait, isn’t e-Verify central to stopping illegals?

Well, no, stopping them at the border STOPS illegals.

Then won’t e-Verify stop illegals by not letting them get jobs?

That’s the claim, except for a couple of important points:

1) e-Verify, or in other words, “Automated Employment Eligibility Verification”, was actually the brainchild of the Council on Foreign Relations, otherwise known as the OPEN BORDERS GLOBALIST LOBBY!  (Click here to read for yourself.)

How can that be you ask?  Well, it’s central to their cross-border CANAMEXUS “labor mobility” plan.

They know that once everyone is in the work database (really the US Department of Homeland Security national id database for which e-Verify is just a user front end), that as soon as “open borders” passes, they simply flip the switch from Mexican Citizen eligible = N to Mexican Citizen eligible = Y, and VOILA, the 21 million illegals go from e-Verify clearance NO to YES …. OVERNIGHT!!!!

(Betcha Kris Kobach of FAIR who wrote SB1070 didn’t tell you about that part.  Oh, should we mention that Kris Kobach is a former lawyer for the US Department of Homeland Security who is building the national id database?)

2) The only way e-Verify works in the first place is if they have the records BEFOREHAND of everyone who is “supposed to be here”.  Well, how does the federal government get that information?  Hmmm…..

(See I Dont Care Who you Are The Government Does)

The STATES give it to them!  The states turn over their drivers license and birth certificate databases to the US Department of Homeland Security so the feds can construct a massive national id database on all US citizens.

Yes, but didn’t Arizona defeat REAL ID?  Sure, but REAL ID is only 1 of 100 or more national id programs.  In Arizona, one of the only parts of SB1070 left standing after the federal judge ruling was the section that GUESS WHAT!!!!! turned over all state citizens’ private license data (for any license), including all UNIQUE IDENTIFIERS over to GUESS WHOM??? the US Department of Homeland Security to put in their national id database!  (Betcha Russell Pearce didn’t tell you about that little detail!)

Anyway, is it any surpise the feds are doing this?  They’ve been at it for over a decade.  Too bad the teapartiers weren’t paying attention as “conservatives” they were supporting sold out their privacy,  sovereignity, and birthright to the feds for some silver pieces (attention in the media).

3) Now we have this… Of course, it was an inevitability.  CITIZENS’ BIOMETRICS NEEDED for E-VERIFY to WORK

To make e-Verify “really work”, we’re going to have to pony up the most private of private data, our personal bio-metrics to the feds to put in their national id database, including our HANDS (finger prints) and our FORHEADS (facial recognition technology). 

See Security Industry Assoiation Recommends Biometric Authentication for Federal E-Verify Programme

Are our “conservatives” like Pearce and Adams going to tell us that us law abiding citizens have to give up MORE to the feds to “stop illegals”?   

(By the way have you noticed how those you thought were “conservatives” have stopped calls to secure the ACTUAL BORDER?  Weird right?)

Summary

Real conservatives, in other words, those who are religious and opposing the mark as well as those who have never wavered from wanting smaller government, less government intrusion, lower spending and lower taxes have been sold out by false conservatives who use the illegal immigration issue as cover to push their agenda of larger government, more police power over law abiding citizens and to implement national id.

The teaparty should take note. 

Smaller government is NOT bigger government and bigger government is NOT smaller government.

Further the way you secure the border NOW is PUTTING ARIZONAS NATIONAL GUARD THERE.  Not putting all law abiding citizens into the US Department of Homeland Security’s national id database.

The Real Reasons Behind Washington’s Attack on Arizona’s 1070

The border remains a military zone. We remain a hunted people. Now you think you have a destiny to fulfill in the land that historically has been ours for forty thousand years. And we’re a new Mestizo nation. And they want us to discuss civil rights. Civil rights. What law made by white men to oppress all of us of color, female and male. This is our homeland. We cannot – we will not- and we must not be made illegal in our own homeland. We are not immigrants that came from another country to another country. We are migrants, free to travel the length and breadth of the Americas because we belong here. We are millions. We just have to survive. We have an aging white America. They are not making babies. They are dying. It’s a matter of time. The explosion is in our population. 

Professor Angel Gutierrez, University of Texas at Arlington, founder of La Raza Unida Party; 1995

Here are a couple of little known quotes on immigration from another point of view.

“In recent years a new International System has been developing, oriented toward the establishment of norms and principles of universal jurisdiction, above national sovereignty, in the areas of what is called the New Agenda…we have to confront ….. what I dare to call the Anglo-Saxon prejudice against the establishment of supra-national organizations.”   — Mexican President Vicente Fox Club XXI, Hotel Eurobuilding, Madrid, Spain 5/16/02

“I have proudly affirmed that the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory enclosed by its borders and that Mexican migrants are an important – a very important – part of this.” — Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo, Chicago on July 23, 1997

“The effort to unite the economies of the Americas into a single free-trade area began at the Summit of the Americas which was held in December 1994 in Miami. The heads of state and government of the 34 democracies in the region agreed to construct the Free Trade Areas of the Americas (FTAA) in which barriers to trade and investment will be progressively eliminated. They agreed to complete negotiations towards this agreement by the year 2005 and to achieve substantial progress toward building the FTAA by 2000.” So begins the history of what President George W. Bush called “The Century of the Americas” (Summit of the Americas, 1994).

Lets now consider some of the following goals and objectives of the FTAA as taken from their website:

Share best practices and technologies with respect to increasing citizen participation in the electoral process, including voter education, the modernization and simplification of voter registration…” [remember motor-voter and the ubiquitous early vote by mail]

Support initiatives designed to strengthen linkages among migrant communities abroad and their places of origin and promote cooperative mechanisms that simplify and speed up the transfer of migrant remittances to their country of origin.  [do you get the idea that because Mexico is bankrupt and ungovernable, remittances from the U.S. are about all that’s keeping that country stable?]

Support programs of cooperation in immigration procedures for cross-border labor markets and the migration of workers, both in countries of origin and destination, as a means to enhance economic growth in full cognizance of the role that cooperation in education and training can play in mitigating any adverse consequences of the movement of human capital from smaller and less developed states into … [I think you get the idea where that one goes]

Strive to ensure that migrants have access to basic social services, consistent with each country’s internal legal framework… [now you know why AHCCCS is subsidized by the Federal government to some extent]

In Mexico’s official “National Plan of Development 2001-2006” specific strategies for expanding the nation’s political reach far beyond the U.S. / Mexico border are outlined.  Through out the lengthy document, globalization is frequently referenced, however again, the devil’s in the details.  To achieve their national plan, the government of Mexico reliles on those of its peoples migrating into the United States who, in 2002 sent back to Mexico over $14 billion dollars of hard U.S. currency.  These remittances as of 2006/07 were Mexico’s #1 source of foreign capital, replacing tourism and oil.  This of course isn’t counting drug money pouring into that country.
In 2001 the Mexican National Congress established dual citizenship for all Mexican national living abroad, legal or otherwise.   In the words of Mexican Congressman Manuel de la Cruz, an American citizen elected to the Mexican National Congress in 2002 and residing in California, “There are 23 million Mexicans in the U.S. that need a voice in Mexico.” (Washington Times, Ken Bensinger)

In a 2000 FoxNews interview, Mexican President Vicente Fox made Mexico’s intentions crystal clear:

“I’m talking about a community of North America, an integrated agreement of Canada, the United States, and Mexico in the long term, 20, 30, 40 years from now. And this means that some of the steps we can take are, for instance, to agree that in five years we will make this convergence on economic variables. That may mean in 10 years we can open up that border when we have reduced the gap in salaries and income.”

Now does it all make more sense?  Now do you have an idea why the Obama Administration is suing the State of Arizona?  Now do you know why our Southern Border is open and our Federal government has no intention of doing anything unless they achieve an Amnesty Program?

And why John McCain is needed back in the U.S. Senate?  Is it beginning to make some sense?  Its not about race and its not about human rights – its about globalism and the Free Trade Area of the Americas.


Arizona’s “Freedom to Breathe Act”

Finally Arizona is drawing the line against more federal incursions into Arizona’s sovereignty.  Cap-n-Trade is a disaster to any developed society and to think that Senator McCain remains staunch in his belief that its the right thing to do is completely beyond belief.

The McCain/Palin position from 08

The McCain/Palin position from 08

Cap and Trade Nullification

“Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen (R) of District 5 needs your help! She and Senators Gould and Grey are the primary sponsors for Senate Concurrent Resolution (SCR) 1050. Together, they have made Arizona the fourth state to introduce Cap and Trade nullification legislation, and this bill has “teeth”!

Known as the “Freedom to Breathe Act”, the legislation, if passed, would make it illegal for “..any governmental official to enforce within the borders of the state of Arizona federal laws or federal regulations purporting to restrict intrastate emissions of anthropogenic carbon dioxide or other greenhouse substances is herewith declared a violation of civil rights and unlawful under Arizona state law.””

Senator Allen addresses the AzFRW on Cap-n-Trade

Senator Allen addresses the AzFRW on Cap-n-Trade

At last an idea who’s time has come … sure beats missing committee hearings like her left-of-center opponent seems to.  Here is the full story:

http://arizona.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/02/cap-and-trade-nullification-arizonas-freedom-to-breathe-act/

Goldman Sachs Secret Code Stolen

 by Gayle Plato

Financial blogs jumped on this: Reuters’ Matthew Goldstein broke the story of a Russian immigrant living in New Jersey with all of the keys to the Goldman Sachs kingdom. Simply, one clever programmer seems to be the ‘lone gunman’ of IT Espionage, and the code to crack computerized trading is out. This is a Willie Wonka Golden Ticket in the hands of the bratty Varuca Salt screaming ‘I want more’.

The allegations, if true, are big news because the codes the accused man, Sergey Aleynikov, tried to steal is the secret code to unlocking Goldman’s automated stocks and commodities trading businesses. Federal authorities allege the computer codes and related-trading files that Aleynikov uploaded to a German-based website help this major “financial institution” generate millions of dollars in profits each year.” (http://blogs.reuters.com/commentaries/2009/07/05/a-goldman-trading-scandal/)

But then, is he more than a patsy loner? Always look behind the screen for the wizards of Goldman-Sachs(GS) .  

How GS does what it does and gets away with it all is the least transparent shell game on the face of the planet.  It’s a mystery wrapped in a riddle inside an enigma. Even the players don’t know who’s in charge of what.

When the government makes credit available to try to stimulate the market, they make it available to big investment banks, but the investment companies also trade and are first in line to get the money. They get cheap money and borrow it all of the time and put that money to work. They fund other companies and to grease the financial machine. The Federal Reserve is the ‘bank of last resort; its purpose is to insure liquidity for the United States. The reason is that if you borrow short term and lend out long term, inherently you’ve a risk. In the short run, even if safely invested, there is a possibility of a run.

How investment banks like Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan, the now dead Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch ( now part of Bank of America), and Goldman Sachs factor in this: GS and the others trade Treasury bonds for the United States. All the trades of most US stocks, bonds go through the DTCC, the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation. Computerized trading is managed by truly just a few investment houses; GS handles an immense amount of volume and last week everything went kooky.

While financial reporters look at the crime and tell you it’s a rogue trader looking to make a buck, think about the story a few weeks back. Counterfeit Treasury bonds worth 141 billion came over the Swiss-Italian border. A few crazy guys fake bonds-so no big deal? But to fake these, to look as good as they did, one needs to be in the presence of them. These bonds were said to be quite old, and likely in the bank drawer of some country.

What happens when some rogue gets the notion that he can sell the secrets of Goldman Sachs? Our market of computerized, milli-seconds quick, minute amounts traded in a super-conductor flux-capacitor manner makes for dangerous conditions. As speculated at www.zerohedge.blogspot.com, what do we do when one hacker holds the world hostage over a trading code that can blow up the dollar? I take it a step further, and say that maybe it is not just a rogue or a hacker, but a planned attack. Either way, the technology wins when we allow a few cloaked nerds to hold the keys.

The World Trade Center took months, heck years to build, and one small group of crazy zealots with a simple and evil desire, brought it all down in minutes, forever changing us. The next big boom won’t necessarily be as obvious as a plane flying into your office window; it might just be a byte at the virtual back door.

Job-killing proposals, warming fears, and unreliable data

National survey of NWS surface stations

A survey of National Weather Service weather stations finds that
most are improperly sited, yielding higher-than-proper
temperature readings.

Special Thanks to WeGetIt.org for the following:

As the country reels from the economic down-turn and officials cautiously hope for a recovery to begin by the end of this year, some Congressional leaders are calling for a “green recovery.” But Spain, which leads the world in creating green jobs, has found that for every green job created, 2.2 jobs are lost.

Now comes a memo from the Office of Management and Budget to Environmental Protection Agency saying, “Making the decision to regulate CO2 under the [Clean Air Act] for the first time is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the U.S. economy, including small businesses and small communities.”

But, what would you think if you learned that the most reliable database in the world on which fears of man made global warming–the rationale for such a massive tax–are based was fundamentally unreliable? That almost 9 out of 10 measuring stations failed to meet basic criteria for long-term comparable data?

You’d probably think the fears weren’t well grounded–and neither was the tax.

That’s precisely the case with American temperature monitoring stations. They’re supposed to constitute the world’s most reliable set of stations, but 89% fail to meet the National Weather Service’s siting requirements . They’re exposed to all sorts of nearby point sources of heat that have increased over time, making their long-term records show a false upward trend.

National survey of NWS surface stations

(Left) A National Weather Service temperature monitoring station located among
wastewater treatment pools,and (right) an infrared photo of the same location
(with station position marked), showing the pools as strong heat sources

As this map and its key show, the result is near-universal higher-than-proper temperature readings at stations around the country. (You can see stations in particular states here.)

Temperature readings at stations around the country

A study of the significance of these and similar findings for stations around the world led two experts to conclude that estimates of warming from 1980 to 2002 were double what they should have been. Satellite records confirm this study’s results and show significant global cooling for the last seven years.

Are these good grounds to adopt expensive cap-and-trade?

The Republic of Arizona

There is a discussion taking place among some Arizonans to depart dramatically from the agenda of the new socialist federal government. This should come as no surprise as other “red states” are also tossing variations on the idea around. Last month, Texas Governor Rick Perry did not condemn the idea and now we hear that Oklahomans are restless in their distrust, dismay and disgust with the federal government (“House bypasses governor’s veto to claim Oklahoma’s sovereignty“).

If Arizona were to in fact embark on a course of secession, fear not, the new republic would be able to stand on her own financially. An elimination of the income tax and dramatic reduction in the corporate tax would draw individuals and businesses to the new republic in droves. Tourism would also continue to thrive with our majestic Grand Canyon, Mogollon rim high country and Sonoran desert. But I would make one go-no-go suggestion. Approach the Governor of Sonora Mexico and request to extend the Arizona-Mexico border directly  due west (at 31.332140, -111.074230) to extend to the Gulf of California. In doing so, this would provide Arizona with both a southern riviera and open access to the Pacific Ocean. Imagine the amount of wealth Arizona could create with the additional tourism and commerce obtained and developed by annexing the additional land.

Republic of ArizonaNow before you completely dismiss the idea of a sovereign Republic of Arizona, how many of you would have ever expected the brash and blatant disregard of states’ rights by this federal government? How many of you expected the internationalization of the United States by this Administration? The country is more divided than ever as this federal government seeks to socialize industry, financial institutions, health care, energy, you name it. And if you think the idea of an Arizona seaport is a little wacky, consider that the public policy group, Imagine Arizona headed by John Munger, has also called on the same idea – “Port of Arizona” – minus the official border realignment.

I would argue that if the federal government continues to reshape this country in the image of an internationally-intwined, socialist nation state, we can expect the issue of a sovereign Arizona Republic to gain popularity with historically independent-minded Arizonans.

Finally, a disclaimer: This author and post categorically denies any association with any racist, confederate, militia or xenophobic organizations.