Improving Relations with Africa
The US Senate has passed a Foreign Relations Aid Package, that increases the amount of money available for AIDS/HIV treatment in Africa. In fact they have basically TRIPLED the amount, and expect it will not be sidetracked by either the House of Representatives or the White House. This new package throws $50 Billion towards African Countries, for treatment of Malaria, TB, and AIDS. With $41 Billion being designated for AIDS/HIV treatment.
The 80-16 vote committed the United States to spending up to $48 billion over the next five years for the most ambitious foreign public health program ever launched by the United States. (source – MSNBC News)
$2 Billion of the funds allocated are going to a domestic program, for Native Health, Water, & Law Enforcement programs.
See, this bugs me, because I think too many ‘add ons‘ are what derails most of the legislation before Congress. Now don’t get me wrong, I am not objecting to the funds being allocated, simply that why is it tacked onto another bill, that is basically Foreign Aid?
So when the Republicans campaign this fall, will they tout how the Democratic Congress has over spent on Foreign Aid, citing this $50 Billion Bill? If so, will they clearly note that $2 Billion is for Domestic Policies? Or will they claim that they encouraged the spending domestically to help Natives by listing the Fifty Billion Dollar Bill or the Two Billion?
Will the Voter remember that this bill isn’t just about AIDS/HIV spending as well?
I just don’t understand why a specific issue should become part of something else. Like why is Native Health, Water, & Law Enforcement programs being added onto the Foreign Aid Package? Is it that they wouldn’t pass it? I mean it is like the Mathew Shepard Act, that has passed but hasn’t been made Law, because it keeps being tacked onto other bills, that get VETOED or it gets withdrawn so the other bill WON’T GET VETOED.
If a bill fails, then the Voter knows the reason. It is either because one or the other parties failed to support it, and that is important to note. It shouldn’t be that Republicans fail to support a bill like say the War Spending Bill, that had the Mathew Shepard Bill attached, but are able to claim that it isn’t they are against protecting Queers, just that they weren’t about to let the Democrats conduct the War in Iraq.
It is a fair argument to make, though we all know that isn’t the case. So why do both sides insist on adding stuff to bills, that simply aren’t related?
