buddenblog

Necesidades en una política de inmigración según el negocio, First Data/Western Union

(Por favor, como siempre, disculpen el español)

El gran negocio First Data/Western Union encabeza un esfuerzo para educar la gente estadounidense sobre la necesidad de reformar las leyes de la inmigración.  Este negocio  propugnar qye haya  los prinicipios siguientes en cualquier reforma:

• Una nueva política debe reconocer que los inmigrantes fartalecen la economía de los EU y diversifican la sociedad.
• Cualquier política nueva debe aplicarse a las necesidades de salud y educaci´'on de los niños de los inmigrantes.  Los niños son nuestro futuro y no debemos ingorarlos.
• La política debe incluir un mecanismo para reducir la lista pendiente de las familias  las que buscan inmigrar a los EU.
• Hay que estar una nueva evaluación completa de las políticas de inmigración y de las políticas para trabajadores inmigrantes en los  EU como medio de cumplir con nuestros valores democráticos.
• Cualquier política tiene que incluir reculaciones nuevas y requisitas nuevas que son razonables, las que se puede hacer cumplir, y las que no son demasiado pesadas ni  para negocios ni para individuos.
• Hay que hacer una reconocimiento que la solución para inhibir inmigración no documentada tiene que abordar las cuestiones de desarrollo económico en que originarse los inmigrantes.
• La nueva política tiene que balancear loas preocupaciones de los inmigrantes con la seguridad de los residentes de los EU.

La cuestión es ´cómo incorporar los inmigrantes, no cómo marginarlos.

Los inmigrantes son obreros esentiales en los negocios de agricultura, hospitalidad, construcción, servicios de salud especialmente para los jubilados, j jardinería paisajista.  Se espera que en diez años sera una gran necesidad de trabajadores inmigrantes para la atención a los ancianos.  Estos negocios son abogados fuertes para la reforma de los procesos de inmigración.

Legal Immigration 101 What Employers Have to Do

(As usual, I am not an expert on this stuff, so don't view this as infallible information)

As we keep hearing, illegal immigrants pour into our country not only because they face extreme poverty at home, but also because there are jobs waiting for them here.  That many of the jobs are illegal is in part due to the incredible difficulty of making them legal.  Jobs most frequently filled by illegal immigrants are in the health care industry, the hotel and resort industry,restaurants, and in those old standbyes, housekeeping and domestic work of various kinds (think Kerik), landscaping and agriculture.

Below I'll try to give you a short version of what employers need to do to obtain permission to legally hire foreign workers for low-paying agricultural jobs.  You'll see that it is bureaucracy to the max, but it's only the government responding to the loudest voices against immigration.  It appears that the burdensome regs make it tempting not just for people who'd exploit illegal immigrants but for those who just can't afford to jump through all these hoops to go the illegal route. It's not just the money, it's the time.  Your harvest may be dead on the fields before you can get your workers.   In addition, if during any of this it's discovered that there are U.S. workers working under conditions less satisfactory than those described below as requirements for foreign workers, the application for employing the foreign workers will be rejected.  It seems altogether plausible to me that the fear of being found with U.S. employees working under conditions different from below would discourage a farmer from making an application.  For instance, if the Department of Labor decides that the going rate you have to pay is above the minimum wage, you have to pay everyone that rate.  You can't pay U.S. citizens or anyone else the minimum wage if it is lower than what the Department of Labor says you should pay.  This means that you don't have money left to pay many people more than the DOL rate if you want to give raises.

To work legally, both employer and potential employee need to apply to the U.S. government.   According to the guidelines provided by the US Department of Labor (this is separate from Immigration regulations), in order to legally hire agricultural workers, an employer

...must agree to engage in independependent positive recruitment of U.S. workers which means an active advertising effort in at least newspapers and radio equivalent to efforts conducted by employers who don't use H-2A workers in areas where there might be US workers available.  Employers can ONLY specify qualifications essential to the job and required by employers of U.S. citizen employees as well.

Wages must be the same as for U.S. workers and must be at least as high as all minimum wages or prevailing hourly wage whichever is higher.  The employers should consult with the Dept of Labor regional office to decide what that rate is.  Similarly piece rate bases must be approved.  If as work progresses piece rate wages result in lower rates than the standard hourly wage, then they must be supplemented to meet the equivalent hourly level, again at the prevailing rate for the same crop or activity.

The employer has to provide free housing to all workers not reasonably able to return to their residences the same day.  Such housing "must be inspected and approved according to appropriate standards.  Housing provided by the employer shall meet the full set of relevant department of labor standards and other relevant standards.  Under some circumstances rental housing meeting the same standards can be provided." 

The employer has to provide either three meals a day or "free and convenient cooking and kitchen facilities."  There can be charges for the provided meals.

The employer is responsible for the following kinds of transportation:

"After the worker has completed fifty per cent of the work contract period, the employer must reimburse the worker for the cost of transportation and subsistence from the place of recruitment to the place of work if such costs were borne by the worker.  The employer must provide free transportation between the employer's housing and the worksite for any worker who is provided housing.  Upon completion of the work contract, the employer must pay economic costs of a worekrs subsistence to the place of recruitment."  There are some varioations to this depending on where the worker goes.

The employer must provide workers comp insurance if required by state law.  If the state doesn't require it, the employer must provide equivalent insurance and prove it to the regional administrator (whoever that is).

The employer must provide all tools and supplies necessary for the work unless common practice for the area and job for worker to have some of his own.

The employer must guarantee employment for at least 3/4 of work period or pay him for that much if he can't employ him the whole time.

"The employer must hire any qualified and eligible U.S. worker who applies for a job until fifty percent of the period of the work contract has elapsed."

The employer can't employ immigrant labor to fill jobs vacant because of strikes or labor disputes.

Employers granted temporary foreign agricgultural labor certification have to pay $100 plus "$10 for each job opportunity certified up to $1000 for each certification.

Employers have to keep records of earnings.  Workers have to get complete statements of hours worked and earnings.  Workers have to be paid at least twice monthly or more often if prevailing habit to do so. All workers have to have copies of job orders or contract.

And the employers haven't even applied yet for certification!  To do this, they have to

...submit a complete labor certification application with the appropriate regional administrator and local authority at least forty five calendar days before the first date on which the workers are needed.  IF the application is accepted within the required framework, the regional administrator will make a certification determination thirty days before the workers are needed.  BUT employers are encouraged  "consult with the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration and others for guidance and assistance  well before the forty five days and to submit their application before 45 days as well to allow for "review, discussion and amendment if necessary." 

When an application is ACCEPTED for consideration, that's just what it's accepted for: consideration, meaning the regional administrator willinform the employer of specific efforts expected of them re recruiting US workers;

"will require that the job order be placed into appropriate intrastate and interstate clearances; and

"may require the employer to engage in independent positive recruitment efforts within a multi'state region of traditional or expected labor supply if the regional administrator determines there is a sufficient supply of labor to be recruited."

If the employer receives approval, he finds himself paying more, as much as $2.00 an hour, for the foreign worker than he would for a domestic worker because of the additional requirements. 

THEN the employers have to find the workers in Mexico (or wherever, but usually Mexico) and the workers, still in Mexico have to find them.  I haven't figured out how this works.  In any case, to get a H-2A visa, the potential worker has to supply the American consulate in his area of residence with a copy of the potential employer's certificate of approval for hiring foreign agricultural workers (remember the process I described above?) In addition, he must submit two application forms, two identical photos and proof that he meets the minimum job requirements described in the employer's application.  Then you have to wait for approval.  If you have a family, they have to fill out H-4 applications.  It apparently takes years to get an H-4 visa.  H-2A visas are good for 364 days.  If you don't go home and you get caught, you can't get another visa.

There is absolutely no path to citizenship for Mexican agricultural workers who go through the process to enter the country legally.

So here are some interesting statistics:

In 2002, only 2% of the agricultural workers in Arizona were legal.

In 2002, only 41,000 foreign agricultural workers in the United States were legal.  There are an estimated 2.5 MILLION farm workers in the country.  You think there'd be any U.S. food to eat without those illegal immigrants?

Some links for this article;

www.azcentral.com/special03/articles/0207guestworker08.html

http://workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/foreign/h-2b.asp

http://usimmigration.visapro.com

The U.S. Budget Deficit: An unstoppable crisis?

In his op-ed piece, "When Weakness is a Strength," (The New York Times, November 26, 2004) Stephen S. Roach, chief economist for Morgan Stanley (investment bank) argued, essentially, that up is down and black is white as he assured us that the growing U.S. deficit and the decline of the dollar could be considered Good Things.  Being a non-economist, I'm willing to listen.

Here is his basic exposition:

• The fall of the dollar is a "logical outgrowth of an unbalanced world economy....and America's gaping current account deficit [665 billion dollars, 5.7% of GDB]...is just the most visible manifestation of these imbalances."
• The decline of the dollar is basically a good thing because it will help with "a sorely needed rebalancing."
• A weaker dollar will relieve economic and "even political tensions among nations," helping to promote a more sustainable growth in the global economy."
• Global imbalances are a shared responsibility: the U.S. consumes too much, but the rest of the world doesn't consume enough. 
• U.S. citizens don't save enough, but the rest of the world saves too much.
• The U.S. has to import foreign savings to make up for its own shortfall of savings.   In fact the U.S. absorbs (like it's a favor we do) 80% of the world's surplus savings.
• Foreign investors have a responsibility to prevent a crisis by NOT demanding better terms for financing our "spending spree."  If they DO demand better terms, they can cause the collapse of the dollar, soaring interest rates and a stock market plunge which of course would drag along the rest of the "America-centric" world along to disaster.

HOWEVER, not only can we avoid this scenario, but we can turn the current deficit to our advantage, and of course, the world's if the central banks of the world would only carefully manage "a gradual but significant depreciation of the dollar":

• The consequent gradual rise in U.S. interest rates would compensate foreign investors for "financing the biggest debtor in the world."
• Growth would be supressed in U.S. economic sectors -- housing, durable goods, business capital spending -- resulting in a higher domestic savings rate and reduced need for foreign capital," what Roach calls "a classic current-account adjustment. Roach sees this as a selective process which would be fairly gentle. That is, only certain sectors of the economy, those "most sensitive to interest rates like housing, consumer durables...and business capital spending" would be affected. He does not mention what would happen to employment in the U.S. if there were downturns in these sectors.  The dorllar falling would cause other currencies to rise, as the euro has already been doing.  And then those [nasty, uncooperative] Asian nations which have absolutely refused to let their currencies rise, would have no choice but to do so.
• More expensive exports from Asia and Europe to the U.S. would slow so that those areas would simply have to "stimulate domestic demand to compensate..."  According to Roach, Asia and Europe need us: we're all in this together.  They need to "unshackle" their internal demand.
• Somehow, the hoped-for restoration of "balance" might defuse global trade tensions with the weaker dollar increasing demand for U.S. exports (they become cheaper in foreign countries) and U.S. citizens will start being satisfied with domestic products (I didn't know we still made them).
• Roach says that the U.S. trade deficit should narrow, and the Euro should get some relief resulting in the lessening of overprotectionism and its risks.  As I understand it, this means that if we're all on more equal footing, other countries won't want to put taxes and duties on products from us that compete with theirs because in a more "balanced economy," we could do the same to theirs.
• So this is all good because "A lopsided world needs to be put back into balance....A weakening dollar is an encouraging sign that the world's relative price structure...essentially the value of one economy versus another -- is becoming more sensible.  If the world can manage the dollar's decline wisely [i.e. as we think they should] there is more reason for hope than despair."

Now the counterargument according to John Cassidy in this week's "Talk of The Town" in The New Yorker, Dec. 6, 2004). If you can, read the whole thing, it has a fair amount of grim humor. Maybe I'm a pessimist, but  I wouldn't put all my savings eggs in one basket.

According to Cassidy "Since the nineteen-seventies, the dollar's value has been determined in the financial markets where traders buy and sell currencies like any other commodity."  In recent weeks, its value has fallen sharply, meaning that whereas when they came into existence, you could exchange one euro for roughly one dollar.  Today, you can exchange one euro for roughly $1.30.  This means that say, a candy bar which just a little while ago cost one euro and one dollar today still costs one euro, but you'd have to pay $1.30, for it. This is what is meant by the depreciation of the dollar.

Cassidy points out that this reflects "two intractable, and related, problems:"

• "As manufacturing and production have shifted to countries with low labor costs, the trade balance has declined alarmingly: America cannot sell abroad as much as it buys."  As I noted above, it's not simply the declining dollar, it's the declining manufacturing base.  We no longer make much stuff like TVs in the U.S. Even if the world's central banks helped control the dollar slide, the import-export balance could not be restored.  Our manufacturers have folded when they could not compete in price with low-labor-cost Chinese goods like sweaters and lawn furniture and everything else. We have very little of this sort to sell, and we couldn't start up again without paying unacceptably low wages (more Mexican immigrants, anybody?).
• "The United States has emerged as the world's biggest debtor." Let's take Cassidy's comparisons: "Ten years ago, the country ran a modest trade deficit...[but] as a consequence of investments that Americans made overseas, the rest of the world owed us trillions of dollars.  Today the trade per cent is about five per cent of the gross domestic product -- bigger than it has ever been -- and we owe the rest of the world about three and a quarter trillion dollars.  [Italics mine]
• Deficits aren't always bad.  They are used by nations, especially poor ones, to invest "in industrial equipment, education, infrastructure" and the like needed for development.  BUT we are not borrowing to develop ourselves.  We are borrowing to finance the government's day-to-day expenses, and to pay for imported consumer goods, such as autos, toys and electronics." [Italics again mine] 
• In other words, we are exhibiting "a classic symptom of a country living beyond its means."

More depressing facts:

• Whereas "twenty years ago Americans saved about nine cents of every dollar earned, today, they save less than a penny." (And I remember back then hearing we didn't save enough.)
• "The federal government is spending about four hundred billion dollars a year more than it raises in taxes....[T]his means it has to sell about 34 billion dollars' worth of bonds every month to remain solvent." [Italics mine]
• China and Japan are the biggest purchasers of the U.S. debt.  According to Cassidy, last year alone, China and Japan purchased bonds totalling about 400 billion dollars of our debt.
• We depend on this purchasing of our bonds to support our currency.
• So we need them to buy our debt, and they use this advantage to keep growing their export business in our country. 
• In addition, they keep their currencies from rising so that their stuff will stay even cheaper in our country than it otherwise would be. This means in spite of our indebtedness, we keep buying Asian stuff. Don't be outraged. Asians are just following the ruthless rules of capitalism, same as we do where we can.  Or should I say our companies when they chase the cheapest labor.  It is in large part because our own U.S. companies chase the cheapest labor that Asian products are doing so well.
• To sum up the process, Cassidy says, "We import consumer goods from Asia, and they lend us the money to pay for them, at fixed exchange rates."

Both Stephen S. Roach and John Cassidy agree on the lopsidedness and basically untenable situation we are in, but they disagree on what could happen, what we should do.

Roach puts the burden on the central banks of other nations.  They should manage the decline of the dollar so that it is slow and steady.  After all, he says, some of this is their fault for saving too much and spending too little.  AND, he threatens in a veiled kind of way, if the U.S. had a serious recession, the rest of the "America-centric world would quickly follow."

Cassidy speaks in a way that appeals much more to my Northeastern understanding of responsibility, that is, that the burden is on us.  Though his "solutions" are similar to Roach's, the consequences aren't.  Cassidy notes that  "at some point, all countries have to pay their own way, which means restoring the trade balance and paying down the debts." Where Roach says you cut back consumer spending by reducing imports, however, Cassidy says you cut back imports by reducing consumer spending. Cassidy sees this as producing a recession, not a gentle decline.

The other way to slow the decline, according to Cassidy, is for the United States to devalue our currency rather than some well-behaved foreign central banks. And, according to Cassidy, John Snow, our Treausry Secretary and good ole Alan Greenspan seem to be attempting this. This is risky because:

• It can (and already has) lead currency traders losing confidence in the dollar as a safe bet (see the euro and recent further declines on the currency markets as Greenspan talks devaluation). This could lead to the dollar crashing.
• The same financial scenario: record trade, deficits, huge foreign debts and "prolonged fiscal irresponsibility" have led to full-blow crises in any number of countries, including Mexico, Argentina, Brasil, and Russia.  If investors panicked and tried to get all their money out of the U.S., the Feds would "be forced to raise interest rates...which in turn would torpedo the stock and real-estate markets.  The economy would be plunged into a deep recession."  And while this might be disastrous for us, I don't think it would necessarily be for the rest of the world.  I am no investment banker, but I think the world's economy is decreasingly America-centric: Europe and Asia seem to be getting fairly strong and fairly independent.
• Already, Russia is considering changing some dollar reserves into euros which would "undermine the dollar's privileged status."  And because the Bush administration tries to blame others for at least some of the problems (see Roach above), it is making other places pretty angry.  A Chinese quote: "'China's custom is that we never blame others for our own problem.  The united States has the reverse attitude.  Whenever they have a problem they blame others.'"
• I have read elsewhere that if OPEC decided to require payment for oil in euros instead of dollars, it would have a similarly disastrous effect.

Cassidy concludes:  "Ultimately, the value of a currency is an international verdict on the honesty and the competence of the government that issued it.  President Bush may have recovered in domestic polls, but in the currency marekts his ratings are still falling.  And, with his Administration determined to pursue further tax cuts and costly Social Security privatization, his numbers don't seem likely to turn around soon."

For me, the difference between the Bush loyalists, and the, what should I say, middle of the road, internationalist economist types is that the former seem to have a significant disability:  they become entranced with surfaces: surface numbers, surface words, surface glitter which protects  and in their minds enhances the status and worthiness of their own insider group.  They cannot grasp the stuff of reality: the paths of history, the flesh and blood of people making and selling and buying, the fact of decent people elsewhere thinking of themselves before they bow down to us.  They can't really understand that there are well-educated opinions, opinions vastly different from their own, which see alternative scenarios.  The current army of the right is stuck in a narcissistic bubble which, if it bursts, will scatter us all to places unknown and probably unpleasant at best.

Resources for this article:

Stephen S. Roach, "When Weakness is a Strength,"  The New York Times, November 26, 2004.  Stephen S. Roach is chief economist for Morgan Stanley.  This article is available on the NY Times site for purchase (or on this site for free)

John Cassidy, "Comment: Going Down," The New Yorker, Dec. 6, 2004.  This is in the hard copy of the magazine.  It is no longer on the website.   See the real world! Try your neighborhood library!

For a somewhat different, but no less alarming, take on the situation, see Larry Elliot, "US risks a downhill dollar disaster," The Guardian, November 22, 2004.  http://tbrnews.org/Archives/a1221.htm.  There are also a number of other interesting articles on the economy (and other things) on this site.

On the basics of Conservative Thought and Russell Kirk, author of "The Conservative Mind"

What DO these people believe?  After reading some of their speeches, essays and interviews on the "Policy, Research & Analysis" site of the Heritage Foundation, an undisputed, authoritative font of Conservative wisdom, I have come to some conclusions.  I was going to try to write this in completely objective language, scholarly even, but hey, this is my five bucks for a blog site.  Below I list some core beliefs.

1.  Conservatives are absolutely obsessed with the notion of, the right to grasp as tightly as they can, private property.

2.  They believe society will be stratified, hierarchical, and not only is that okay, given our different gifts and abilities, but that's the way it should be.

3.  They believe "all men created equal" means, more or less, all men have equal opportunity.  I say more or less, because the presence or absence of being born into money, born with talent, having loving parents, living in a place where you can afford to get to work, etc. doesn't affect the equal in equal opportunity.

4.  They believe in God, that God and religion, trump government in terms of longevity and in terms of righteousnes and in terms of morals and judging sin, etc. They believe that God is the granter of the right of the state to govern.  The religion that shapes conservative thought is the religion of Constantine: of the sword.  Retribution is big.  Judgment is big.  Mercy and compassion are at your discretion.

5.  It is through the practice or whatever you call it of free enterprise that people can be at their most free, their most creative. 

6.  Government should be tiny, tiny, tiny.  Except when it comes to certain moral issues and our protection, or should I say, the protection of our wealth.

So who is Russell Kirk and what does he have to do with all this?  I didn't know until I started reading Conservative literature.  Know your enemy and all that.

Russell Kirk, first and foremost, wrote the Conservative Bible, or maybe I should say, the foundational book of modern conservativism,"The Conservative Mind," in 1953.  He gets called Doctor because although he didn't earn a PhD for graduate study, so many universities (twelve to be exact) awarded him an honorary doctorate that surely he has earned the title.  Rest assured, he has a bachelor's degree from Michigan State and a master's degree from Duke.  (I write in the historical present, but Russell Kirk's dates are 1918 to 1994. 

In his hagiography (foundational modern conservatives get written about and exhibited in a hagiographic way, grand portraits and all, even on web sites) it is mentioned that he has numerous honors, has been a Fellow of many learned societies, and has won the Ann Radcliffe Award of the Count Dracula Society for his Gothic fiction.  He also won an award at the Third World Fantasy Convention for best short fiction. He has won awards for scholarly writing.  I know nothing about the awards: IWeaver award of Ingersoll Prizes and the Salvatori Prize.

To establish his umm, his star power among the intellectual elite of all hues,  his "literary and scholarly friends" have been listed.  I recognize T.S. Eliot, Ray Bradburry, Malcolm Muggeridge, Flannery O'Connor, William F. Buckley Jr., Robert Graves, and Cleanth Brooks.  Also, Henry Regnery, founder of what at least now is a Christian Right publishing house. 

To establish the power of his thought and his ability to defend it, his debating partners have been listed: Norman Thomas, Frank Mankiewicx, Carey McWilliams, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., Michael Harrington, Max Learner, Michael Novak, Eilliam Kunstler, Hubert Humphrey, Ayn Rand, Louis Lomax, Saul Alinsky, Malcolm x, Dick Gregory and Tom Hayden among others.

To establish his charming nature, it is told that, "[b]orn near the railroad yards in Plymouth Michigan, Kirk lived at his ancestral place, named Piety Hill, in Mecosta, Michigan -- a little village in the stump country.  There he converted a toy factory into his library and office.  His Italianate house is adorned with sculpture and architectural antiques snatched from themaws of the urban renewers of western Michigan.  At home he was a famous narrator of ghostly tales, many of them picked up during his travels (often afoot) in Scotland and Ireland, Mediterranean and Alpine lands, and Africa." 

(Notice that he, or the author of this little biography, doesn't equate the "maws of the urban renewers of western Michigan" with ruthless land-developing capitalists.)

Finally, here is a quote from Ronald Reagan, the father of, as some conservatives say, the Reagan Half Century:

“As the prophet of American conservatism, Russell Kirk has taught, nurtured, and inspired a generation. From . . . Piety Hill, he reached deep into the roots of American values, writing and editing central works of political philosophy. His intellectual contribution has been a profound act of patriotism. I look forward to the future with anticipation that his work will continue to exert a profound influence in the defense of our values and our cherished civilization.”

Kirk had "Six Canons of Conservative Thought," and I quote:

• "Belief in a transcendent order, or body of natural law which rules society as well as conscience."
• "Affection for the proliferating variety and mystery of human existence, as opposed to the narrowing uniformity, egalitarianism, and utilitarian aims of most radical systems."
• "Conviction that civilized society requires orders and classes, as against the notion of a 'classless society'."
• Persuasion that freedom and property are closely linked: separate proverty from private possession, and the Leviathan becomes master of all."
• "Faith in prescription and distrust of 'sophisters, calculators, and economists' who would reconstruct society upon abstract designs."
• "Recognition that change may not be salutary reform: hasty innovation may be a devouring conflagration, rather than a torch of progress."

In this summary of his "Six Canons" you can see the dichotomous, catastrophic thinking that marks a lot of Conservative writing.

Link for this article:  http://www.kirkcenter.org/kirkbio.html

Rebutting The American Enterprise Institute on AIDS treatment in poor countries

In an article published by The American Enterprise Institute titled "The Real Obstacle to Sound Treatment of AIDS in Poor Countries" the authors, Roger Bate, a Visiting Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and Richard Tren, Director of  Africa Fighting Malaria (more later) do everything they can to paint patented drugs as the angels and third world countries' governments, policies and generic drugs as the devils of AIDS treatments and to suggest that it is the private sector and research institutions that are the best path to program development.

In a kind of twisted effort to show that drug patenting is an advantage and somehow makes drugs cheaper, the authors say that "research into the actual extent of drug patenting of ARV therapy in Africa and of essential drugs in most poor countries shows that drug patents rarely exist....If the "patents block access" thesis were correct, one would expect that in countries that have more drug patents, drug access would be reduced and vice versa.  Yet no such relationship exists."  They say that of a "total of 795 possible patents, only 172 (or 21.6 per cent) actually exist."

Okay.  This boggles my mind.  Drug patents rarely exist because there aren't a host of giant pharmaceutical companies inventing drugs they want to patent in these countries.  The whole point in these countries is to keep prices down by using generics.  Drug access is reduced for poor people when the price is too high, often the case with patented drugs.  In countries with lots of patented drugs like the U.S., except for the 43 million uninsured, there is access to the patented drugs through insurance companies who, it should be noted, slash their coverage of patented drugs as soon as generics for specific drugs come on the market.

Non-patented ARVs still cost money to make, and in poor countries even the generics are expensive and delivery of drugs is also expensive and problematic.  Thus, while there are still major problems of affordability of treatment, they are considerably less than they would be if only patented medications were available.

The authors rightfully point out the grave problems of infrastructure in poor countries.  The response to this problem is to provide sufficient help with the development of the infrastructure.  The authors point to Botswana as an example of a government they feel has shown "leadership and foresight" by cooperating with "the drug manufacturer Merck, Harvard University and the Gates Foundation."  They go on to say, "Having a government that is serious about tackling disease and bulding partnerships with research institutes and the private sector to ensure that disease control is effective is clearly a crucial prerequisite in poor countries."  They do acknowledge that Botswana has one of the smaller populations in Africa, but they ignore a whole lot more:

• The crisis in Botswana is horrifyingly severe.  36.5% of the 1.6 million population is estimated to be positive for AIDS, second highest rate after Swaziland in Africa.  Life span, which before AIDS would have been 72 is currently 39.  Botswana's President Festus Mogae said to the UN General Assembly in 2001, "we are threatened with extinction.  People are dying in chillingly high numbers.  It is a crisis of the first magnitude." (HIV and AIDS in Botswana, www.avert.org/aidsbotswana.htm)
• Until 1997, the government response was in fact fairly limited.
• Botswana is one of the richest countries in Africa and one of the most stable and in a better position to make use of resources.
• Botswana's problems threaten to spiral out of control with all its advantages and efforts.

Bate and Tren imply that somehow building partnerships with "research institutes and the private sector"  is the main key to success, and that this is done by governments that are "serious." Botswana itself is engaged in projects with many international public as well as private agencies, not just The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, The Merck Corporation and Harvard.  It is as if Bate and Tren are suggesting you stick with your local church and don't take part in the wider world -- hey, wait a minute, that sounds familiar!  Here are just a few of the more prominent organizations active in AIDS work in Africa, and some in Botswana:

• Department for International Development (DFID) -- United Kingdom government department.
• Ausaid
• The World Bank
• Actionaid
• World Health Organization (WHO)
• USAID
• Our very own President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief
• The Global Fund
• UNICEF
• The Clinton Foundation (Bill Clinton's)

In their article for The American Enterprise Institute, Bate and Tren manage to suggest that because some African countries add taxes and tariffs to imported drugs, patented drugs from pharmaceutical companies are somehow cheaper.  Without going into detail over the specific countries and taxes, a strange list in itself, it is hard to find anyone but drug companies and their henchmen in think tanks and well-endowed Republican politicians who would make this argument.  Indeed, Tren and Bate suggest that perhaps the annual price with all the taxes added in  for an HIV cocktail would be "well over $300 dollars in all countries" and exceeding "$500 dollars in most" per year.  Tren and Bate are challenging the Clinton Foundations's claim that it was possible to provide HIV cocktails for $140.00 a year.  Let's, however, compare their prices to some current prices per year for single patented drugs.  Recently Merck announced that it was reducing the price of Crixivan, a protease inhibitor, to $600 a year (10% of the U.S. cost).  This is the cost for a single drug, not the combined therapy recommended and it is still higher than their worst estimate of generic drug costs.

The world of AIDS drugs is complicated and ever-changing.  At present, the generics are not only challenging the patents on price but on drug delivery: they are providing fixed-dose combination pills (that is, more than one drug in a pill) which are seen as a more efficient means for delivering medications in poor countries, a method endorsed by a number of international agencies.  Of course, this also is a challenge to the profits of the patented medicine makers.

Tren and Bate conclude by saying, "Ultimately, responsibility for the lack of access to medicines has to lie with poor country governments, and if diseases of poverty are to be tackeled effectively in the future, it is incumbent on them to support the institutions of a free society that can generate wealth and reduce poverty."  What supreme arrogance!  What supreme ignorance! What supreme dogmatism!  What can I say?

Links for this article:

"The Real Obstacle to Sound Treatment of AIDS in Poor Countries," Roger Bate and Richard Ken, American Enterprise Institute.  www.aei.org/publications/pubID

HIV and AIDS in Botswana, avert.org.  www.avert.org/aidsbotswana.htm.

Associated Press:  Experts Debate Generic Anti-AIDS Drugs, 29 March, 2004.    www.accessmed-msf.org/prod/publications.asp?scntid=303200416983

"Ban on Generic AIDS Drugs Will Prove to Be Fatal Mistake," by Dr. Marge Cohen and Gordon Schiff, Chicago Sun-Times.  www.phrusa.org/campaigns/aids/news050504.html

Funding the Fight Against HIV/AIDS.  www.avert.org.aidsmoney.htm

"AIDS Plan Would Cut Drug Costs for Poor," by Shankar Vedantam, Washington Post Staff writer, October 25, 2003. www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14310-2003=Oct24?language=printer

The Hudson Institute: Warrior for Corporate America: Generic AIDs drugs

The Hudson Institute's mission is to attack perceived threats to corporate America by releasing questionable research to the media and by writing attack op.eds.  The pattern: take on a topic, brutally attack a perceived weakness, offer only corporate America's solutions. Keep hammering away for as long as possible so more doubt can be sown.

Current issues: AIDs drugs for poor countries

In an article in The Washington Times, James Glassman asserts that "[t]he strategy of fighting AIDS in Africa with questionable generic drugs in developing countries now lies in shambles...." Glassman, a Fellow at the Hudson's buddy, The American Enterprise Institute, cites a Hudson Institute Study on comparitive drug costs, November 30, 2004) in which the Hudson Institute claims, contrary to all evidence, that big pharmaceuticals' patented drugs are as cheap or less expensive than generics in poor countries and that the costs to health of using generics in third world country are  "devastating."   Glassman manages to blast the World Health Organization, Doctors Without Borders and Bill Clinton's Clinton Foundation, treating all of them as if they were illegal drug cartels. (See the article at http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/2004/1116-085735-3175r.htm) Checking information from these organizations as well as checking the news from countries benefitting from the generics quickly disproves the price claims of the Hudson Institute. In Clint Trout, Associate Director, International Policy, AIDS Health-Care Foundation, Los Angeles, offers a rebuttal in the Washington Times forum at www.washtimes.com/commentary/20041120-084026-2964r.htm.

Tracing back to the Hudson Institute, one finds that it's rage is centered on perceived threats to drug patents, the lifeblood of the big pharmaceuticals.  Check out www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=search_action for a list of the Hudson Institute's articles on this subject. 

Meanwhile, in the cases of withdrawn Indian drugs, the issue is to insure that they are the"bioequivalent" of their patented counterparts.  Two drugs have been reinstated, others should be.  The solution to the problem obviously is to have the drug companies work to upgrade their products where necessary.  None were considered dangerous. 

But there is another threat: the World Trade Organization (WTO) has registration requirements.  If they are not met, this may also hamper continued production of the drugs. 

Eli Lilly is one of the funders of the Hudson Institute.  George Bush appointed the former CEO and chairman of Eli Lilli, Randall Tobias, head of the United States' official AIDs program.

Additional links for this story: Medecins sans frontieres (Doctors without Borders) www.msf.org

http://malaysiakini.com on the WTO requirements.

www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=26508 on AIDS drugs in Venezuela.

Plus thousands more.