right there, senator manchin, anyone that s worried about spending, we can generate revenue so it isn t about 3.5 trillion in spending. we will generate revenue to pay for things. i have the will to do it. the question is does senator manchin or is he more concerned about corporate donors, including the oil and gas industry, big pharmaceutical industry and others getting away with paying nothing under the current tax system. how about tax enforcement? it was dropped from the bipartisan bill, but treasury department just said that the top 1% are evading, not talking about adding new laws, evading $163 billion every year. shouldn t tax enforcement put more money into the irs to enforce the existing tax laws, wouldn t that be a great part of the budget? heck yes, stephanie. but look who took that out? the very same people who are complaining we can t afford to
and it shouldn t be a surprise to anybody that both kyrsten sinema and joe manchin, the bonnie and clyde of chamber of commerce democrats, have balked at the price of the bill without saying exactly what they will or won t support. while exact details haven t been released, democrats have said that they do plan to pay for the bill by raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations. california congresswoman katie porter had a brilliant response to manchin s concerns about the pricetag today. we re going to generate the revenue to pay for these things. i have the will to do it. the question is does senator manchin or is he more concerned about his corporate donors including large corporations in the oil and gas industry, the big pharmaceutical industry and others who are getting away with paying nothing under our current tax system? hmm. well, the internet reported this week manchin has intensive ties to coal companies with grim records of pollution, safety violations and death. not to
been taking a look at this, that is, congressional republicans are lacking a key financial supporter this year, the big pharmaceutical industry. they ve uls a been big supporters of the gop, but this year, though, big pharma is not behind the gop. how do you explain that? ? pharmaceutical companies were surprised last week when president trump unveiled his proposal for drug pricing control. this is something that was very much lifted from what they do in europe and how to keep drug price controls down. in prior elections pharmaceutical industries are given over $10 million to republican candidates and they were shocked this time when the president came out against this. this is something that republicans have had a lot of difficulty messaging around the politics on it in the midterms, this he needed something strong to have during the midterms on healthcare since with the popularity of the affordable care act, but of course one thing to note about the trump proposal on the pharmaceutic
advisers have direct financial ties to drug companies. again, it s a question of conflicts of interest. are these independent advisers then putting the public before profit? it certainly wouldn t be the first time that an agency got too close to the industry that it was supposed to be regulating and policing. another practice, though, that has been widely criticized that is common within the big pharmaceutical industry is paying doctors to promote their products. and one large pharmaceutical maker announced that they re going to stop that practice, stop paying doctors to promote their prescription products. and that was as a result of some increased transparency within the affordable care act. is the affordable care act doing anything else to sort of shift and clean up the relationship between the fda and big pharma? that change that you mention is perhaps the most critical change under the affordable care act that kind of gets at that relationship. so under that change,