Posted on 01/29/2003 7:57:13 AM PST by TLBSHOW
Bush Asks for $15 Billion to Fight AIDS in Africa
By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Correspondent
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush, under fire from AIDS groups for what they call his neglect of the epidemic, asked Congress Tuesday to triple AIDS spending in Africa and Haiti to $15 billion over five years.
The announcement, made in his annual State of the Union Address, took AIDS campaigners by surprise, but they quickly both welcomed the plan and expressed skepticism about it.
"I ask the Congress to commit $15 billion over the next five years, including nearly $10 billion in new money, to turn the tide against AIDS in the most afflicted nations of Africa and the Caribbean," Bush said.
"This comprehensive plan will prevent 7 million new AIDS infections, treat at least 2 million people with life-extending drugs and provide humane care for millions of people suffering from AIDS and for children orphaned by AIDS," Bush added.
On its Internet web site at http://www.whitehouse.gov, the White House said the plan would target Botswana, Ivory Coast, Ethiopia, Guyana, Haiti, Kenya, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia.
It said the plan calls for the United States to work with private groups and governments to "put in place a comprehensive plan for diagnosing, preventing and treating AIDS."
Stephen Lewis, the United Nations special envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa, welcomed what he called "the first dramatic signal from the U.S. administration that it is now ready to confront the pandemic and to save or prolong millions of lives."
"It opens the floodgates of hope. Most importantly, it issues a challenge to every other member of the G7 to follow suit," he said in South Africa after a tour of the region.
The Physicians for Human Rights, which campaigns on a range of issues from land mines to HIV, last week urged Bush to increase global AIDS spending to $3.5 billion a year.
"This is totally unexpected," John Heffernan, a spokesman for the group, said in a telephone interview. "We applaud it. It really is an extraordinary commitment that clearly shows that the United States is serious about combating AIDS."
The Global AIDS Alliance welcomed the news but worried that the Bush administration could be competing with existing AIDS funds, such as the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. The United States has been accused of not putting its fair share into the Fund.
"In the (White House) fact sheet it said only $1 billion of the 10 billion in new money will go to the Global Fund," said Dr. Paul Zeitz, Executive Director of the Global AIDS Alliance. "We are very concerned that will leave the fund vastly underfunded and undermine its success."
A SLOW START?
Zeitz also said it looked like the program would start out slowly, with just $2 billion allocated for next year.
The International Association for Physicians in AIDS Care said it would closely watch what would be done with the money, if Congress approved it. "The devil is in the details," said Scott Wolfe, a spokesman for the group. But he also strongly welcomed the move, adding, "We call on other global leaders to step up and demonstrate similar commitments."
More than 36 million people are infected with the virus that causes AIDS -- 25 million in Africa alone. The United Nations predicts AIDS will kill 70 million people in the next 20 years unless rich nations step up efforts.
Bush noted this. "There are whole countries in Africa where more than one-third of the adult population carries the infection," he said. "More than 4 million require immediate drug treatment. Yet across that continent, only 50,000 AIDS victims -- only 50,000 -- are receiving the medicine they need."
There is no cure for AIDS but a cocktail of expensive drugs known as anti-retrovirals can keep disease at bay. Campaigners have been angered that such drugs are available in rich nations but not to the countries hardest hit by the epidemic.
"AIDS can be prevented," Bush said. "Anti-retroviral drugs can extend life for many years. And the cost of those drugs has dropped from $12,000 a year to under $300 a year, which places a tremendous possibility within our grasp."
The new Senate majority leader, Tennessee Republican Bill Frist, nodded and smiled as Bush spoke. Frist, a medical doctor, does frequent volunteer work in Africa.
"It's unprecedented. It is huge. And of everything he said tonight, it has the capacity to save more lives in this country I would say, but also globally, than anything else said," Frist told CNN.
We are paying for it, because it is a key move in the political game being played. They're doing this proposal to preempt the socialist demands for a $120/person donation to the African AIDS fund. Instead, they're offering $50/person.
This and all the other socialist programs being advanced are primarily to secure votes. In additon they are playing to gain position in the rest of the socialist world. They are minimizing the amount redistribution they figure is needed to stay in power. That's what it amounts to. That goes for the black hole that is their hydrogen proposal also.
In reality, if all those leftist bozos were really concerned about the plight of the Africans, they'd use their own time, talents and money to do something. Well, they don't give a damn. What they are interested in is perceptions. They are artists, con artists, appealing to the emotional waverings of the voters. Their activities are almost entirely driven by their own motivations for cash, power and glory.
Aids in Africa is not being transmitted by anal intercourse. Please refrain from posting when you're ignorant.
Is there some new airborne strain im unaware of?
And please set me straight when I'M wrong, brother.
That, and more! There are SO many aspects of this move that are smart:
-- Blacks have to see that Bush MEANS it when he talks about compassion
-- Liberals have had the rug pulled out from under them on two fronts, blacks and AIDS
-- Bush has taken the AIDS issue, removed it from the American Gay agenda, and directed it toward a people worthy of help. Gays would look like chumps to complain.
-- A poster here noted the national security aspects of this, i.e., someone dying of AIDS might feel, why not die as a suicide bomber, I'll die anyway.
-- A poster here also noted that this is a good way to stay on the good side of nations rich in natural resources
-- Someone noted that may provide stimulus to pharmaceutical companies
-- Depending on how it is administrated, this program will help show, once more, the uselessness of the UN.
I thought this was brilliant strategy by Bush. In a perfect world, the government wouldn't tax us to use money for such things, but this is not a perfect world. I think Bush is way ahead of the curve here and dealing with the REAL world.
Sinkspur - the only thing which will stop it is refraining from sexual promiscuity. Nothing, I repeat, nothing else will. Out of compassion, it is good to help those who suffer, but as many have suggested on this thread, there are a great many who suffer in this world - a great many of whom do so not of their own poor choices. We should be helping in a balanced way - but we've made AIDs cases more important than just plain hunger. Further, we're spending a great deal of this money in ways that do nothing to reduce sexual promiscuity (the root cause of this problem). As usual, the liberals wish to spend a great deal of money in a very PC way, and which does not make a lot of common sense (liberalism = lack of common sense in general). Further, as many posters have pointed out, charity should be a personal decision - not a governmental one. It would be far better for the president to urge AMericans to help with their own funds sufferers of hunger and AIDs around the world, than to take our money and tell us where best to spend it.
Hopefully, Mugabe will buy some American weapons, and maybe a Hummer or three. Besides, we're only talking about fifteen billion dollars. That's nothing these days.
It IS true that a new paradigim is needed for Africa.
As much as the CONDOM pushers tried (the P.C. do-gooders), the approach that was successful came from Africans themselves.
And it turned out to be Old Fashioned Morality.
A year ago, I, too would have been sceptical of a large amount of money designated for medicines, when no slowdown in infection rates had been achieved anywhere.
But the excitement of that Ugandan health minister was great to see.
The good needs to be affirmed.
This is the time to do for aids what was done for polio, smallpox, and other diseases which were endemic at one time.
A good summation, Finny. In principal, this is not a right thing for most conservatives. But it was a brilliant, brilliant political strategy - and one hopes that given that, the money will indeed help those who suffer.
The worst is that liberals can't even bear to see the connection between AIDs and rampant sexual promiscuity. Liberalism is the antithesis of common sense.
I'm worried about you weikel.
Seems like there's a few things missing in your education.
Like how babies are made LOL!!!
The truth is, pining, that Bush, to lock up his electoral majorities, must pander some of the time to liberals. When he does so, he tries to do is in the most politically devastating way. That's what he was doing. And, hopefully, some of the pander money will really help some who suffer.
Yes we can do that, but then dollar will then lose value against other currencies.
Not a wise move at all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.