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.
I am too!!!
101 posted on 01/29/2003 11:04 AM CST by happygrl (Your bigotry is showing)
I was thinking you left out your sarcasm tags...but then I read your tagline. Thats pretty typical...for a brainwashed liberal. I don't agree with how the gov is using my tax $$$ for domestic welfare programs...so I'm a racist? I don't agree that we should be shelling out so much foreign aid to countries that end up (or have already) stabbed the U.S. in the back...so I'm a racist? I don't beleive affirmative action is right...so I'm a racist? I don't think that homosexual unions (I won't call them marriages cause thats not what they are) should be legal...so I'm a racist.
Oh wait...I know...maybe I should accept that since I'm a married heterosexual white male that makes 75k a year...I should feel guilty, and let the government, the third world, the poor, and any other "victimized minority" just rape and pillage the wealth that I created all on my own...just take it up the a$$ and keep my mouth shut. No thanks, if I want to give to charity, I'll do it voluntarily. You should too.
Sorry my friend I did not catch that
I assume that you intend satire, and are being sarcastic.
The Constitution is the sole legal basis for our Federal Government. What is outside the Constitution is tantamount to usurpation. That hardly makes for any sort of a political move; not if you mean something that has to do with legitimate elections or the existing party system. If you do not care for the rule of law, why not just advocate a military takeover, and then there would be no need whatsoever to bid against the Democrats for anything?
If the President and Congress, Democrats included, wish to contribute to fighting AIDS in Africa, there is nothing to stop them from privately contributing, or even putting their personal prestige behind a general fund raising drive for that purpose, where anyone who supports the idea could contribute to his or her hearts content. But the public revenues of these United States are not the playthings of politicians. Their discretion over those funds stops, where the purpose is outside the Constitutional framework.
Nor does the past misappropriation of funds by the Leftwing of the Democratic Party provide any justification for further misappropriation today. None. One wrong does not make another wrong right.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
????????
Excuse me, what Africa has ever done to save lives in US?
What Europe has ever done to save lives in US?
What Asia has ever done to save lives in US?
What the rest of the world has ever done to save lives in US?
N O T H I N G
But inspite of the fact that 100000's of American lives was sacrificed and lost in the last 100 years to defend and protect freedom around this lousy world in the wars we did not start and have no business to be in, we are being told that most of the world despises and loaths US, so F*ck them all
LETS START TO SAVE SOME LIVES IN OUR COUNTRY, charity begins at home.
To: Chad Fairbanks
I agree with you! Believe that Senator Bill Frist, M.D., who has gone to Africa and has seen how devastating this disease is to so many people that have gotten AIDs in Africa through no fault of their own. This epidemic could go around the world and strike more than the gay community. 20 posted on 01/29/2003 8:10 AM PST by PhiKapMom (Bush/Cheney 2004)
Clinton as President:
Clinton Wants $175 Million for AIDS Programs
"Can someone tell me how putting more money into prevention is going to help? It is actually quite simple -- safe sex and don't share needles. Probably the most basic answer is "Just Say NO! If someone doesn't know that by now after all the warnings during the last ten years then they are a moron! Is this State of the Union going to be the big give-away? Every day I read about another give-away. Only when it comes to the Defense Department is it a take-away."
2 Posted on 01/17/2000 19:44:57 PST by PhiKapMom
By the generally-used modern definition, a liberal is someone who supports the use of taxpayer funds for things not found in the Constitution. In this instance, the position that taxpayer money should be diverted to Africa to fight AIDs is a liberal position.
That doesn't mean those who support it are liberals - it just means they've taken a liberal stance on THIS issue.
That statement is quite laughable given its context. A decent human being would teach these people: how to appreciate and fight for their own freedom, how to support themselves, and how to educate women from spreading their legs/having children they cannot support/and getting AIDS in the first place. If, we are to be decent human beings...we should do that. The problem is, thats not happening. The governemnt is stealing yours and my money to throw money and expensinve drugs at the problem in order to save a few lives and give good face to the center-left. The root of the problem will continue and opportunities will be there for other politicians to show how nice they are by throwing yours and my money at the problem in the future too. How verrrrrrrrrry decent.
Gee, that's a mature way to end a discussion.
Ah hell.. Let's just nuke the whole continent of Africa, and start over from scratch... Cheaper that way...
Another childish retort! I didn't even bother addressing your previous one.
Amazing.
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.