Woman with 14% approval rating: Bush is a total failure

Michelle Malkin  •  July 17, 2008 03:43 PM

The Left is cheering Senate reauthorization of the bipartisan global AIDS bill. Supported by President Bush and the Republicans, it triples spending on HIV/AIDS to $48 billion over five years–with $18 billion more in spending than Bush had requested.

Is this the right time to be heaping the world’s AIDS health care bill on American taxpayers? The White House and the Democrat leadership apparently think so.

“The US Senate has given a major boost to a program to combat AIDS and malaria around the world, voting to triple funding for a cause championed by President George W. Bush.

The Senate on Wednesday voted 80 to 16 to authorize $48 billion over the next five years - $18 billion dollars more than Bush had requested - for the program, which also includes funds to battle tuberculosis. ‘This bill will expand American leadership on global health and foster hope around the world. …’ said Paul Zeitz, Executive director of the Global AIDS Alliance. …” [Agence France Presse/Factiva]

AP adds that the statement “…said that when the program was launched in 2003, about 50,000 people in sub-Saharan Africa were receiving anti-retroviral treatment for HIV/AIDS. Today, the program supports lifesaving anti-retroviral treatment for more than 1.7 million people around the world, he said. It also has supported treatment and prevention programs that have helped HIV-positive women give birth to nearly 200,000 infants who are HIV-free. …

The bill passed by the House in April approved $50 billion, including $5 billion for malaria, $4 billion for tuberculosis and $41 billion for AIDS. Of the AIDS money, a proportion — $2 billion next year — would go to the international Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. Actual spending levels still have to be approved in annual appropriations bills.

Earlier Wednesday, the Senate, acceding to arguments that Congress must also address humanitarian issues closer to home, agreed to set aside $2 billion of the $50 billion for American Indian water, health and law enforcement projects. …” [The Associated Press/Factiva]

Also in the bill: a provision lifting the long-time HIV/AIDS travel ban.

Compassion comes at a steep cost. Sen. Jeff Sessions cites Congressional Budget Office estimates that the new AIDS/HIV-infected immigrants entering after the travel ban is lifted could cost the government more than $80 million over a 10-year period. And that’s just the start.

“Most people just don’t want to talk about that.”

Nope. Because you’ll risk getting called a bigot or homophobe for daring to bring it up.

***

Hans Bader at Openmarket.org shakes his head at warped priorities (make sure to click through to the post for lots of links):

U.S. immigration law is full of contradictions. On the one hand, U.S. immigration laws keep out skilled immigrants who would help our economy, by sharply limiting the number of H-1B visas, and making legal immigration a very difficult and lengthy process. (Economists overwhelmingly support allowing more skilled immigrants to come to the U.S.)

Yet, simultaneously, Congress has just voted to repeal a ban on AIDS-infected people becoming permanent residents of the U.S., even though the Congressional Budget Office says doing so will cost taxpayers many millions of dollars. Health care costs associated with AIDS often exceed $100,000 per person per year. Permanent residents, like citizens, can be eligible for Medicaid, as well as the many taxpayer-subsidized health-care programs aimed specifically at people with AIDS. (We wrote earlier about the counterproductive effects of some taxpayer-funded AIDS programs overseas).

Meanwhile, an amnesty for illegal aliens is likely in the next Congress, which will have a bigger liberal majority than the current one.

Crikey.

***

Update: Sen. Jon Kyl’s statement…

“I supported PEPFAR when it was authorized five years ago, and because of its success, I would have voted to extend the original funding and policy for another five years. I could have even considered doubling the original authorization to $30 billion as the President requested, but the level of funding provided in this bill was far too excessive for me to support.

“The bill also made a number of bad changes to existing PEPFAR policy, like removing the requirement that at least 55 percent of the money actually goes to the treatment of AIDS patients rather than to corrupt governments.

“The dramatic increase in funding will also come at a time when Americans are feeling pain at the gas pump, in the housing market, and at the grocery store. Is this really the time to ask Americans to spend $48 billion more on foreign aid? Congress must be mindful of its obligations to American citizens before it funds multi-billion dollar programs abroad.

“For the United States to have the resources to continue funding its responsibilities to its citizens and to help others around the globe, we need a strong economy that creates wealth. I can think of a lot of other things we could do with part of the $48 billion to improve our economy so that we would be better able to help others in the future.”

Update 10:00pm: Tons of readers are asking me why my colleagues at Fox won’t just play the entire tape and let viewers decide for themselves whether it’s newsworthy. I’m with you guys. I have no idea why they feel so compelled to cover Jesse Jackson’s backside. It’s not like he’ll ever return the favor–and judging from my e-mail, the decision to withhold the tape is annoying the hell out of Fox’s loyal viewers who have stuck with the “We report, you decide” network. I feel your pain.

Example from Jack in West Va.: “As a loyal FNC viewer, I can’t understand why Fox won’t play the entire Jesse Jackson tape in order to corroborate his use of the N-word. I feel Jackson’s hypocrisy is very newsworthy!”

Hey, remember when Jesse Jackson called for a boycott of Seinfeld DVDs to protest Kramer actor Michael Richard’s use of the n-word? The rev-uh-rund had a conniption fit over the word and demanded that everyone refrain from using the word onstage and off.

Refresher:

In the last week, Richards has become better known for hurling the N-word at black hecklers after attempting a lynching joke during the same riff and, later, for apologizing—or trying to, anyway.

“My best friends were African-Americans,” Richards said Sunday on Jackson’s Premiere Radio Network show.

The Jackson gig was the latest in Richards’ reaching-out effort to African-American men who have run for president. Before the radio appearance, the actor was said to have placed contrite phone calls to Jackson and the Reverend Al Sharpton. There was no word if Alan Keyes, a 1996 and 2000 Republican presidential candidate, was sought out.

On his show, Jackson said he hoped the Richards “crisis” would create an opportunity.

On Monday, the civil-rights leader joined others in calling on everyone—blacks, whites, Seinfeld players, presumably included—to refrain from using the N-word, on stage and off.

“Its roots are rooted in hatred and pain and degradation,” Jackson told a Los Angeles press conference. “And whether it’s hatred toward African-Americans or whether it’s self-hatred, a concession toward it is still wrong.”

Wrong–except when he uses it himself:

JACKSON: “Barack…he’s talking down to black people…telling n—s how to behave.”

N-word for me, but not for thee, eh, Jesse?

Allahpundit has your Absolute Moral Authority update.

Getting back on message after the New Yorker “lynching,” Barack Obama is refocusing on us right-wing rabble-rousers.

Or in his words: “Fox News and the National Review and columnists of every ilk.”

Present and accounted for!

Yep, he’s whining to Glamour magazine–the print equivalent of, oh, Access Hollywood, about us meanies who listen to his bitter half on the campaign trail and hold her accountable for her public statements.

Curses on us!

On a separate front, Obama’s minions at MoveOn are gathering signatures to protest the “racist” “smears” against the holy couple. (Background: Anti-Fox hounds rally ’round Michelle O.”)

Just underscores my point about trying to appease the un-appease-able Left.

Why bother?

Heart-ache: Hasselbeck reduced to tears by dopey N-word discussion

Thanks to oil prices that have reached record levels, proponents of increased exploration in the U.S. have gained an upper hand in the debate over whether to drill in previously untapped areas.

Read Full Article

Furthermore, the law of comparative advantage states very clearly that as economic actors all, we should let others labor to make for us what doesn't maximize our profitable talents, so that we have time to pursue work that does.

Thanks to trade over the years that's mostly been free, Americans have long done just that. While we could surely be "independent" when it comes to producing clothes, televisions and cars, we've often allowed foreigners to make those products so that we would have time to build the Googles and Microsofts of the world. A better, more enriching deal in terms of trade would be hard to fathom.

Indeed, what's been forgotten is that even in good times, the oil business is not a very good one. While oil companies presently enjoy returns of 8.3 cents in gross profit per dollar of sales, firms in the electronics and computer equipment sectors respectively make 14.5 cents and 13.7 cents per dollar.

Former antitrust miscreant Microsoft earns 27.5 cents per dollar of sales. In short, even if the rules regarding drilling were liberalized, it's hard to imagine many Americans deserting the cushier margins earned in other industries for the relatively mundane returns offered from oil exploration.

Instead, it could credibly be said that we have an even better deal at present whereby we send weakened dollars overseas in return for oil. Some say this enervates our wealth position, but more realistically it enriches us. With all dollars eventually returning to these shores, the money we spend on a product offering low margins frequently comes back as investment in even higher-value ventures.

Whether oil is found in the Middle East, Canada or Alaska is immaterial. It's only wealth if it's sold, and once the oil reaches the marketplace, there's no accounting for its final destination. Americans will bid for oil alongside the rest of the world, and even if future discoveries make us "independent," our demand will occur in concert with worldwide demand on the way to a world price.

To engage in talk about where oil originates is to make a distinction without a difference. To implement a singularly American energy policy run by Americans would be to ignore simple economics on the way to sub-optimal use of what is limited human capital.

Despite worsening economic conditions and a news backdrop that supposedly favors Democrats, presumed Republican standard-bearer John McCain remains only 3 points behind rival Barack Obama in the latest IBD/TIPP Poll.

Read Full Article

Read Full Article

Next week, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will rule on an application from NuScale Power, an Oregon-based startup that is seeking federal clearance to move ahead with its project to build mini or portable nuclear reactors.

Popular Mechanics quotes NuScale as saying that if its design is approved, it will begin tests with the hope of getting final approval a few years from now. Should the process go smoothly, the mini reactors could go online by 2015.

While neighborhood-friendly mini nuclear plants could displace a large number of traditional coal- and gas-fired power plants, they would be especially useful in remote areas where fossil fuels are used to run generators.

They also would make it unnecessary to burn large amounts of gasoline and diesel to transport other fossil fuels to these isolated outposts.

Read Full Article

Read Full Article

'Energy has enormous implications for our economy, our environment and our national security," President Bush said in proposing the plan. "We cannot let another year go by without addressing these issues together in a comprehensive and balanced package."

That was in June 2001 — more than seven years ago.

Yet, those proposals went nowhere — not approved in 2001, not in 2002, not in 2003, not ever. Bush tried repeatedly to get something through Congress. He pleaded. He tried to cut deals with Democrats. It didn't work.

A New York Times headline from August 20, 2003, sums it up: "Ambitious Bush Plan Is Undone by Energy Politics."

That's an understatement. Instead, Democrats ridiculed Vice President Cheney for meeting with oil industry representatives to craft U.S. energy policy — and for insisting on finding more oil.

Feds release almost 4 million acres in Alaska for drilling

According to the New York Times, the field could contain as much as 3.7 billion barrels of oil.  It could start producing oil by 2010, far shorter than the seven years that opponents of drilling claim for both off-shore and interior use.  The added production will also help shore up the Alaskan pipeline, which has to have a minimum level of oil flowing in order to keep it from freezing in the winter.

Oil prices have tumbled the last two days since Bush lifted the executive order.  The price on a barrel of oil fell more than $10, the largest such reduction in almost 20 years.   Analysts in the media claim that the prices have fallen due to “demand destruction” and the fears of a long economic slowdown in the US, in which less energy will get expended.  However, that doesn’t take into account the rising demand from China and India, which is expected to grow — and so a lack of American demand doesn’t make a lot of sense as the reason for the sharp drop.  The markets may have begun to factor in more American production — and more moves to open resources in the US could add to the momentum.

Are the media airbrushing Obama’s speeches?

In the tank: Worshipping media to follow Obama around the world

Basic right of self-defense restored in Britain