We know that viewership of network news has declined precipitously in recent years, and the intended audience is primarily those who are currently or soon-to-be elderly. The cash-cow business of pharmaceuticals gloms onto this demographic and saturates the NBC, CBS and ABC nightly news programs with legal drugs for sale. Among the biggest pharmaceutical advertisers are Merck, Inc. and Pfizer.

But during political season, which is now becoming almost year-round, political ads also saturate news broadcasts. There is a fundamental difference between the pharmaceutical and political ads. With the drug ads, extensive warnings are provided about the associated risks with the product. This is required by law. With the political ads, no cautionary words are provided, and the danger of mis-use is at least as great as it is with the medications.

It’s a wonder that the medications advertised on TV actually turn a profit. The Food & Drug Administration has established regulations for advertising that require the sponsors to provide disclaimers about the risks involved with the medication. In many cases, this can consume far more time in the commercial than the reasons to ask your physician to prescribe it for you.

For example, below is a commercial for Stelara, a medication to treat the symptoms of Crohn’s Disease. You’ll note that of the 60-seconds in the ad, 32-seconds are devoted to information about associated risks.

This is called Truth in Advertising. It’s worth noting that the Federal Trade Commission has a hand in this, but the FDA has exclusive rights over regulation of prescription medications.  Kudos to progressives in Congress and the White House who spearheaded the establishment of these two important agencies, the Federal Trade Commission in 1914 and the Food and Drug Administration in 1906. They perform essential roles of government, protecting individual citizens from possible excesses by corporations. They work to protect “we the people” from being duped.

But what about the political ads that are almost wall-to-wall during newscasts? There are absolutely no warnings provided about the hazards of purchasing the “product-being-sold” the way there are about pharmaceuticals.

Take a look at this ad for the re-election of Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner running for re-election. It is only thirty-eight seconds long, but there are twelve unsubstantiated charges within it. With the harried voice-over, the viewer cannot catch his/her breath to even think about what is being said. It’s one jab after another, with no fact-checking whatsoever.

Clearly, we need some regulations of these political ads as we have for pharmaceuticals. Here are several reasons why it makes sense to do so:

1. Pharmaceuticals are used to protect our health. We are all aware that mistakes happen. With medications, we are talking about life and death. This is why precautions must be taken to protect us from the risks of certain pharmaceuticals.
2. Key components of the jobs of our political leaders are to protect individual liberties and to promote the “general good” within our society. Just as citizens need honesty in all other forms of advertising, they need it from the political ads to which they are often subjected.
3. More often than not, political ads are characterized by half-truths, actual lies, distortions, innuendos and personal attacks. What is said about the actual candidate running for office is frequently just a sliver of the real truth. The same holds true with how candidates characterize their opponents.

Television ads are one of the most effective ways for political candidates to reach large audiences. The First Amendment guarantees the right to candidates to openly reach out to constituents. But we also have restrictions on distortion. Currently we are not applying them to political advertising.

Placing restrictions on political advertising is something that can be done with greater ease than many other necessary reforms such as abolishing or neutralizing the Electoral College. Cleaning up the ads should be a primary issue for progressives. Let’s see who steps forward.

The post Watching the news: why do we have warnings about prescription ads, but not about political ads appeared first on Occasional Planet.

In his first weeks in office, Donald Trump has been all about executive orders. He has also talked about going after Federal regulations. But, there are indications he could go much further. Trump may be a big-strokes person, but he has minions to get down in the weeds, and therein is the real danger. We have a complicated Federal system, and there are too many levers that can be pulled the wrong way and without accountability.

In a recent Washington Post article, Fred Barbash cites a remark made by Reince Priebus in a memorandum freezing any new or pending regulations. In his memo, in addition to regulations, Preibus references “guidance documents.” Barbash thinks this is a clue that the Trump administration has discovered the dark matter of government regulation.

Why dark matter? In our universe, ordinary matter, including planets, stars, gases, debris, make up less than five percent of mass-energy. Dark matter and dark energy make up the remaining 95 percent. (Complicated physics stuff, see Wikipedia.) Guidance encompasses much of what goes on in the regulatory sphere. Hence, the reference to “dark matter.”

So, what are guidance documents? Barbash explains,

The departments and agencies an administration controls issue edicts variously referred to as “guidance,” “interpretive rules” and most prominently in recent years, “Dear Colleague Letters,” a form of “significant guidance.” Unlike executive orders and regulations, these don’t pretend to have the force of law. But recipients often treat them as if they do, since to ignore them can lead to a nasty tiff with the United States government that can wind up with a threat to cut off funds or a lawsuit.

This is pretty wonky stuff, but these seemingly low-level documents can wield a lot of power – for good or evil. They come in a variety of other flavors as well: “waivers” of rules, “non-rule rules,” “subregulatory guidance.” Barbash continues with an example,

The most controversial of these guidance documents in recent years was the joint Justice Department-Department of Education “Dear Colleague Letter on Transgender Students,” which, after its opening “Dear Colleague” salutation, informed school systems, among other things, that they “must allow transgender students access” to restrooms and lock room facilities “consistent with their gender identity.”

Described as “significant guidance” by the departments, failure to adhere to it could result in a loss of federal funding to school systems under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which bar discrimination on the basis of sex. The uproar it produced made it famous and it has been at least temporarily blocked by a U.S. District Court.

Barbash explains why guidance letters are necessary,

Think of the vast regulatory apparatus of the United States government as a pyramid. At the top are laws, like the Clean Air Act, actually passed by Congress and signed by the president, the way the framers of the Constitution envisioned things.

Since the laws can’t deal with most situations that will arise as agencies try to enforce them, the agencies generate regulations to do so. Regulations are just below laws in the pyramid. But regulations have a long gestation period ranging from months to years during which the public has an opportunity to comment on them.

But regulations can’t deal with most situations that arise either, so the agencies responsible for them use such vehicles as “guidance” documents and Dear Colleague letters to deal with specific situations. Guidance requires no notice or comment period. Guidance documents have been called “non-rule rules.”

How could all this play out? Here’s a really long and scary list of targeted regulations and guidance letters put out by the conservative House Freedom Caucus. It’s entitled, “First 100 Days: Rules, Regulations and Executive Orders to Examine, Revoke, and Issue.” Most are regulations, but many are also “guidance letters.” Changes to these orders could dramatically alter the environment, LGBT rights, immigration, aid to the poor, food safety and so much more – all with the stroke of a pen by Trump or a cabinet secretary.

Here are just a few of the issues on the Freedom Caucus target list and the recommended actions:

Reverse the Obama Administration’s Directive Undermining Work Requirements in TANF. The Secretary should revoke the Obama Administration’s 2012 directive allowing Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) work requirements to be waived.

USCIS – Civil Immigration Enforcement: Guidance on the Use of Detainers in the Federal, State, local, and Tribal Criminal Justice Systems. Waives Obama’s actions on Amnesty (Sanctuary cities)

Rescind NEPA guidance on global warming compliance. The president should retract the Council on Environmental Quality guidance for National Environmental Policy Act reviews published in August 2016. The guidance requires all federal agencies to incorporate the global warming costs of a proposed activity in environmental reviews.

Securities and Exchange Commission: Climate Change Guidance at the SEC. Withhold funds for “The design, implementation, or administration of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Guidance Regarding Disclosure Related to Climate Change,” or any successor thereto.

We live in a very fragile democracy. There are so many ways for Trump to screw it all up. Vigilance required.

The post Going after Federal regulations: Trump discovers ‘dark matter’ appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Late every January – as reliable as the buzzards returning to Hinckley, Ohio each March – the revised Poverty Guidelines are published in the Federal Register…until Donald J. Trump became President.

As noted in the article below, the Trump administration pulled a couple of dozen of items (most very routine) from today’s Federal Register.  The guidelines were among the items yanked.

http://thehill.com/regulation/315839-trump-administration-withdraws-23-rules-from-federal-register

Oh, due to low inflation the numbers were not going to change much.  (I’m guessing the 100% poverty level for a family of four was going to climb from $24,300 in 2016 to about $24,360 this year.)  But they are going to increase.  Remember, government programs from food stamps to rural home loans utilize the guidelines.  And, many non-profits, such as food pantries, update their criteria based on the federal numbers.

Of course, we should not be surprised that the Trump Administration would interfere in such a mundane automatic function of the federal bureaucracy.  You see, the 2017 Poverty Guidelines will become facts when they’re issued.  Only the President gets to create facts.  Or, more correct, what he considers facts.

The post Trump disappears poverty guidelines from Federal Register appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Conservatives breathe the same air as progressives; they drink the same water. They fly the same planes and they eat the same food.

It would stand to reason that conservatives are just as concerned as liberals about longevity, avoiding toxins, safety in our skies and avoiding food poisoning.

Yet conservative are willing, even anxious, to reduce or eliminate the regulations that we have to protect ourselves from illness, injury, or even death. They cite the burdens of regulations and taxes on businesses as reasons why our economy is in neutral at best, as the job market continues to stagnate.

Maybe they know something that progressives don’t. In their view, businesses, left to their own devices, will take all necessary steps to protect both their workers and their customers. If this means not polluting our lakes, rivers and streams with toxic effluents, they will take whatever measures are necessary. If this means ensuring that the food we eat is safe, they will test the meats, fruits, vegetables we eat to ensure that no unwanted bacteria or viruses are present.

Perhaps what conservatives know and progressives don’t is that all citizens, particularly those in business, and most particularly those running mega-businesses, are kind, gentle, altruistic individuals. Yes, they want to make a profit, but not at the expense of the public good.

What conservatives don’t like is the imposition on their freedom from government regulations, no matter how noble the purpose of the regulations might be. It’s like one adult being told by another to drive safely. Why say it? The driver already knows it.

There are some of us who even flaunt rules when we think that they are unnecessary or just plain silly. If we see a message in a theater with a high-amp sound system telling us to be quiet during the movie, we may be inclined to carry on a conversation, because the movie is assaulting us with excessive decibels.

So, if the conservatives are right, at least in theory, in their contention that even reasonable regulations are not needed because those whom they impact already know what to do, then maybe progressives should back off and eliminate some or all of these regulations. It would cut costs, humanize relations between competing groups, and perhaps most importantly, affirm the basic “goodness” of humankind.

On the other hand, if government eliminates regulations and private industry shows a lack of regard for public safety, then conservatives have a choice to make. They can join progressives in supporting necessary regulations to protect us from harm. Or they can follow the option expressed by Rep. Ron Paul in the “Tea Party” debate on Sept. 13. We can live with whatever results the free market provides us. Ron Paul, who is a physician, felt that it was more important for a seemingly healthy thirty-year-old to have the right to not buy health insurance than it is for him or her to be treated in a hospital for a serious injury. If recovery could come only after emerging from a six-month coma, then the market would say, “Tough luck; you could have chosen to buy insurance, but you didn’t.” You die, and the market wins.

One of the key characteristics of progressives is empathy. We are uncomfortable with and pained by the thirty-year-old dying because he or she hadn’t purchased insurance in a free market system. There is something greater to us than the sanctity of the free market.

So, if conservatives can provide convincing evidence that the private sector has a conscience that cares for others as effectively as regulations do, then I’ll join them in their efforts to de-regulate America. However, if left to its own devices, the private sector shows little regard for the health and safety of others, then I’ll remain committed to my support of regulations. Of greater importance is, if in the face of evidence that deregulation leaves people unnecessarily at risk, will conservatives accept the necessity of regulations. If the answer to that is yes, then I’ll believe in the integrity of the current anti-regulation mantra expressed by conservatives.

The post Maybe progressives just don’t know how responsible conservatives are appeared first on Occasional Planet.