AFTA NAFTA - More of the Bill Clinton Legacy - Hoodwinking the Public - Protecting the Rich - The First Family of Goldman Sachs

.

Recently President Obama put intense pressure on Congress to pass a major new trade treaty and the news media failed to give it even cursory attention.  It was twenty-three years ago the last Democrat President jammed a trade agreement down the throats of American workers and politicians and the negative consequences are still felt today.

Twenty-three years ago Bill Clinton slammed the NAFTA trade bill through congress in 1993, then implemented it in 1994, and we are just beginning to see the House of Cards it was built on and understand the Shroud of Secrecy he constructed to protect the rich.

Do you remember when Bill Clinton and his Vice President Al Gore undertook one of the most savage attempts at character assassination ever staged from the White House during the furious debate over the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)?

The target of this attack was the very person who helped Clinton become president in 1992, Ross Perot.  In that election, Clinton won with just 43% of the vote.  Bush got 37.4% and Perot got 18.9%.  Perot's vote total kept Bush from being re-elected.

Only twice in the entire history of American politics did a third party candidate get more votes than Perot in 1992.  In 1856, Millard Fillmore got 21.5% of the vote, and in 1912, Theodore Roosevelt got 27.3% of the vote, neither won.  In fact, only three times in our history did a president a lower percent of votes than Clinton received and they were John Quincy Adams, Woodrow Wilson, and Abraham Lincoln.

I worked as a media advisor to Ross Perot during the NAFTA debates and witnessed firsthand the incredible attempts to discredit Perot.  The Clinton administration used a national debate between Al Gore and Perot on the Larry King show as the showcase using lighting, the chair placement, the camera angles, and every other trick in the book to diminish Perot and undermine his concerns.

Eventually, everything Perot warned could happen did happen and the Clinton-Gore victory in time would be among the most devastating of the Clinton years.  Democrats, the unions, all the minorities, and American manufacturing got sold out by the Clinton promise and to this day have continued to ignore the consequences.

In the end only Clinton and Gore were laughing, all the way to the bank, as both became the richest ex-president and ex-vice president in history, each raking in well over $200 million in personal wealth after gutting the nation's long term economy.

You need not take it from me, look at the analysis by NPR, a Progressive stalwart of the Democratic party, and even the AFL-CIO, whose blind faith in the Democrats has nearly destroyed all the good unions have accomplished.  Listen to their words when it comes to the economic security of America thanks to the Clinton trade initiative.

Once upon a time during the debate over NAFTA Clinton and Gore made many promises, and Perot warned the opposite would happen.  Vilified by the news media and the Clinton administration, Perot told the truth, Clinton and Gore did not, and the American public, are still paying for it.

   

Here are what others had to say about NAFTA.

AFL-CIO America's Unions

What have workers learned from 20 years of NAFTA?

·         It’s a flawed model that promotes the economic interests of a very few and at the expense of workers, consumers, farmers, communities, the environment and even democracy itself.

• While the overall volume of trade within North America due to NAFTA has increased and corporate profits have skyrocketed, wages have remained stagnant in all three countries.
• Productivity has increased, but workers’ share of these gains has decreased steadily, along with unionization rates.
• NAFTA pushed small Mexican farmers off their lands, increasing the flow of desperate undocumented migrants.
• It exacerbated inequality in all three countries.
• And the NAFTA labor side agreement has failed to accomplish its most basic mandate: to ensure compliance with fundamental labor rights and enforcement of national labor laws.

How It Is Destroying The Economy

By Michael Snyder

Global Research, 17 August 2014

The Economic Collapse 14 August 2014

NAFTA Is 20 Years Old – Here Are 20 Facts That Show

Back in the early 1990s, the North American Free Trade Agreement was one of the hottest political issues in the country.  When he was running for president in 1992, Bill Clinton promised that NAFTA would result in an increase in the number of high quality jobs for Americans that it would reduce illegal immigration.  Ross Perot warned that just the opposite would happen.  He warned that if NAFTA was implemented there would be a “giant sucking sound” as thousands of businesses and millions of jobs left this country.  Most Americans chose to believe Bill Clinton.  Well, it is 20 years later and it turns out that Perot was right and Clinton was dead wrong.  But now history is repeating itself, and most Americans don’t even realize that it is happening.  As you will read about at the end of this article, Barack Obama has been negotiating a secret trade treaty that is being called “NAFTA on steroids”, and if Congress adopts it we could lose millions more good paying jobs.

It amazes me how the American people can fall for the same lies over and over again.  The lies that serial liar Barack Obama is telling about “free trade” and the globalization of the economy are the same lies that Bill Clinton was telling back in the early 1990s.  The following is an excerpt from a recent interview with Paul Craig Roberts…

I remember in the 90′s when former Presidential candidate Ross Perot emphatically stated that NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) would create a giant “sucking sound” of jobs being extracted away from the U.S.  He did not win the election, and NAFTA was instituted on Jan. 1, 1994. Now, 20 years later, we see the result of all the jobs that have been “sucked away” to other countries.

According to an article by the Economic Policy Institute on 1/3/14:

“Clinton and his collaborators promised that the deal would bring “good-paying American jobs,” a rising trade surplus with Mexico, and a dramatic reduction in illegal immigration. Considering that thousands of kids are pouring over the border as we speak, well, how’d that work out for us?

Many Americans like to remember Bill Clinton as a “great president” for some reason.  Well, it turns out that he was completely and totally wrong about NAFTA.  The following are 20 facts that show how NAFTA is destroying the economy…

#1 More than 845,000 American workers have been officially certified for Trade Adjustment Assistance because they lost their jobs due to imports from Mexico or Canada or because their factories were relocated to those nations.

#2 Overall, it is estimated that NAFTA has cost us well over a million jobs.

#3 U.S. manufacturers pay Mexican workers just a little over a dollar an hour to do jobs that American workers used to do.

#4 The number of illegal immigrants living in the United States has more than doubled since the implementation of NAFTA.

#5 In the year before NAFTA, the U.S. had a trade surplus with Mexico and the trade deficit with Canada was only 29.6 billion dollars.  Last year, the U.S. had a combined trade deficit with Mexico and Canada of 177 billion dollars.

#6 It has been estimated that the U.S. economy loses approximately 9,000 jobs for every 1 billion dollars of goods that are imported from overseas.

#7 One professor has estimated that cutting the total U.S. trade deficit in half would create 5 million more jobs in the United States.

#8 Since the auto industry bailout, approximately 70 percent of all GM vehicles have been built outside the United States.  In fact, many of them are now being built in Mexico.

#9 NAFTA hasn’t worked out very well for Mexico either.  Since 1994, the average yearly rate of economic growth in Mexico has been less than one percent.

#10 The exporting of massive amounts of government-subsidized U.S. corn down into Mexico has destroyed more than a million Mexican jobs and has helped fuel the continual rise in the number of illegal immigrants coming north.

#11 Someone making minimum wage in Mexico today can buy 38 percent fewer consumer goods than the day before NAFTA went into effect.

#12 Overall, the United States has lost a total of more than 56,000 manufacturing facilities since 2001.

#13 Back in the 1980s, more than 20 percent of the jobs in the United States were manufacturing jobs.  Today, only about 9 percent of the jobs in the United States are manufacturing jobs.

#14 We have fewer Americans working in manufacturing today than we did in 1950 even though our population has more than doubled since then.

#15 Back in 1950, more than 80 percent of all men in the United States had jobs.  Today, only 65 percent of all men in the United States have jobs.

#16 As I wrote about recently, one out of every six men in their prime working years (25 to 54) do not have a job at this point.

#17 Because we have shipped millions of jobs overseas, the competition for the jobs that remain has become extremely intense and this has put downward pressure on wages.  Right now, half the country makes $27,520 a year or less from their jobs.

#18 When adults cannot get decent jobs, it is often children that suffer the most.  It is hard to believe, but more than one out of every five children in the United States is living in poverty in 2014.

#19 In 1994, only 27 million Americans were on food stamps.  Today, more than 46 million Americans are on food stamps.

#20 According to Professor Alan Blinder of Princeton University, 40 million more U.S. jobs could be sent offshore over the next two decades if current trends continue.

NPR Public Citizen February 10, 2014

NAFTA’s Broken Promises 1994-2013:

Outcomes of the North American Free Trade Agreement

Excerpts - see full post at http://www.citizen.org/documents/NAFTA-at-20.pdf

In 1993, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was sold to the American public with grand promises. NAFTA would create tens of thousands of good jobs here. U.S. farmers would export their way to wealth. NAFTA would bring Mexico’s standard of living up, providing new economic opportunities there that would reduce immigration to the United States.

NAFTA was an experiment, establishing a radically new “trade” agreement model. It exploded the boundaries of past trade pacts, which had focused narrowly on cutting tariffs and quotas. In contrast, NAFTA contained chapters that created new privileges and protections for foreign investors; required the three countries to waive domestic procurement preferences, such as Buy American; limited regulation of services, such as trucking and banking; extended medicine patent monopolies and limited food and product safety standards and border inspection.

After nineteen years of NAFTA, we can measure its actual outcomes. The grand promises made by proponents remain unfulfilled. Many outcomes are exactly the opposite of what was promised. Many U.S. firms used the new investor protections to relocate production to Mexico to take advantage of its low wages and weak environmental standards and to attack NAFTA countries’ environmental and health laws in foreign tribunals. Over $340 million in compensation to investors has been extracted from NAFTA governments via these “investor-state” challenges.

The small U.S. trade surplus with Mexico pre-NAFTA turned into a massive new trade deficit. The pre-NAFTA U.S. trade deficit with Canada expanded greatly. Overall, the inflation-adjusted U.S. trade deficit with Canada of $29.1 billion and the $2.5 billion surplus with Mexico in 1993 (the year before NAFTA took effect) turned into a combined NAFTA trade deficit of $181 billion by 2012.1 The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) estimated that the NAFTA deficit had eliminated about one million net American jobs by 2004.2 Meanwhile, U.S. food processors moved to Mexico to take advantage of low wages and food imports soared. U.S beef imports from Mexico and Canada, for example, have risen 130 percent since NAFTA took effect, and today U.S. consumption of “NAFTA” beef tops $1.3 billion annually.3 The export of subsidized U.S. corn did increase, displacing over one million Mexican campesino farmers. Their desperate migration pushed down wages in Mexico’s border maquiladora factory zone and contributed to a doubling of Mexican immigration to the United States.

The U.S. public’s view of NAFTA has intensified from broad opposition to overwhelming opposition to NAFTA-style trade deals. According to a 2012 Angus Reid Public Opinion poll, 53 percent of Americans believe the United States should “do whatever is necessary” to “renegotiate” or “leave” NAFTA, while only 15 percent believe the United States should “continue to be a member of NAFTA.” Rejection of the trade deal is the predominant stance of Democrats, Republicans and independents alike.4 NAFTA has drawn the ire of Americans across stunningly diverse demographics. A 2011 National Journal poll showed strong rejection of the status quo trade model from both lower-educated and higher-educated respondents,5 and a 2010 NBC News – Wall Street Journal survey revealed that a majority of upper-income respondents have now joined lower-income respondents in opposing NAFTA-style pacts.6 In addition, a 2008 Zogby poll found majority NAFTA opposition across nearly every surveyed demographic group, including independents, Hispanics, women, Catholics and Southerners.7

U.S. Job Loss, Not Gain

Projections on trade balance, jobs prove wrong. In 1993, Gary Hufbauer and Jeffrey Schott of the Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE) projected that NAFTA would lead to a rising U.S. trade surplus with Mexico, which would create 170,000 net new jobs in the United States.8 This figure was trumpeted by the Clinton administration and other NAFTA proponents. Hufbauer and Schott based their projection on the observation that when export growth outpaces the growth of imports, more jobs are created by trade than are destroyed by trade.9 Instead of an improved trade balance with Canada and Mexico, however, NAFTA resulted in an explosion of imports from Mexico and Canada that led to huge U.S. trade deficits. According to Hufbauer and Schott’s own methodology, these deficits meant major job loss. Less than two years after NAFTA’s implementation, even before the depth of the NAFTA deficit became evident, Hufbauer recognized that his jobs prediction was incongruent with the facts, telling the Wall Street Journal, “The best figure for the jobs effect of NAFTA is approximately zero…the lesson for me is to stay away from job forecasting.”10

Huge new NAFTA trade deficit emerges. The U.S. trade deficit with Canada of $29.1 billion and the $2.5 billion surplus with Mexico in 1993 (the year before NAFTA took effect) turned into a combined NAFTA trade deficit of $181 billion by 2012.11 This represents an increase in the “NAFTA deficit” of 580 percent. These are inflation-adjusted numbers, meaning the difference is not due to inflation, but an increase in the deficit in real terms. The U.S. deficit with NAFTA partners Mexico and Canada has worsened considerably more than the U.S. deficit with countries with which we have not signed NAFTA-style deals. Since NAFTA, the average annual growth of the U.S. trade deficit has been 45 percent higher with Mexico and Canada than with countries that are not party to a NAFTA-style trade pact.12 Defenders of NAFTA argue that the NAFTA deficit is really only oil imports. Although oil accounts for a substantial portion of the trade deficit with Canada and Mexico, the oil share of the trade deficit with Canada and Mexico actually declined from 77 percent in 1993 to 55 percent in 2012.13

Services and manufacturing export growth slows under NAFTA. A key claim of supporters of NAFTA-style trade pacts is that they create jobs by promoting faster U.S. export growth. By contrast, growth of U.S. exports to countries that are not Free Trade Agreement (FTA) partners has exceeded U.S. export growth to countries that are FTA partners by 38 percent over the last decade.14 Manufacturing and services exports in particular grew slower after NAFTA took effect. Since NAFTA’s enactment, U.S. manufacturing exports to Canada and Mexico have grown at less than half the rate seen in the years before NAFTA.15 Even growth in services exports, which were supposed to do especially well under the trade pact given a presumed U.S. comparative advantage in services, dropped precipitously after NAFTA’s implementation. During NAFTA’s first decade, the average growth rate in U.S. services exports fell by 58 percent compared to the decade before NAFTA, and has remained well below the pre-NAFTA rate through the present.16

One million American jobs lost to NAFTA. The Economic Policy Institute estimates that the rising trade deficit with Mexico and Canada since NAFTA went into effect eliminated about one million net jobs in the United States by 2004.17 EPI further calculates that the ballooning trade deficit with Mexico alone destroyed about seven hundred thousand net U.S. jobs between NAFTA’s implementation and 2010.18 Moreover, official government data reveals that nearly five million U.S. manufacturing jobs have been lost overall since NAFTA took effect.19 Obviously, not all of these lost U.S. manufacturing jobs – one out of every four of our manufacturing jobs – is due to NAFTA. The United States entered the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995, China joined WTO in 2000 and the U.S. trade deficit with China soared thereafter. However, at the same time, given the methodology employed, it is also likely that the EPI estimates do not capture the full U.S. job loss associated with NAFTA. Service sector jobs have also been negatively impacted by NAFTA, as closed factories no longer demand services. EPI estimates that one third of the jobs lost due to the rising trade deficit under NAFTA were in non-manufacturing sectors of the economy.20
... 

American Elections 2 - Tips for International Followers - Donald Trump cannot destroy the Republican Party - the destruction was over long before Trump!

.

Perhaps one of the greatest media myths of the election is that the nomination of Donald Trump by the Republicans will destroy the party and assure the election of Hillary Clinton.

There are a couple of factors at work the media seems incapable of comprehending thus their erroneous assumption regarding Trump and the GOP.  First, it is clear the liberal media is afflicted with early stage Alzheimer's as what else could explain such folly.

Such an assumption is clear evidence that liberals have no sense of history, either short term or long term.  A reporter with no sense of history nor understanding of the past is pretty much useless in the resent.

Take the most basic requirement of truth when it comes to the Republicans.  The Blue Nation Review documented Abraham Lincoln's vision of the Republican Party back in the inception, as Abe was the first GOP president in our history elected in 1860.

Compare the principles the Republican Party stood for during Lincoln's time to the current perception of the party as an advocate of small government, an enemy of labor, a puppet of Wall Street and special interests, the defender of capitalism, protector of the one percent rich, and party of war.

Here is how Lincoln defined the party he helped start.

BlueNationReview.com

1. All people are created equal:

“Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”

-Abraham Lincoln, The Gettysburg Address

2. The low and middle class:

“Common looking people are the best in the world: that is the reason the Lord makes so many of them.”
– Abraham Lincoln, Lincoln and the Civil War In the Diaries and Letters of John Hay selected by Tyler Dennett (New York, Da Capo Press, 1988), p. 143.

3. Without workers you have no success:

“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
– Abraham Lincoln, Lincoln’s First Annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1861.

4. Corporate greed will destroy America if we’re not careful:

“I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.”
– Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864 (letter to Col. William F. Elkins)

5. Government is to be used to help those who need it:

“The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves in their separate, and individual capacities. In all that the people can individually do as well for themselves, government ought not to interfere. The desirable things which the individuals of a people can not do, or can not well do, for themselves, fall into two classes: those which have relation to wrongs, and those which have not. Each of these branch off into an infinite variety of subdivisions. The first that in relation to wrongs embraces all crimes, misdemeanors, and nonperformance of contracts. The other embraces all which, in its nature, and without wrong, requires combined action, as public roads and highways, public schools, charities, pauperism, orphanage, estates of the deceased, and the machinery of government itself. From this it appears that if all men were just, there still would be some, though not so much, need for government.”
– Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on government The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, ed. Roy P. Basler, vol. 2, pp

6. Upward economic and social mobility:

“It is said an Eastern monarch once charged his wise men to invent him a sentence, to be ever in view, and which should be true and appropriate in all times and situations. They presented him the words: “And this, too, shall pass away.” How much it expresses! How chastening in the hour of pride! — how consoling in the depths of affliction! “And this, too, shall pass away.” And yet let us hope it is not quite true. Let us hope, rather, that by the best cultivation of the physical world, beneath and around us; and the intellectual and moral world within us, we shall secure an individual, social, and political prosperity and happiness, whose course shall be onward and upward, and which, while the earth endures, shall not pass away.”
– Abraham Lincoln, Address before the Wisconsin State Agricultural Society, September 30, 1859.
Originally posted July 3, 2014 at 21:53

-----------------------------------------

Nowhere does Lincoln defend capitalism, corporations, or all the other sins of the modern Republican Party according to the media and Wall Street.  Any sane and objective person can clearly see Lincoln was compassionate, far more suspicious of corporations and international bankers than Democrats, a rigid advocate of equal opportunity and individual freedom, and protector, not of Wall Street, but of the people not being given the rights guaranteed in the Declaration of Independence.

Political labels had no meaning to Lincoln, just doing what was right for the people.  Today he is much closer to the center and left than the right thanks to the media misconceptions of the Republican Party principles.

It has taken nearly 80 years to destroy the Republican Party that Lincoln founded, since the days of Franklin Roosevelt when he adopted the original Republican principles for his Democratic Party.

The politicians and media may have missed the erosion in the GOP but the people did not over the years.  They watched as special interests, big banks, the super rich, the international corporations and bankers, evolved their own brand of conservatism, and hijacked the GOP to be their standard-bearer.

The super rich are patient since they already control the wealth of the world and it was only a matter of time before they leveraged their wealth, into owning the politicians.  Make no mistake, the Party registration makes no difference to big money, they own politicians whether Democrats or Republicans.

As they tightened their stranglehold on the American political process and President Clinton passed a flurry of laws to accelerate the corruption of capitalism, the people noticed.

The people Lincoln so trusted knew the establishment was corrupting America and the institutions were the agents of corruption.  Many citizens gave up on both parties and registered as Independents and many, many more gave up on the entire political process and refused to be a party to the destruction of America.

How often do members of the media talk about how there are now more registered Independents than either Democrats or Republicans?  It is the first time in our nation's history and they neglect the truth.

As for the much larger truth, how many times do you hear the media talk about how nearly fifty percent of ALL eligible voters refuse to be part of an election process because they consider it hopelessly corrupted?

No, my friends, Donald Trump will not destroy the Republican Party and Bernie Sanders will not destroy the Democratic Party because the fat cats, politicians, media, and special interests have already completed the mission.

Trump and Sanders knew the people felt this way and they knew the revolution has already begun.  They may be messengers, but the will of the people is the soul of the movement.  It is time the media wake up.  It is too late for the establishment.

.

Hillary says she is most proud Republicans are her enemy. Compares members of the GOP to NRA, health insurance companies, drug companies, and the Iranians.

.

If Republicans are her proudest enemy, what does that make Independents?

In the most recent Democratic Presidential candidates debate at CNN, CNN's Anderson Cooper asked, "which enemy are you most proud of?"

Clinton replied

“In addition to the NRA, the health insurance companies, the drug companies, the Iranians, probably the Republicans.”

Never has a presidential candidate demonstrated such polarization toward an entire group of politically affiliated people as Hillary did when she condemned the entire Republican party to being her enemy.

As for the Independents who are already fed up with political polarization, Hillary seems to have slammed the door on them as well.  Independents are already fed up with politicians and after Hillary spoke we know why.

Most polls show 50-75% of the voters are still somewhat undecided on who to vote for in the general election.  Well Hillary sent a clear and concise message to the Republicans and Independents in that category that she considers them the enemy.

Of course, that is just one half of the impact from what she said as her statement also included a holier than thou claim health insurance and drug companies are also enemies and she is proud of it.

As you will also note from the following articles, the health and drug companies have showered Hillary, and Bill, and the Clinton Foundation with millions of dollars in contributions.  Perhaps she should have said "now that I fleeced the health and drug companies, they no longer serve me any purpose.  I got the millions!", cackle, cackle.

Did anyone else note that she has developed a cackle like the Wicked Witch of the West?  I first noticed it in the debate.  You take millions and condemn the donors.  With all accounts paid up why not, it keeps the progressives and liberals from looking at her contributors since she is the newly incarnated Queen of Progressives, at least until she wins the democratic nomination.

Once she takes the big primary prize then she will start becoming a conservative like her husband who stole the Republican platform in 1992 to run on and to use while president.

It worked once for the Clintons, why not work again?  Still, there is something to be said for a little laughter in politics and the bevy of photos in this article show you the lighter side of the Washington drama kings and queens.

Hillary Takes Millions in Campaign Cash From ‘Enemies’

Clinton named the drug and insurance industries among her “enemies,” but has accepted millions in donations from them.

By Kimberly Leonard Oct. 14, 2015 | 4:25 p.m. EDT

When asked during the Democratic presidential debate what enemies she was most proud to have made, Hillary Clinton named pharmaceutical and health insurance companies at the top of her list. But that hasn’t stopped the Democratic front-runner from accepting millions of dollars in campaign cash from both industries in the course of her political career, financial disclosure records show.

Since her first bid for Senate in 2000, Clinton has accepted nearly $1 million from drug and health companies and more than $2.7 million from the insurance field and its related sectors, according to an analysis of public records from the Center for Responsive Politics. While the analysis did not include campaign finance figures for the 2016 cycle, some of the same donors and patterns can be seen in Clinton’s lone financial disclosure filed in July.

Contributions tied to some of the same firms that gave to her 2008 presidential campaign appear in the latest disclosure, including donations connected to pharmaceutical companies Pfizer Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.; and insurers Aetna Inc., MetLife Inc. and Centene Corp., the latter of which is among Clinton’s largest donors this year.  

In the course of her 2008 presidential bid, records show that Clinton was the third-largest recipient of campaign donations from drug and health product companies, receiving $738,359 in donations. The industry also contributed $86,875 to her 2000 Senate run, and spent $157,015 supporting her re-election in 2006.

The insurance industry – which includes health insurers and also car, life and property insurance – donated $1,260,400 to her 2008 campaign, making her the third-highest recipient of cash from the industry that year and also in 2006, when she raised $397,110 for her re-election to the Senate. During her first bid for the Senate in 2000, she raised $167,550 from the industry.

She was the second-highest recipient of cash in 2008 from the health services sector and HMOs, receiving $636,670, and the highest earner in 2006, at $183,770. In 2000, she raised $70,575. 

More recently, the Clinton Foundation has also benefited from these groups’ donations. Donors and grantors who have given between $1 million and $5 million include Pfizer, the Procter & Gamble Co., Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina and Humana Inc.

But Clinton seems to have turned on the pharmaceutical industry in particular in recent weeks, releasing a plan to improve on President Barack Obama’s health care law, the Affordable Care Act, by tackling drug costs. The plan includes allowing Medicare, the government’s health plan for adults over 65 and disabled Americans, to negotiate lower drug costs – a measure the industry heavily opposes.

Her policy proposal also stated that she plans to reduce the amount of time a pharmaceutical company has exclusive rights to biologics, which are drugs made of living cells that are expensive to develop and can be difficult for patients to afford. Though she supported the bill that led to a 12-year exclusivity while in the Senate, her new proposals say she would reduce the patent to seven years, allowing the drug to be copied by other manufacturers and therefore reducing its price. Drugmakers are against this proposal, saying they need to recoup the massive costs of developing the drugs and to invest in new treatments and cures.

When Clinton was secretary of state, she supported the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which includes provisions that strengthen patent protections for drugmakers. Last week, however, she said she opposes the deal.

When asked for a response to Clinton calling the pharmaceutical industry “enemies,” Tina Stow, a spokeswoman for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, said the group has a long history of supporting and working with candidates and policymakers on both sides of the aisle.

“We will continue to do so as we look to advance a pro-patient, pro-innovation, pro-jobs agenda,” she wrote in an email. PhRMA has publicly come out against Clinton’s plan for prescription drugs, saying it would restrict patients’ access to medicines, result in fewer new treatments, would cost jobs and would end the country’s standing as a leader in biomedical innovation.

It’s unclear to what extent insurers and drug companies will continue to support her campaign, particularly after the comments during CNN’s debate, although it would not be the first time Clinton has been at odds with the industries.

Asked to explain the financial relationship between Clinton’s campaign and the industries, campaign officials pointed to the contentious war fought against Clinton when she was first lady and head of the Task Force on National Health Care Reform in 1993. The health insurance industry ran millions of dollars of ads against a health care plan she championed that would have overhauled the system, playing a large role in ultimately killing it. They also point out that her positions to tackle drug costs have been unpopular among pharmaceutical lobbying groups, which could help to demonstrate she ultimately isn’t beholden to the industry’s interests.

In total, Clinton raised $245.8 million for her 2008 presidential run, $51.6 million for her 2006 Senate campaign and $30.2 million for her 2000 Senate bid.

Pharmaceutical companies and insurers are typically generous with members of both parties, giving slightly more to Republicans. Clare Krusing, press secretary for America's Health Insurance Plans, says its political action committee supports candidates of both parties and, in particular, candidates who support policies aligned with the industry's priorities around affordability.

In recent years, both industries have contributed more to Democrats. Obama was the top recipient during the 2008 presidential election, and again during his re-election in 2012, with his Republican opponents – first Mitt Romney, then Sen. John McCain – receiving slightly less from pharmaceutical companies.

 International Business Times

Wednesday, October 21, 2015 As of 7:52 AM EDT

Democratic Debate 2015: Hillary Clinton’s ‘Enemies’ In Pharmaceutical and Insurance Industries Have Supported Her Campaigns, Foundation

By Andrew Perez @AndrewPerezDC andrew.perez@ibtimes.com
David Sirota @davidsirota d.sirota@ibtimes.com on October 14 2015 12:42 AM EDT

Bill Clinton famously tried to parse what the meaning of “is” is -- and now his wife, Hillary Clinton, seems to be challenging the precise definition of “enemies.”

In an exchange toward the end of the Democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas on Tuesday, the candidates were asked who their biggest enemies had been over the course of their careers. Clinton responded by saying, “In addition to the NRA, the health insurance companies, the drug companies, the Iranians -- probably the Republicans.”

It is true that the National Rifle Association and the Republicans have been Clinton’s nemeses, and she has been involved in tense negotiations about international policy toward Iran. But health insurance companies and drug companies have been some of her biggest financial supporters.

In 2008, Clinton was the among the three biggest recipients of campaign cash from pharmaceutical-related companies, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics. In all, the watchdog group reports that she raised $738,000 from employees of pharmaceutical manufacturers and companies classified as “Pharmaceuticals /Health Products.” The center reports that Clinton also raised more than $1.2 million from the insurance industry -- which includes health insurers.

On top of those campaign contributions, the Clintons and their family foundation have benefited from their ties to the pharmaceutical and insurance industries.

In 2011, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) -- the primary trade association representing drug companies -- paid Bill Clinton $200,000 for a speech, as the organization was lobbying the Hillary Clinton-led State Department. Last year, the Drug Chemical and Associated Technologies Association, a trade group whose members include major pharmaceutical companies, paid her a $250,000 speaking fee.

Meanwhile, the Clinton Foundation has received between $1 million and $5 million worth of donations separately from drug manufacturers Pfizer and Procter & Gamble, and from health insurers Humana and Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina. Some of those companies made donations as recently as this year, according to the foundation’s website.

That largesse was part of a friendship forged after those industries opposed her 1993 health care initiative -- and which continued after she won reelection to the Senate in 2006.

As secretary of state, Clinton repeatedly championed the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which critics say includes provisions that strengthen patent protection for drug manufacturers. (Last week, she declared that she now opposes the trade deal.) As a presidential candidate in 2008, she promoted the idea of a federal mandate effectively requiring Americans to buy private health insurance.

Those Clinton positions were strongly supported by the same drug and insurance industries that she now calls “enemies.”

.