Worried by prescription drug prices? Idaho’s ‘Hero of Main Street’ has big pharma’s back
U.S. Sen. Mike Crapo recently touted his receipt of a “Hero of Main Street” award from the National Retail Federation. While he represents such small, local businesses as Walmart, the NFR’s decision to give the award to Crapo should assure everyday Idahoans that he has their back.
But look at Crapo’s legislative activities in the past few months and they are dominated by the concerns of Wall Street — specifically the pharmaceutical industry, a lucrative campaign donor.
Part of the Inflation Reduction Act — a deal between Sen. Joe Manchin, D-West Virginia, and Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-New York, that can become law with only 50 votes — would direct the federal government to begin negotiating prices on certain drugs that constitute a huge chunk of entitlement spending. Currently, the federal government — the largest bulk purchaser in the world — simply pays whatever price pharmaceutical companies set.
Crapo has been working hard to undermine these efforts for months, as Salon noted in a piece published last week.
And he has been bragging about these efforts. Crapo told Burgess Everett, Politico’s congressional bureau chief: “There are many Byrd objections. And we’re going through line by line, literally, making objections.”
“Byrd objections” are procedural efforts to prevent a bill from being able to pass by a simple majority vote. That is, Crapo is breaking his back to make sure that a drug prices bill needs 60 votes to pass, rather than being able to move forward with a simple majority.
This action seems to be at odds with Crapo’s longstanding political messaging.
Crapo has been grousing about the growing federal deficit for decades — but only when a Democrat is in the White House; he grows silent when his party is in leadership. But the very provision he is working to undermine would not only harm consumers, but also deficit reduction. The Kaiser Family Foundation notes that negotiating prescription drug prices is estimated to reduce the annual deficit by $288 billion — without raising taxes or cutting programs.
So what gives?
There could be ideological reasons Crapo could oppose negotiation on prescription drug prices. Maybe he actually believes, as he says, that it is “socialism” for companies to have to negotiate with the federal government on prices. It seems that to Crapo, capitalism means companies dictate prices and taxpayers pay whatever they ask.
But there may be simpler reasons for Crapo’s stance.
For example, Crapo’s passionate efforts to kill an incredibly modest prescription drug price bill might have something to do with the tens of thousands in campaign contributions he’s raked in from pharmaceutical companies the past few months. A recent report by Accountable.us noted that Crapo got about $20,000 from the industry between October and December 2021.
The tale of Crapo’s senatorial career seems to follow campaign donations pretty closely.
Look into the history of Idaho’s senators, and you find a long list of people who made their way into positions where they could appropriate federal funds. Such a position offers a lot of ways to do good for Idahoans on Main Street, where so many are employed in positions that rely on federal appropriations or that are tied to federal lands.
Instead of that career path, Crapo decided early on to head up the banking committee. Idaho has a very small banking sector, so he can’t do much for his home state with this position, but it is essentially a guarantee that the deepest pockets in Washington want him on their side. So year after year, banks and Wall Street firms of all sizes rewarded him handsomely.
He next set his eyes on the Finance Committee, where he is now the ranking member and which promises more of the same. He is expected to become chair the next time Republicans control the Senate.
Crapo never has to worry about coming home to raise money on Main Street. His Wall Street war chest is big enough to bury any challenger. Whose hero is he really?
This story was originally published August 3, 2022 at 4:00 AM.
BEHIND THE STORY
MOREWhat is an editorial?
Statesman editorials are the consensus opinion of the Idaho Statesman’s editorial board. The editorial board is composed of journalists from the Idaho Statesman and community members. Members of the editorial board are Statesman editor Chadd Cripe, opinion editor Scott McIntosh, opinion writer Bryan Clark, newsroom editors Jim Keyser and Dana Oland and community members John Hess, Debbie McCormick and Julie Yamamoto.
How does the editorial board operate?
The editorial board meets weekly and sometimes invites subjects to board meetings to interview them personally to gain a better understanding of the topic. Board members also communicate throughout the week via email to discuss issues and provide input on editorials on topics as they are happening in real time. Editorials are intended to be part of an ongoing civil discussion with the ultimate goal of providing solutions to community problems.
Why are editorials unsigned?
Editorials reflect the collective views of the Statesman’s editorial board — not just the opinion of one writer. An editorial is a collective opinion based on a group discussion among board members. While the editorial is written by one person, typically the opinion editor, it represents the opinions and viewpoints expressed by members of the editorial board after discussion and research on the topic.
Want your say?
Readers are encouraged to express their thoughts by submitting a letter to the editor. Click on “Submit a letter or opinion” at idahostatesman.com/opinion.
Want more opinions each week?
Subscribe to The Idaho Way weekly email newsletter, a collection of editorials, columns, guest opinions and letters to the editor from the Opinion section of the Idaho Statesman each week. You can sign up for The Idaho Way here.