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.
The two headed coin lives!
I guess that's the internet version of "I'm taking my ball and going home!"
I hope you are right. I am going to do my part to help President Bush by calling my senators and representative and urging them to oppose this waste of 15 billion dollars of taxpayer’s money. I will suggest to them that it could better be used to secure our borders from illegal immigration. Sometimes I think Bush might be a great President like Ronald Reagan, until he pulls a stupid stunt like this.
That's priceless. Epitomizes the utter spinelessness of the denizens here.
They're giving those feminazis who stuck up for the rapist Clinton a run for their money, eh?
Unless those with AIDS are brought here to have sex or pass the disease on in some other manner I don't see how their "epidemic" will become ours.
Could you explain yourself a bit further. I simply don't see how you get from A to B.
Secondly, where is the Constitutional authorization for this expenditure? Thirdly, what "bang for the buck" are we getting for all of this "Aid for AIDS"? Where, or what, is the return on the investment?
176 philman_36
Hmmm... let me address your points one at a time, so everyone knows where I stand....
<"Unless those with AIDS are brought here to have sex or pass the disease on in some other manner I don't see how their "epidemic" will become ours.">
1. It can become our epidemic as people from Africa, fleeing the death, starvation, and chaos of their homes, seek out new lands, such as Europe (where they are now being turned away from), the US, etc... They end up here, no matter how much we don't like the idea of a porous border, where they put a strain on our healthcare system, law enforcement, and welfare systems... They bring the AIDS with them, etc....
No sale. We are perfectly capable of defending our borders.
<"Secondly, where is the Constitutional authorization for this expenditure?">
2. I think the constitutional mandate this falls under is providing for the common defense - Islam, the fastest growing religion in Africa, is a threat to our nation, it's people, and our way of life. If we do NOT do what we can to help, someone else will fill the void - Personally, I'd rather it be us. I don't LIKE the idea of it, but I see it as a necessity. There is simply no other option. An Africa under the influence of Islam is a potential danger to us - Those with no hope of a future, no hope of living much longer makes a GREAT place would be willing, if not eager, recruits as suicide bombers, etc... if they know their family will be cared for... Woudl you rather they are lifted up and helped to their feet by US, or by those who would use them against us?
Again, no sale. You are using 'defense' and the 'general welfare' clause as an excuse to mandate pre-emptive meddling in foreign states, - in the affairs of others.
<"Thirdly, what "bang for the buck" are we getting for all of this "Aid for AIDS"? Where, or what, is the return on the investment?">
3. In return, we get a continent more stable than it has ever been in recorded history, a decline in the influence of our enemies, and the satisfaction of knowing we did something worthwhile to help our fellow man... Do we get material rewards? Probably not, but that's not what life is about anyway.
Allowing our government to ignore our constitution for the "satisfaction of knowing we did something worthwhile to help our fellow man", will continue to allow liberalism to replace our liberty.
Look deeply into your claims of being a 'conservative', chad.
I guess when one has no intelligent reply, one instead talks down to the other poster. I guess your tactics haven't changed since FIJC was posting here.
I believe a vast majority of those said to be HIV+, are dying from common diseases, and the HIV is not really a factor though.
Have you noticed how very very little discussion on this aspect of AIDS in Africa you see from the normally very bright and informed members of Free Republic? I don't understand it. AIDS is this country is real and is caused, I believe, by drug use and sexual promiscuity that results in a slow but sure destruction of the immune system. It is not caused by a single virus (i.e. HIV) and cannot be transferred by a single virus. There is no proof of that commonly held belief.
In Africa every disease is diagnosed as AIDS because that generates revenue and contributions (e.g. $15B from the U.S.) That doesn't mean that people aren't dying. They are and we can help. But not by giving them the chemotherapy drugs that are sure killers. We need to give them the medicines and access to the treatments that cure what they really have in addition to educating them on what it takes to avoid getting these diseases in the first place...and that is not always just sexual advice. Treating them with drugs for a made up disease called AIDS will not get the job done.
Politically - It was brillant for all the reasons given in earlier postings. Bush has undercut the DEMS. He is using our money wisely - to defeat Democrats. What better use for taxes is there than that.
Millions of lives could have been saved if your plan would have been instigated. You are very wise. The homo-fascist have killed so many!
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.