Last week I wrote about Congress' de-funding of the “Baby AIDS” program Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) believed the move was “retribution by appropriators for his militant stance on spending, as well as for his criticism of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention” while others claimed the initiative was simply an unfortunate casualty of earmark reform.
The new House appropriations chief David Obey (D-WI) even attempted to use this line of reasoning, claiming "Many worthwhile earmarks are not funded in this measure, but we had to take this step to clear the decks, clean up the process and start over."
But notes Kimberley Strassel of The Wall Street Journal, “The key language here is ‘not funded in this measure,’…”
Congressional members, led by appropriators and an army of staff, have already figured out a new way to keep their favors in the money, and it might as well be called 1-800-EARMARKS (which unfortunately is already taken). All across Washington, members are at this moment phoning budget officers at federal agencies--Interior, Defense, HUD, you name it--privately demanding that earmarks in previous legislation be fully renewed again this year.
To ensure this back door option wouldn’t be available to Coburn, language was included in the bill that explicitly stated that “None of the funds appropriated by this division may be used” for the infant AIDS program. Someone at the CDC was apparently still upset over another one of the Senator’s amendment to move $60 million from the CDC construction program to another AIDS reduction program.
Although the language will try to be overridden, Coburn’s staff is unsure that the money would actually be used for HIV/AIDS testing and prevention. In a memo to the CDC they wrote:
"The $30 million will instead revert to other CDC HIV/AIDS prevention activities, which in recent years have included beachside conferences, flirting classes, erotic writing seminars, zoo trips and other dubious initiatives that do not have the same impact as HIV diagnosis and treatment," the memo states.
So what would the CDC do with the money? Previous earmarks may offer a clue to what would happen to the funding. Here are just a handful of the activities that the CDC has paid for through the STOP AIDS Project. [Note: I started to post it here but even using asterisks to indicate edits for decency, it was still too filthy and disgusting to put on on this blog. Instead I’ll refer you to the Abstinence Clearinghouse website. (Scroll down halfway down the page)]
Keep in mind that these are programs that are being funded with your tax dollars. These are the types of “prevention programs” that the CDC believes are more worthy of funding than one that protects babies from acquiring HIV.
Comments (5)
I am astounded.
Thay should be ashamed of what they've done. Where is their conscience?
February 21, 2007 3:39 PM | Comment Permalink
Politics. Money is short, thanks largely to the costs of Afganistan and Iraq. So some programs have to go.
Something is odd in that program list. The CDC shouldn't be funding them, true... and I cant see *why* the CDC would fund them, or *how* they could in the current political climate without incuring immediate attention from above. I do not trust this "Abstinance clearinghouse" site, and suspect they may have been either exagerating, or attributing programs to the CDC when there is really only a very tenuous connection.
February 22, 2007 8:46 AM | Comment Permalink
Surico suspect they may have been either exagerating, or attributing programs to the CDC when there is really only a very tenuous connection.
February 22, 2007 10:44 AM | Comment Permalink
Ah... I see. The DVD distributed its AIDS-prevention money to some type of state or local health department, who in turn directed it to the 'STOP AIDS' group which hosted the presentations. So, althrough the Abstinance Clearinghouse assigned the blaim to the CDC, the CDC did not specify the content, and its unclear to what extent they were even aware of it - their last review was a year or so old, the program may have been different then.
I guessed right then. AC suggested that the CDC was actively supporting the promiscuity-promoting conferences, when it was actually only supplying the funding and that via an intermediate organisation. The CDC even sent a letter of strong objection, when prompted by a senator.
Abstinance Clearinghouse, and the FRC, should be quarreling with the STOP AIDS group - not the CDC.
February 22, 2007 4:46 PM | Comment Permalink
Er.. CDC, not DVD :>
February 23, 2007 11:06 AM | Comment Permalink