With Democrats ready to try and get something accomplished in Congress, they're making their new agenda clear, and part of it is going to include sticking it to two major Republican donor organizations; oil and pharmaceutical companies. Payback is a bitch.

In their first 100 legislative hours, Democrats aim to negotiate lower drug prices for seniors, roll back subsidies for oil and gas companies, and reduce the cost of student loans. They're also quickly gearing up to investigate allegations of corruption in war contracting.

"Parties reward their constituency groups, and they go after the other party's constituency groups. Parties are never stronger than in the first few days, so they do it early," says Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville.

Moreover, it's popular. "You can't find people supporting big drug and oil companies, except the people who work in them," Professor Sabato says. For example, some 85 percent of Americans say the government should negotiate prescription-drug prices for the Medicare program, according to a recent poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

It's hard to find people who outright support big oil or big pharma, and in the interest of full disclosure, I'm not one either, as the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America rejected a beautifully written and scientifically brilliant grant proposal I submitted to them last year. That being said, criticism of both groups tends to lean towards oversimplification of the mass-protest-sign-slogan variety (think "Oil is bad" or "Pharma is bad" along with some cheesy, moderately relevant, probably alliterative rhyming scheme incorporated) rather than well considered theses as to how the two groups could be better. Certainly the cashing in on Katrina-related price hikes by oil companies was despicable, and the continuing subsidies to these companies seem to amount to little more well orchestrated, legal kickbacks. That being said, the economy is highly dependant (at least currently) on the availability of cheap oil, so to completely demonize the supplier of a necessary commodity seems a bit simplistic. Getting rid of their government handouts seems like a good place to try and fix the situation, however.

Big pharma is another supplier of a necessary commidity, and it seems unlikely that someone suffering from an otherwise untreatable malady will continue protesting that pharmaceutical companies are "evil, evil buckets of bile." However, again, they've done some highly questionable things over the past few years, including price gouging on various medications, pushing unpopular (though successful) legislation preventing the government from negotiating the costs of drugs bought in bulk for medicare patients, and ramming protectionist bans on cheaper, identical foreign drugs down the throats of Americans who would rather pay less for the same thing. So there's plenty of room for legitimate criticism.

The two largest hurdles I see in the Democrats making these changes effective are first, as I've already discussed, avoiding making knee-jerk decisions that cripple two industries that still provide important products and make up key elements of the economy while letting them know that the party is definitely over. It's a fine line to walk and one that will be made difficult by the slim majority held by the Democrats in the senate. The second is the allure of the vast amounts of money both of these industries funnel to elected representatives via their extensive lobbying groups. There's nothing fundamentally Republican about either big oil or big pharma, they were just the majority party and so that's where the majority of the money went. With the Democrats in control lobbyists for both groups are going to be scrambling to get Democrats on board with their program, and even the most idealistic progressive can't possibly believe that all Democrats will be immune to them.

Rainking13

Saint Peters, MO

December 2006

DEC 27, 2006 11:46 PM

GO DEMO'S.... I work EMS and have seen the effects of the over priced needed medication for the sick and the old, and it frightens the hell out of me to think we live a rich fat nation that cant care for those in need. Its a sad sad day when you have to choose between staying warm in the winter or taking your meds..

NickFaust

USA

April 2004

DEC 28, 2006 06:48 AM

pmiller said:
After reading the linked article, I'm not sure this is all about payback. Big oil and big pharma have been given way too much (and guess who's paid for it) by the current administration. If we're lucky, all that will happen is to go back and balance the scales. Hopefully, the razor-thin nature of the Democrats' majority will keep this from becoming a witch hunt.

This is both naive and stupid. Something needs to be done about the lack of competition in the Pharmaceutical industry that has been fostered by the "free market" conservatives in the Congress. The same is true of the billions in waste (70 million for a new police station in Baghdad that must be torn town and rebuilt) that has arisen from no bid contracts given to companies.

The fact that the beneficiaries of these policies are Republican contributors is confusing only if you mix up cause and effect - that is, these circumstances exist because of the contributions. These companies paid the Republicans (and some Democrats) for favorable legislation, but the removal of that legislation is not "pay back" - the legislation was bad in the first place and would never have been passed if it had not been bought.

s5

STAFF

San Francisco, CA

DEC 28, 2006 04:30 PM

legionnaire said:
That being said, the economy is highly dependant (at least currently) on the availability of cheap oil, so to completely demonize the supplier of a necessary commodity seems a bit simplistic.

This is wrong thinking.

The economy is highly dependent on cheap energy. The problem is that the world still thinks fossil fuels are the only way to make energy, which is directly the fault of "Big Oil" (and energy companies in general). So, those companies should be demonized for all the problems they create while holding the world hostage to their products.

People demand energy, and end users of that energy shouldn't have to care where it comes from. A watt is a watt, and there's nothing magical about coal or oil that gives us a watt that's any different than a watt from a clean source.

So, people should be talking about energy, not oil and coal, as the commodity of interest. And sources of energy that pollute the air, submerge islands, and cause war and oppression should no longer be considered viable options.

NickFaust

USA

April 2004

DEC 28, 2006 09:54 PM

pmiller said:
What's weird is that you're saying pretty much the same thing I did - that the Dems are merely going back to correct what was done wrong. So we're both naive and stupid?

No - We are both brilliant - It was way early in the day for me, after a very long night and I just misread your post.

Sorry.