SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: JohnM who wrote (6366)8/31/2003 5:06:49 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793820
 
No doubt about it, John. The Dems are the party of the "Fat Cats." New York Times.

9 of 10 Big Donors Prefer Democrats

DEMOCRATS have long moaned about their status as second-class fund-raisers. After all, President Bush is single-handedly out-raising the combined efforts of all nine Democrats running to oust him next year.

But the Democrats are hardly without their wealthy benefactors.

Since 1991, when so-called soft money was recorded for the first time, 9 of the 10 all-time biggest donors have been Democrats, according to an analysis for Political Points by the Center for Responsive Politics.

The list is led by Haim Saban, a Hollywood billionaire who created the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, and his wife, Cheryl. They have written checks for $11.3 million, all but a tiny amount of it to Democrats.

Carl H. Lindner, a Cincinnati businessman and owner of the Cincinnati Reds, and his wife, Edith, are the only Republicans to crack the top 10, giving $4.2 million to rank No. 5. Mr. Lindner is the only contributor on the list to give substantial amounts to both parties, about two-thirds to Republicans and the rest to Democrats.

The rest of the top 10 is Fred Eychaner of Newsweb Corporation ($8.9 million); Stephen L. Bing of Shangri-La Entertainment ($7.5 million); Bernard L. and Irene Schwartz of Loral Space Communications ($5.6 million); S. Daniel and Ewa Abraham of the Center for Middle East Peace ($4.2 million); Steven and Michele Kirsh of Propel Corporation ($4 million); Peter L. Buttenwieser and his wife, Terry Marek, of Peter L. Buttenwieser & Associates ($3.6 million); Senator Jon Corzine and his wife, Joanne ($3.4 million); and Peter G. Angelos, a lawyer and owner of the Baltimore Orioles, and his wife, Georgia ($3.2 million).
nytimes.com



To: JohnM who wrote (6366)8/31/2003 6:38:34 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793820
 
DNC chief won't risk wrath of donors

August 31, 2003

BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

Recipients of recent money appeals by the Democratic National Committee have been puzzled by the absence of the customary signature of the party chairman, Terry McAuliffe.

Earlier DNC fund-raising letters this year were signed by former President Bill Clinton and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy. The latest appeal, which arrived in the mail last week, was signed by somebody whose name was new to many recipients: Josh Wachs, the DNC's 31-year-old chief operating officer.

McAuliffe is so controversial with the Democratic rank-and-file, according to party sources, that his name may inhibit contributions. A Washington-based business speculator, McAuliffe was handpicked for chairman by Bill and Hillary Clinton after the 2000 election, against the wishes of many DNC members.

Arnold's ideology

Arnold Schwarzenegger, under fire from the California Republican Party's right wing, first got interested in government as an acolyte of economist Milton Friedman and still follows his libertarian-conservative ideology.

In the 1980s, actor-bodybuilder Schwarzenegger would show up at his Los Angeles health club wearing a ''Free to Choose'' T-shirt. Nobel laureate Friedman and his wife, Rose, co-authored the best-selling book Free to Choose, which also was the title of his award-winning PBS television series.

Schwarzenegger's backers are using his Friedmanite ideology as reason for conservative Republican voters to support him in the Oct. 7 recall election to replace Democratic Gov. Gray Davis despite his liberal stands on social issues.

GOP recruiting

Stunned by Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's decision not to run for the Senate, national Republican recruiters have turned to Homeland Security Undersecretary Asa Hutchinson as the last best bet to defeat Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln's bid for a second term.

Hutchinson, a former congressman and brother of ex-Sen. Tim Hutchinson, is considered the only possible candidate with a real chance against Lincoln. The problem is that he would like to succeed John Ashcroft as attorney general in a second term for President Bush. Since the president obviously controls that avenue of promotion, the White House could pressure Hutchinson to become a Senate candidate.

Huckabee's withdrawal marks the latest in a series of White House-anointed Senate candidates who have declined to run for the Senate. The decision by Rep. James Gibbons of Nevada to stay in the House virtually assures another term for Senate Democratic Whip Harry Reid. Former Rep. John Thune has yet to say whether he will run in South Dakota against Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle.

Pounding the president

Senate Democratic leaders have sent e-mails to liberal organizations to show up at a Capitol Hill rally, immediately after the conclusion of the August recess, to continue the attack accusing President Bush of reneging on his ''leave no child behind'' commitment for education.

The pressure groups were urged to ''send members of your organizations to this rally'' Wednesday to build support for four education amendments to the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill pending in the Senate. The amendments would spend more federal money on ''disadvantaged'' children, disabled students, college Pell grants and several varieties of aid to children of immigrants.

Daschle and Edward M. Kennedy will lead the Bush-bashing session. Boosting their amendments for more school spending will be Democratic Whip Harry Reid and Senators Robert Byrd, Chris Dodd and Jeff Bingaman.

Against Internet taxes

Pressure by Republican governors has forced the National Governors Association to back away from its call to end the moratorium on the question of taxing through the Internet.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry has removed funding from the NGA because of the tax issue, among others. New Hampshire Gov. Craig Benson and Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle have threatened to do the same thing. The governors are officially neutral on whether to impose sales taxes on merchandise sold through the Internet.

Copyright © The Sun-Times Company
All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.



To: JohnM who wrote (6366)8/31/2003 7:02:01 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793820
 
Making a profit on people's misery? Criminal!, crys the left. But if you don't you won't solve the problem.
TECH CENTRAL STATION


The Business of Aids Treatment
By Roger Bate and Richard Tren 09/02/2003
Roger Bate and Richard Tren are Directors of health advocacy group Africa Fighting Malaria based in Washington DC and Johannesburg (www.fightingmalaria.org)

LUSAKA, Zambia -- As the World Trade Organisation legal experts come to an agreement on drug patents in Geneva, many politicians, media commentators and health professionals are already expecting that this agreement will promote generic AIDS drugs. They claim this is vital since they only cost $350 a year per person, compared with the much higher figure ($2,000 upwards) of drugs from companies that hold the patents. This creates a scenario of a gutsy David against the Goliath of the western drugs industry; but this is a myth.



The reality is that most publicly-treated patients are given AIDS drugs for free from donations by the major drug companies like Pfizer, GSK or Merck. Where drugs are sold, the mark-ups on generics are very high because generic manufacturers do not have reputations to defend and do not maintain pressure on prices through the supply chain. Western companies like GSK do stop major mark-ups by wholesalers, which makes their drugs apparently more competitively priced, and often of higher quality. Stopping price gouging on medicines is admirable but, ironically, their attempts to stop middlemen from making large profits actually reduce the likelihood that their products will be sold. Wholesalers and retailers make more money from selling generic drugs, and therefore promote them more. In surveys of pharmacies in Lusaka, Zambia, only generics drugs were widely sold.



While the western drug companies are trying hard to do what they think is right, they are actually undermining market processes in Africa. AIDS treatment is a business, not a charitable endeavor but by treating it as such, profit-making in Africa is frowned upon, furthering western and African conceptions that Africa is a hopeless lost cause. Consistent media reports of mythical drug pricing is harmful because it encourages anti-patent activists to demand the impossible, making AIDS victims, courageous enough to go public and overcome stigmatisation, feel that not only are they suffering from an incurable disease but are being ripped-off as well.


Generic Drugs in Africa



A key demand from activists is that generic drugs must be made available to the poor. And since at least 2001 generic products, especially from India, have been sold in Africa. But while this delights the activists, they could at least correctly acknowledge how much patients pay for generic drugs. Many people, including President Bush in his State of the Union speech in January, quote the price at $300 per person per year. Actually, the lowest quote came from Cipla, the Indian generics company, which said in 2002 that it could provide a year's supply of triple drug therapy for AIDS patients for $350 per person. But this price is misleading. Cipla may provide the drugs at their factory in Bombay for that price, but the drugs do not sell for that price in poor countries.



Pharmacies in Zambia sell various drug combinations at considerably higher prices. In a small sample of pharmacies in the capital, we found the prices of Cipla's cocktail range from $588 to $840 a year, a 60% to 140% increase over the quoted price. Incidentally, patented drugs from GSK (the Combivir cocktail) sells for between $1740 and $2250 a year, a mark-up of approximately 8% to 30%.



At one of the best pharmacies we visited, Link Pharmacy in Lusaka's Manda Hill shopping centre, the pharmacist Ms. Ann Zulu said that she encourages people to buy the patented version of GSK's drug first, and then perhaps the generic alternative. Why? GSK drugs are better and of more reliable quality, and it is more likely that the GSK drugs are genuine, rather than the increasingly prevalent counterfeit copies. If a patient starts on the GSK drug and then switches to a generic, the pharmacist can note whether the generic is effective. If it's not, the patient can switch back to GSK's drug.



But many pharmacists do not have the same kind of medical training or ethics as Ms. Zulu. They will sell whatever is available at the best mark-ups, usually the generics. Many pharmacists got their fingers burned when drugs became available in 2001. They were told that AIDS was a massive problem and they would sell lots of drugs. But those who sought treatment went to the clinics; the more politically-connected were treated for free. The pharmacists saw their stockpiles expire since of those who were rejected by the clinics few had money to buy the drugs. Now pharmacies don't stockpile. Instead, they order from distributors on demand when a prescription comes in. Most pharmacies sell a couple of courses a month; the most we encountered was 30 per month.



We estimate that on average the Zambian wholesalers sell generic drugs at a significant premium to the announced prices from Cipla and Ranbaxy, another Indian generics company. Patients pay about 50% more than the frequently quoted price.


AIDS in Zambia



Malaria is still Zambia's biggest killer, but about 20% of Zambia's adult population has HIV/AIDS. Out of Lukasa's estimated 2 million people perhaps 400,000 have AIDS. Of that perhaps 15-20% -- 60,000 to 80,000 people -- require treatment. But its few pharmacies were not selling many courses and the clinics don't have enough doctors to treat many people. It is likely that less than 1,000 Zambians receive treatment. But at least the situation is better in Zambia than in Burundi or Zimbabwe. Nationals from these countries cross the border, prescriptions in hand, to buy significant amounts of drugs from Zambian pharmacies.


The Broader Pricing Issue



Last year activist Richard Stern noted that the price of a course of generic drugs in Latin America was about $1,400 a year, even higher than in Zambia. Given that Latin America is relatively richer than Southern Africa, this higher price is not surprising. In Africa too a pattern is emerging as pharmacies in Mozambique, South Africa, and elsewhere sell generics at Zambian prices or higher.



This is to be expected. Generic drug manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers need to make money to stay in business. They are currently being out-competed by clinics with free drug supply. As one western trade expert put it to me, 'this aid for drugs is like western agricultural dumping, it perverts local markets, and stops many markets from developing'. Of course many pharmacists may be excessively marking up generic drugs, but with such distortions in the market it is hard to blame them.



This situation is not helped by the western media, which portrays generics firms almost as charitable do-gooders, allowing the generics industry to dump its drugs at the docks and not worry about price mark-ups at pharmacies. The research-based industry also harms the situation by delivering its drugs for free, making it appear that since the people are so poor, one should make no money in Africa.



However, making Africa a no-profit zone is folly that will keep the continent in poverty. Until AIDS drugs distribution is seen by politicians and the media as a business, we will continue to see Africa as a no profit center. Aid will flood in to no long run benefit.