Bringing Home the Bacon
One of the side-effects of the silly season is the way legislation is rammed through in the final weeks leading up to an election. Incumbent candidates want to be able to point to the federal money they've brought home to their voters as evidence they deserve to be returned to Washington. The practice rarely involves responsible governance, and some times leads to very real disasters. A case in point is fairly criticised in a NY Times editorial today.
A lethal form of budgetary politics is at work in Congress. The proven formula for assisting AIDS-ridden urban areas that pioneered effective treatment programs is in danger of being radically altered to shift money to more rural states. Rather than increase spending to cover both real priorities — the cities’ AIDS needs and the growing problem of H.I.V. in rural areas — current proposals would deny the cities tens of millions of dollars.
...The Republican leadership hopes to rush this change through Congress soon after it returns next week in the renewal of the $2 billion AIDS spending program. A fairer formula is being sought by alarmed lawmakers from the states slated to be shortchanged. Republicans are trying to spread nonsense that this all about red state versus blue state. The real question is whether Congress would dare to turn the proven Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency Act into another demeaning pork-barrel competition. In effect, the potential urban losers stand to be penalized for having shown the way in fighting the AIDS scourge.
That AIDS would finally have an impact in rural areas is certainly no surprise, especially with the increased illegal drug problem those areas are also battling. However, as long as new cases of the infection are found anywhere, the Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency Act is a necessary program whose funding needs to be continually updated. Playing politics with how that funding is dispersed is no more acceptable than playing politics with the funding of childhood vaccination programs.
The editorialist points out that the funding should be increased to cover the additional needs of rural America, which is, of course, the rational answer. If incumbent candidates want to prove their effectiveness in office, let them do the jobs they were elected to do, which often involves some actual work.
A lethal form of budgetary politics is at work in Congress. The proven formula for assisting AIDS-ridden urban areas that pioneered effective treatment programs is in danger of being radically altered to shift money to more rural states. Rather than increase spending to cover both real priorities — the cities’ AIDS needs and the growing problem of H.I.V. in rural areas — current proposals would deny the cities tens of millions of dollars.
...The Republican leadership hopes to rush this change through Congress soon after it returns next week in the renewal of the $2 billion AIDS spending program. A fairer formula is being sought by alarmed lawmakers from the states slated to be shortchanged. Republicans are trying to spread nonsense that this all about red state versus blue state. The real question is whether Congress would dare to turn the proven Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency Act into another demeaning pork-barrel competition. In effect, the potential urban losers stand to be penalized for having shown the way in fighting the AIDS scourge.
That AIDS would finally have an impact in rural areas is certainly no surprise, especially with the increased illegal drug problem those areas are also battling. However, as long as new cases of the infection are found anywhere, the Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency Act is a necessary program whose funding needs to be continually updated. Playing politics with how that funding is dispersed is no more acceptable than playing politics with the funding of childhood vaccination programs.
The editorialist points out that the funding should be increased to cover the additional needs of rural America, which is, of course, the rational answer. If incumbent candidates want to prove their effectiveness in office, let them do the jobs they were elected to do, which often involves some actual work.
posted by Diane at 3:59 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home