I found the president's State of the Union address leaving a lot to be desired. I do not think that a $370 billion dividend tax cut is the answer to jump- starting the economy. I do not think that the United States is in eminent danger from Iraq. Nor do I think that a paltry sum of research dollars thrown toward the development of hydrogen vehicles justifies new oil exploration in Alaska. There was something, however, that did garner my attention.
At the State of the Union Address, President Bush proposed $10 billion in new money to fight AIDS in Africa and the Caribbean over five years. The president's proposal far and away exceeded anything that has been proposed by any president, including William Jefferson Clinton.
Lord knows that America taking a substantive lead on fighting AIDS in Africa is long overdue. With 10 percent of the world's population, Africa harbors 70 percent of adults and 80 percent of children infected with HIV in the world. The United Nations projects that half or more of all 15 year olds will die of AIDS in the worst afflicted African nations-Botswana, Swaziland, Zambia, Zimbabwe, and South Africa.
"At last," I thought. Now that's leadership! The president is demonstrating a sampling of his famed "Compassionate Conservatism," which up to this point has been heavy on conservatism and light on compassion.
My excitement included contacting the office of Representative Barbara Lee (D-CA). Rep. Lee has been a leading advocate for fighting AIDS in Africa on Capitol Hill. I thought surely she would share in my excitement about the president's proposal to commit $10 billion of new money toward fighting AIDS in Africa and the Caribbean. But such was not the case.
Rep. Lee embraced the president's proposal with cautious optimism at best. Immediately following the president's State of Union Address, she issued the following: "Next week I will be examining the president's budget request very closely to determine where exactly the money is coming from, how it will be administered and who it is targeted for."
Rep. Lee's statement fell somewhat short of a ringing endorsement. Was this simply a case of a member of the opposition party finding it difficult to sing the praises of the president who has demonstrated support for an issue dear to her own heart?
As a rule, there is usually a divide between the sound bites at a State of the Union address that garners applause and accolades and what the president actually submits to Congress for its consideration. For this reason, Rep. Lee's comments border on prophetic.
It seems that the president's budget falls drastically short of the lofty goal of $10 billion of new money that turned everyone's head at the State of the Union. He is proposing a mere $550 million. In addition, he has found part of the money for his AIDS proposal by cutting nearly $500 million from the foreign aid budget of child health, including vaccine programs.
What began as a proposal that could make substantive difference in people's lives, is nothing more than a political slight of hand trick that offers only false choices. There are no false choices for those who stand to benefit from $370 billion in dividend tax cuts, new oil exploration in Alaska, or defense spending as the country prepares for war. Yet, the $10 billion of new AIDS funding at the State of the Union address in front of television cameras and millions around the world watching became $550 million by the time it reached Congress.
Prior to his State of the Union address, it has been almost astonishing to watch the president systematically moved the country toward war without demanding sacrifice of the American people.
But because of his proposed AIDS funding, the president believes that the battle against this disease in Africa is so critical that he is willing to ask the babies of the world, who live in impoverished areas, including Africa, to sacrifice their vaccinations in order to put an end to this tide of death and destruction.
Now that's leadership!