Political Animal
Blog
Ask Americans what they’re willing to cut from the federal budget and, invariably, “foreign aid” is the most popular target. We’re occasionally reminded why that would be a mistake.
The Biblical story of Lazarus is happening again in Africa. At least it looks that way.
One moment, men, women and children suffering from AIDS are lying at death’s door, barely able to move, open their eyes, or speak. Then a few days or weeks later, they are walking, talking, laughing; truly appearing to have come back from the dead.
This astonishing transformation has been repeated all over the continent thousands of times over the past decade. And, since 2003, America has been helping to pay for it.
But a budget-slashing effort in Congress this year threatens to bring much of that progress to a sudden and catastrophic halt.
I agree with conservative columnist and former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson on very little — as I recall, he referred to me as an “idiot” a few months ago — but on this issue, he’s done terrific and important work. Indeed, it was Gerson’s former White House boss who started this funding, and now the columnist has helped put together an HBO special called The Lazarus Effect in the hopes that members of his own party will back off the proposed cuts.
In 2003, Bush started the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR — an unprecedented, $3-billion a year program to help the world fight AIDS and has resulted in an 80-fold increase in the number of Africans receiving life-saving AIDS treatments since the program began.
In 2008, Bush led the charge for renewal and expansion. “We can bring healing and hope to many more. So I ask you to maintain the principles that have changed behavior and made this program a success,” Bush told Congress in his State of the Union address that year.
With bipartisan support, PEPFAR grew and saved many lives. President Obama continues to back the program, but Republicans have turned on it, despite the lives it saves, despite the goodwill towards the United States it creates in many parts of Africa.
Here’s hoping Gerson’s lobbying efforts are successful. The odds appear long that GOP lawmakers will do the right thing, but millions of people are counting on them to change their minds.
Facebook
Twitter
c u n d gulag on May 29, 2011 10:06 AM:
Steve,
Congratulations!
99.9999999999999999999999999% of the time, being called an 'idiot' by Gerson is worth more than a Pulitzer Prize.
And of course the Republicans are against it!
It costs money and it helps people, and we know we can't have any of that!
Now, if the disease they had was an aversion to militarism, you'd bet they'd send a cure for that fuckin' pronto!!!
I'd like a cure for CAPTCHA!
Wise voters on May 29, 2011 10:20 AM:
Let's go with the voters, Steve! Let's make foreign aid the percentage of the budget people think it should be!
berttheclock on May 29, 2011 10:24 AM:
I wonder how much of this relates to money and how much relates to the Fundies being miffed that their pet abstinence programs were dropped from the 2008 extension?
berttheclock on May 29, 2011 10:27 AM:
Hmmmm, "wise voters" - You mean those who elected Obama in '08 or the lame brains who showed up in 2010 and elected the very ignorant Tea Party types?
j on May 29, 2011 10:29 AM:
I understand that Israel has a booming economy, why do we give them aid?
brent on May 29, 2011 10:43 AM:
Appealing to kindness and humanity in a group of Republicans, particularly this group of idiot psychopaths, is a "mug's game." Gerson would spend his time better if he were teaching dogs to speak Esperanto or sewing a tiny ut perfectly proportioned map of Africa in his underwear.
CDW on May 29, 2011 11:13 AM:
Bush definitely deserves credit for his hiv/aids program. But, who was first, Bush or Bill Gates - just curious. Either way it doesn't detract from Bush's efforts.
Bush also expanded the Community Health Centers in the U.S., to which the usual suspects want to cut funding today.
How soon will the cons restore funding to hiv/aids to Africa, e.g., when they are reluctant to help American disaster victims? When pigs fly is a pretty good guess, I imagine.
stormskies on May 29, 2011 11:23 AM:
yep, and the repiglicans continue to give 700 billion back to their rich corporate masters, and 4 trillion to the oil companies .... meanwhile the poor, the disabled, and anyone else that is not part of these self-appointed Zarathustras can go fuck themselves and/or simply die .............
CDW on May 29, 2011 11:26 AM:
Just answered my own question: Gates went to Africa in Feb. 2002 "to refocus attention on the need for comprehensive hiv/aids strategies."
Death Panel Truck on May 29, 2011 12:40 PM:
They're against this for the same reason they're against welfare and health care reform.
It helps "those people."
ameshall on May 29, 2011 1:30 PM:
Never, ever count on Republicans to "do the right thing." With the exception of the remaining GOP moderates, who can be counted on one hand, Republicans are completely lacking in human capital. They have used their opposition to abortion to position themselves as the morally superior party, while at the same time pursuing policies (such as free market health insurance) that demonstrate a reckless indifference to human life. Worse, they've managed to sell their callousness as a virtue, presenting themselves as the only responsible adults willing to make "hard choices." It's a load of crap, of course, but it's also a brilliant cover for a party whose sole agenda is deregulation and tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. I do wish people, especially Democrats, would stop assuming Republicans give a rat's ass about people suffering or dying. They don't.
Ron Byers on May 29, 2011 1:38 PM:
HIV/AIDS is treated like every other disease by big Pharma. They don't even look for a cure, just ways to make money off of it by inventing drugs to suppress symtoms. What a tragety for the millions who will quickly die as soon as the Republican congress slashes money for drugs.
Ranger Jay on May 29, 2011 3:29 PM:
Just think of all the good that could be done if this money went to tax cuts!
Oh wait,...
mfw13 on May 29, 2011 7:30 PM:
While cutting foriegn aid would almost certainly be a mistake, let's not pretend that US foreign aid is the primary cause of Africa's transformation, either. The New Yorker (I think), had a great article a while back showing how most foreign aid ends up in the pockets of corrupt officials and has a lot smaller positive impact than we think.
The primary causes of Africa's transformation has been decreasing ethnic conflict and better governance, not $$$ from the US.
toowearyforoutrage on May 29, 2011 8:37 PM:
Do I remember incorrectly if I think those billions are spent on antiviral agents made by (often American) pharma companies.
PEPFAR was arranged when leaders of African nations threatened to violate the patents and manufacture generics of their own.
The disaster for Africa may be less than the liberal crowd may fear and a LOT worse for big Pharma which will NOT look kindly on the GOP having shut off this source of steady income.
Nope. I remembered right:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ehHLrbP46hAJ:www.carnegiecouncil.org/resources/journal/21_3/essay/001.html+PEPFAR+compromise+violate+patent&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com
At PEPFAR's start, the administration held that its funds could only be spent on name-brand drugs, to protect patent rights and assure quality. President Bush did maintain a Clinton-era policy that allowed companies in such countries as India and Brazil to make generic versions of U.S.-patented drugs, but stipulated that these companies were not to export those drugs. He also sent an interesting signal on the issue by appointing the former chairman of Eli Lilly and Company, Randall Tobias, who had no specific experience on AIDS or African politics, as U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator.
...By 2007, thirty—four generics had been approved, but only 27 percent of PEPFAR-funded purchases in 2006 were of generics.
Wanna bet Americans buy more than 27% of their drugs in generic form?