"So, when Dems reclaimed the majority, they planned to set things right and stop funding abstinence programs that don’t work. The religious right, particularly Dobson’s Focus on the Family, has been raising all kinds of hell about the decision, but Democratic appropriators made clear weeks ago that funding for abstinence-only programs would expire — and there would be no more funding.
"That is, until last night, when CQ reported that Dems are trying a different funding strategy that would increase money for these ineffective programs.
Lawmakers say the olive branch extended to Republicans
increases the likelihood that the bill will pass the House with
a veto-proof majority. It also sends a strong signal that
Appropriations Chairman David R. Obey, D-Wis., will
avoid controversial social policy changes this year in
the interest of moving bills. […]
The administration has said the president will veto spending
bills that exceed his request, but Bush may not have the votes
in Congress to back up his threat. “When it leaves the House,
it may leave with insufficient ‘no’ votes to sustain a veto,”
said subcommittee member Dave Weldon, R-Fla., who supports
abstinence-only education.
The abstinence program money could also provide political
cover to centrist Democrats made vulnerable to conservatives’
attacks by their leadership’s decision to let the mandatory
pool dry up.
Liberal Democrats said they could live with compromising
on abstinence-only education, which they generally oppose,
if it means paving the way for more spending on domestic
programs they favor.
Got that? Dems put together a spending bill for domestic priorities, which the White House wasn’t going to like. Instead of backing down from their agenda, Dems decided they needed some Republican votes — so they put back the abstinence money.
The end result, at least in theory, is that the support for the spending measures will be so strong, Bush will either back down or Dems will be able to override a veto.
Great idea? I’m not so sure.
Bill Scher wrote what I was thinking.
If this compromise goes through, more kids will continue
to be [misinformed] about sex, damaging our public health.
There is logic to the saying: pick your battles. But this is a
good battle to pick — showing the new Congress knows
when a government program doesn’t work and doesn’t
deserve funding.
If congressional leaders want to build trust for ideas
where government funds are critical, they need to show
they know the difference between good and bad
government.
"Sounds right to me.
Found on Cursor.org
No comments:
Post a Comment