If you are unable to view html within your email program please use the following link to view Chuck Muth's latest News and Views: http://chuckmuth.com/newsandviews/nv.cfm To unsubscribe please visit: http://www.chuckmuth.com/remove X-ListMember: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
******************************** WHITE RABBIT REPUBLICANS ON DRUGS by Chuck Muth March 21, 2004 According to Grace Slick (ask your dad), one pill makes you larger and one pill makes you small, but the ones mother gives you don�t do anything at all. Now if only the drug companies would invent a pill which cures �liberalitis,� because the disease seems to be spreading in epidemic proportions throughout the ranks of congressional Republicans. Here�s the latest case in point� Do you still get �sticker-shock� when you see the price of a new car? Yeeoww! The first house I lived in cost less than a new Ford Explorer. You know, if only those dang auto manufacturers would just stop paying for all those cheesy television commercials, maybe you and I could afford one. For that matter, have you seen the price of a beer these days? Outrageous. If Budweiser would just stop fritting away all that money on Clydesdales and talking frog commercials, maybe it wouldn�t cost us poor working slobs an arm and leg at Miller Time. In fact, there ought to be a law. Indeed, it�s time for Congress to look into how we can stop these beer and car companies from spending so much money on advertising, which only jacks up the cost of their products. No, better yet, let�s just ban ALL advertising and force companies to use the savings to reduce the cost of their products. Who�s with me? OK, Nader, put your hand down. But the rest of you should clearly see that this ridiculous notion - having the government tell an industry how much it can spend advertising its products - is the epitome of anti-business, nanny-state, busy-body liberalism. Yet that�s exactly what the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) is now telling Republican members of Congress to say on the campaign trail. I kid you not. In a �talking points� briefing recently distributed by Carl Forti of the NRCC�s Communications Division, the GOP leadership advises members on how to handle a raft of questions concerning health care in general, and the new prescription drug entitlement in particular. If a constituent pops up, say at a town hall meeting, and asks, �Why can drug companies spend so much on advertising?� the NRCC is telling its members to answer thusly: �Like you, I believe that drug companies spend too much on advertising...and agree that this is something we need to look into.� What? When did it become the official Republican position that the government should regulate the amount businesses can, or even should, spend on advertising? Did I miss a memo somewhere? And would somebody please help Sen. Goldwater stop turning over in his grave. It appears the GOP leadership needs to be taken to Ronald Reagan�s woodshed for a refresher course on Liberal Economics 101: �If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.� This is NOT, however, the way Republicans are supposed to view the free-market economy, no matter what their pollsters are telling them. Unfortunately, the left has done such a great job demonizing the evil drug companies - you know, those rats who produce all those wonderful life-saving, life-extending and life-enhancing drugs - that even some libertarian-conservatives want Big Pharma�s scalp. Indeed, a recent online survey of our Citizen Outreach activists (www.citizenoutreach.com) - a decidedly limited-government group of people - showed that almost 3/4 of folks thought the drug companies were spending too much money on advertising. You see how dangerous a disease liberalitis is? It strikes the unwary when they least expect it and causes otherwise level-headed members of the vast right-wing conspiracy to go meshugana. The next thing you know, folks will be supporting an outright ban on prescription drug advertising. Heck, they�ve already done it to the Marlboro Man and Jack Daniels. Why not Viagra, as well? Then what: Big Macs? Don�t laugh. It�s coming. The dangerous notion that drug companies are spending �too much� on advertising and Congress needs to �look into� it starts us down a very slippery slope. But just to show I�m not completely unreasonable on this subject, there IS one advertising ban I could support: On the government-monopoly known as the Post Office. Since no private business is allowed to compete with USPS for the delivery of mail, why do they need to spend millions of dollars on Lance Armstrong�s bike team? If Congress won�t clamp down on USPS advertising, then they should keep their big fat camel�s noses out of the advertising tents of drug companies. # # # Chuck Muth is president of Citizen Outreach, a non-profit public policy advocacy organization in Washington, D.C. The views expressed are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Citizen Outreach. He may be reached at [EMAIL PROTECTED] _
