Senators Stall Bush's AIDS Relief (by Jim Wallis)
One of the few high points of the Bush administration has been its commitment to aid for Africa -- especially in combating HIV/AIDS. The president recently proposed an increase in funding for PEPFAR (President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief.) But it's not going anywhere. Why?
Columnist and former presidential speechwriter Michael Gerson answered the question. Seven Republican senators -- Tom Coburn, Jim DeMint, Jeff Sessions, Saxby Chambliss, David Vitter, Jim Bunning, and Richard Burr -- have placed a hold on the reauthorization.
In his column, Gerson wrote:
It is the nature of the Senate that the smallest of minorities can impede the work of the majority. But it takes a conscious choice -- an act of tremendous will and pride -- for members to employ these powers against an AIDS bill with overwhelming bipartisan support. The seven, led by Coburn, complain that the reauthorization is too costly. They object to "mission creep" -- the funding of "food, water, treatment of other infectious diseases, gender empowerment programs, poverty alleviation programs" -- as though people surviving on AIDS treatment do not need to eat, work or get their TB treated. And the senators are concerned that AIDS funds might be used for things such as abortion referrals and needle distribution, though the legislation doesn't mention these possibilities. So they are pushing for the extension of a superfluous spending mandate requiring that at least 55 percent of PEPFAR resources be used for treatment, on the theory that this will starve "feckless or morally dubious" prevention programs.
He also points out that presidential politics is at play. Gerson writes that some Democratic senators have no interest in passing something that would give credit to the president. But adding up all the obstacles, he concludes:
[S]upporters of the PEPFAR reauthorization now estimate a 50 percent chance it will be shelved until next year. Without a five-year U.S. commitment on AIDS funding, other countries would be reluctant to put new people on treatment. And lives would be lost.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
I'm in the 'Amen chorus' on this sentiment.
Thank you for articulating it so simply.
We can all agree and disagree on many specific issues and topics, but when there's such distrust, selfishness, greed, and deceit that the system doesn't function then we're all in a world of hurt.
More humility; less greed and deceit are urgently needed.
Posted by: readerOfTeaLeaves | May 20, 2008 5:03 PM
I will join the "Amen" shout. I hope the hatred of Bush by so many will not cloud judgment on this issue. Africa NEEDS this aid. Pettiness here on both sides of the political spectrum is comparable to the Pharisee and Levite in the parable of the Good Samaritan.
Posted by: Armed2Win | May 21, 2008 12:46 AM
I don't know that the cry for more accountability of the funds by a few Repubican members on a Republican generated legislation reaches the level of "pettiness" as suggested here. There's no evidence that the Democrates are making a push to block the recertification of this bill to keep President Bush from taking the credit so I also don't understand the reason Gerson would suggest this is the case, or Wallis would infer legitimacy by including this in his comments.
Simply throwing someone another sack full of money in order that we can feel better about our humanitarian efforts isn't always the most effective way of making a meaningful impact.
It's a lot easier to hand someone a five spot and send them on their way as to take the time to drive them over to the diner and spend our meal time with them. Money doesn't demonstrate love and compassion - yet it is people. The Samaritan had to first help lift the battered man from the ditch, then provide first-aid, and then take him to the Jericoh Holiday Inn before he laid down his Samaritan Express card. Sometimes we want to jump to point C and bypass the other steps in the process of true humanitarian aid.
Posted by: d.e.sharp | May 21, 2008 9:59 AM
I think it would have been appropriate to link to Senator Coburn's response to Gerson. It doesn't sound like Gerson's outrage is well placed.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/gersons_misplaced_pepfar_anger.html
Here's an excerpt:
"Since I was first elected to Congress in 1994 these experiences have been a guide. Between 1995 and 2001, when I left the House, I wrote and passed the first Baby AIDS law designed to prevent the transmission of HIV from mothers to babies. I also led the reauthorization of the Ryan White CARE Act. Throughout these projects, I helped bring together disparate groups like the Family Research Council and ACT-UP long before it was fashionable for Republicans to find common cause with celebrity activists.
Yet, in spite of my long commitment to HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention, which included a stint as a co-chair of President Bush's Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS (where I was an advocate for PEPFAR), Gerson believes I have a 'generalized hostility to AIDS prevention.'...
"Part of Gerson's moral outrage is focused on my controversial stance that AIDS treatment dollars be spent on treatment. I want to preserve PEPFAR's original formula that sends at least 55 percent of all dollars to AIDS treatment so widows and orphans and actual patients, not program officers and consultants, will be the primary beneficiaries of the program. This formula is made all the more important because the new authorization calls for a three-fold increase in funding from $15 billion over five years to $50 billion over five years. Moreover, this smart and well-designed policy, which Gerson once supported but now scorns, is a major reason why PEPFAR has been a Marshall Plan-like response, rather than a Katrina-like response, to the AIDS crisis in Africa."
Posted by: Eric | May 21, 2008 10:55 AM
As much as I severely disagree with Bush countless issues regarding foreign policy, AIDS relief in Africa has been a high point as you have stated Jim. You're right, moral issues are moral issues and partisan politics does not have a role - Democrat or Republican. Although Bush has made many grave mistakes, he is not the cause of everything gone wrong in the world.
Posted by: Drew | May 21, 2008 12:37 PM
Be careful about Gerson--he's a snake. He threw that bit in about Democrats (even though Democrats unanimously support it) just to make sure they look as bad as the seven dissenting Republicans. He's using the David Brooks playbook: come across as a likeable, thinking conservative while subtly sneaking in half-truths, facts out of context or unfounded assumptions to make those with whom you disagree look bad.
Posted by: I and I | May 21, 2008 1:23 PM
So why not just preserve the 55% rule and move forward? Gerson explains that it is "arbitrary" but doesn't explain why, other than to suggest that new technologies have made treatment cheaper.
If that is the case, couldn't he simply propose a new percentage that reflects the more efficient technologies at our disposal?
And yes, it is the nature of the Senate that the smallest minorities can impede the progress of the majority. That's part of why we have a Senate.
Posted by: kevin s. | May 21, 2008 2:14 PM
What is tragic is that this is more than just a dirty political game relegated to the Senate floor. These Senators are appropriately representing their "Bible-Belt" constituents (Kentucky, North Carolina, Georgia, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Alabama, Louisiana) with whom the issue of AIDS still carries a huge stigma.
Remember, politicians don't create the wind, they merely move in the direction it is blowing. It is up to the people to change the wind. (Thanks, Jim)
Posted by: Scot McClamma | May 21, 2008 3:23 PM
Scot,
Please read Coburn's respone to Gerson I posted above. Do you really think this is about the "stigma" of AIDS?
If so, why did then Representatives DeMint, Burr, and Vitter all support the initiative when it first passed the House in 2003? Why didn't Senators Chambliss, Sessions, or Bunning oppose it in the Senate when it first passed?
Why did Coburn work on the initiative for the Bush Administration?
Posted by: Eric | May 21, 2008 3:41 PM
Holding up aid in life-threatening situations for power, control, or ideological reasons is also the problem in Myanmar -- we'd rather have things done our way than done expediently. As Christians we have all kinds of holy power -- prayers, mission experts, speakers willing to tell the truth to power, dedicated Christians willing and able to demand accountability for monies spent. I'd rather rely on that. Send the money. We can invest a little time of our own to help the aid be as effective as possible.
I was interested in hearing about Senator Coburn's work on the Baby AIDS law. My daughter was born in 2001 to a birthmother with full-blown AIDS, and there were no resources available to stop HIV transmission.
I also lived in Alabama for 18 years and the seven senators' position certainly hasn't spoken for me. It's frustrating to be smacked with the sterotype of Southerners who are so anti-abortion they'd let anyone die of AIDS. To say that the senators represent persons with that mindset is sad.
Posted by: openeyes | May 21, 2008 10:01 PM
If any other commenters come back here, I'd simply like to point out that my comment -- and several others -- were about being fed up with: (1) immoral conduct, and (2) hyper-partisanship.
To underscore how bad this problem is, just look at some of the comments here. It's interesting to see someone defending one party or the other.
That's precisely what's wrong -- the blog post, as I read it, pointed out that both parties need to clean up their conduct. I agree.
Every single day that drags by with no attention to this problem makes it much more unmanageable. There are problems like AIDS that simply don't benefit from any group of Senators, no matter what their party affiliation, deciding to slow down an issue that has enormous ramifications for public health and global economics.
Consider that a plane from Ethiopia is going to land in London, Paris, Rome, Dehli, or New York in less that 14 hours and you start to see that in a global economy where goods and people travel rapidly, the system of dawdling and negotiating how aid should be implemented really begins to point out how utterly ineffective and broken our government has become.
Posted by: readerOfTeaLeaves | May 22, 2008 1:00 AM
Eric, I appreciate your posting Coburn's response. It is always good to have every side of the story made available. however, it raises a couple other questions:
1) Why is it that all of those who blocked it are from the same geographical area and the same party?
2) Coburn claims that his main objection is that too much money would be funding program officers and consultants rather than the patients themselves. Is this a legitimate concern, given that such personnel are likely necessary to ensure the proper distribution of treatments?
3) Is this all a smokescreen to hide a concern about condoms and family planning?
4) Even if some money was being targeted unwisely (which again is an assumption that we haven't gotten to the bottom of), is that a good reason to hold up this funding given the stakes involved?
Posted by: I and I | May 22, 2008 11:32 AM
"1) Why is it that all of those who blocked it are from the same geographical area and the same party?"
Same party? Most likely because the Democrats removed the 55% clause to begin with, probably for the sole purpose of eliciting precisely this sort of response.
Same geographical locale? Safe Republican states. Similarly, the Ted Kennedy's and Barbara Boxer's of the world hold the fort for Dems.
"Coburn claims that his main objection is that too much money would be funding program officers and consultants rather than the patients themselves. Is this a legitimate concern, given that such personnel are likely necessary to ensure the proper distribution of treatments?"
I would say that it is a very legitimate concern. The Senator is not saying that there ought to be no paid personnel to administer the program.
"Is this all a smokescreen to hide a concern about condoms and family planning?"
That's probably part of the concern. Why do you think NARAL is weighing in on PEPFAR?
"Even if some money was being targeted unwisely (which again is an assumption that we haven't gotten to the bottom of), is that a good reason to hold up this funding given the stakes involved?"
He didn't say the money was being used unwisely. He said that it WAS being used wisely, and cited the 55% rule as a primary reason for this.
Given the stakes involved, why did certain politicians remove the 55% clause? Could it be, perhaps, that some members of the Senate DO have an interest in making PEPFAR a catch-all for favorite causes? It would certainly follow the trajectory of other popular legislation.
Posted by: kevin s. | May 22, 2008 1:00 PM
I and I,
You ask some good questions that I don't have certain answers to. All I can do is surmise. I also want to make clear that I'm not defending Coburn or any of the others' actions; I don't know enough about the issue to do so, I just thought a second opinion is warrented.
As for your first question about party and geography... I'd guess the party thing has to do with the fact that most of these Senators pride themselves on being fiscal conservatives in the sense they don't like to waste taxpayer dollars. Coburn, Demint, Burr, Sessions, and Vitter often find themselves standing alone against Senate bills that are popular that no one else is willing to take on. More Democrats might be willing to stand with them if the Democrats weren't in the majority.
As for geography, Kevin probably has a point. They are from either safer seats or seats that aren't up for re-election soon. Again, I don't have certain answers, but my answers are definitely more certain than Scot's baseless assumption.
I think Kevin gives a reasonable answer to your second question.
To answer your third, I'd have to know to what extent the current bill allows for U.S. dollars to be spent on condums and family planning. I don't.
Your fourth question doesn't have a factual answer. It's a matter of opinion. Again, I don't know the stakes involved other than people are dying. Is it better to wait a couple weeks and get it right or get the money out the door today? Again, I don't know if it makes a difference or not.
Again, I'm not defending Coburn. I'm just trying to show how illogical Scot's response is.
Posted by: Eric | May 22, 2008 6:52 PM
Eric and Kevin,
You both make good points and I appreciate them. I suppose I should give some credit to Coburn and perhaps some of the others for being a stickler on spending wisely, and I am certainly disappointed (but not really surprised) that the Democrats didn't put more teeth into their earmark reform. I do notice that this group doesn't seem to be "across the board" on poor spending, since they have not raised similar concerns about the efficacy of our war spending (and of course I don't mean simply that they vote to fund the war, but that they haven't spent more time breaking down what is being spent to see if the war could be funded more effectively--Halliburton et al.). I will neede to check the congressional record to see if they raised any objections to this year's farm and energy bills, both of which contain a lot of careless spending.
Posted by: I and I | May 23, 2008 1:59 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?