In response to conservative criticism, Senate Democrats dropped $400 million in HIV prevention funding from their trillion dollar "stimulus" spending bill. (I know, AIDS is not necessarily a "gay" issue, but the Washington Blade put this on their front page, so I'm going to comment on it.)
AIDS activists protested: "Michael Weinstein, president of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation...said critics are wrong in claiming HIV- or STD-related programs don't boost the economy."
That's an understandable response from a lobby, but it misses the point. The question isn't whether HIV prevention programs are economic stimulus; of course they're not. But then, neither is most of the spending in this monstrosity of a bill. And if it's going to provide billions to fund other non-job creating liberal-left initiatives, such as research into global warming, along with giving billions to the states to spend on whatever they please (i.e., pork), then just why not HIV prevention?
The answer is that Senate Dems felt that this was the one area they would be prudent to surrender. That's telling.
More. Yes, I realize that some relatively small, additional cuts have now been made from the original House bill, first in the Senate version and later as part of the Senate-House reconciliation . But as reader Avee comments, there remains in the bill massive amounts of funding for social initiatives that have nothing realistically to do with job creation. And the HIV funding was one of the first that was dropped (and from the original, totally larded-up House version), which is what I found to be telling.
Furthermore. Will the stimulus actually stimulate? Economists say no. And this, from Cato.
9 Comments for “Dems Find Something to Cut”
posted by Bobby on
$400 million for HIV prevention is a waste of money. Anyone who wants to prevent HIV can simply buy their condoms at CVS, Walgreens or Rite Aid. They’re not that expensive.
If Obama really wants to fix the economy, he needs to cut taxes in half, eliminate or reduce the capital gains tax, and encourage more oil drilling. OPEC has already announced more supply cuts, if the price of gas hits $3 or $4 a gallon, Americans will be hurting. They will keep driving, but they won’t go to the movies as often, they won’t eat out as often, they will sacrifice the things that keep this economy strong.
I hope Obama proves himself as a president. Looking presidential is not enough, in fact, I’d rather have a goober white-trash president that cuts my taxes than a sophisticated Harvard grad that gives pretty speeches. Pretty speeches don’t pay the mortgage.
posted by bls on
“The one area they would be prudent to surrender”?
Unless I’m greatly mistaken, about $150 billion was cut from the original bill. Looks like you’ve missed accounting for about $149.6 billion someplace. And someone I think there might have been, oh one or two other items cut.
Oh, I forgot. On the topic of the Democratic party, IGF doesn’t go in for rational discussion….
posted by Jorge on
$400 million for HIV prevention is a waste of money. Anyone who wants to prevent HIV can simply buy their condoms at CVS, Walgreens or Rite Aid. They’re not that expensive.
I love it. Soft-hearted Democrats finally seeing the light on law and order, sink or swim, social values living.
posted by Bobby on
Here’s an actual quote from a democrat:
“We have been guided by a republican administration who believes in this simplistic notion that people who have wealth are entitled to keep it.”
? Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.)”
—No Bls, don’t you think that rational and democrat are mutually exclusive. Maybe the democratic party should move to Cuba.
“I love it. Soft-hearted Democrats finally seeing the light on law and order, sink or swim, social values living.”
–I am not a soft-hearted democrat. I’m a conservative-libertarian republican.
posted by avee on
There remain in the bill massive amounts of funding for social initiatives that have nothing to do with job creation. The HIV funding was one of the first that was dropped, so Steve’s point has validity. And he’s not saying he approves of spending “stimulus” money on HIV — he’s saying it’s of interest that this is the first area in which the Democrats beat a hasty retrea.
posted by Jorge on
I was talking about the Democrats in Congress, Bobby.
posted by CPT_Doom on
The question isn’t whether HIV prevention programs are economic stimulus; of course they’re not. But then, neither is most of the spending in this monstrosity of a bill. And if it’s going to provide billions to fund other non-job creating liberal-left initiatives, such as research into global warming, along with giving billions to the states to spend on whatever they please (i.e., pork), then just why not HIV prevention?
I’ll be sure to tell my friends who do HIV prevention work for Whitman Walker Clinic here in DC and are facing layoffs that they never really had jobs in the first place. I’m sure they’ll be so much happier as they try to find a way to pay the bills.
I simply cannot believe how simplistic your statement is. Quite frankly, and I say this as an actual economist, ALL government spending is stimulus, just as all consumer spending, even for stuff you don’t like, helps drive the economy. I was nearly screaming at the television when the GOP started on things like repairing the National Mall as not being stimulus. Apparently if you sell grass seed or operate a landscaping firm, both needed to repair the damage to the Mall from the inauguration, your not really part of the economy, or don’t provide jobs for your employees, or something like that.
It is entirely reasonable to be concerned about the level of debt this stimulus bill will get us into, while at the same time realizing it would not be a problem at all if the Bush adminstration had followed sensible monetary and fiscal policy for the past 8 years, but alleging that any purchasing of goods and services is not stimulus is simply ignorant.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
As to whether the stimulus will stimulate, Steve says “economists say no,” ignoring the fact that the consensus of economists across the spectrum is yes. At least we aren’t being told again the phony story about $30M or $50M or $30B being spent to protect an endangered mouse.
Noam Scheiber at TNR has an interesting take.
posted by avee on
Richard, did you read the articles that Steve linked to? Clearly, it is a big lie that “economists across the spectrum” support the massive deficit spending bill. I can’t think of one Republican conservative economist who supports it. Obama can keep repeating this lie; it doesn’t make it so.