Waymon,

I hope that you weren't surprised at this. The Bush administration has been nothing if not hypocritical on virtually every issue relating to HIV/AIDS and to the LGBT community.

He has been an unmitigated disaster from day one.

Meanwhile, LGBT activists continue to engage in the usual intramural bloodletting trying to prove who's politics is purer.

My own understanding is that US programs have not been "slashed" so much as flat-lined, meaning funding has not kept up with inflation which amounts to reductions. Per “The New York Times,” “spending for U.S. domestic prevention efforts dropped 19 percent in inflation-adjusted terms from 2002 to 2007.”

And while I agree that Bush fils is a heinous villain in this area as so many others, I'm less concerned about the HIV+ immigration ban, reprehensible as it is, than the disastrous effect of his policies on people around the world who, in their fondest dreams, would never have the chance to come to the US even if there were no ban.

Specifically, I refer to the abstinence/anti condom policies at the core of his much vaunted PEPFAR program. Even the “liberal” “NY Times” sent Bush an early valentine a few weeks ago about how wonderful it’s been, including a kiss from that now-shell of a once great man, John Kerry. They repeat the math error typically involved in praising Republicans: it’s only good in contrast to how much bad came before. And even they must acknowledge that Bush has indicated no change in the structure which requires that ONE THIRD of the money must be spent to “teach” abstinence, and that “Much of the money has been channeled through American religious-based organizations.” An acquaintance of mine who has worked in HIV/AIDS programs at both the state and federal level blames Bush fils, because of those policies, for more preventable AIDS deaths around the world than even Reagan.

How wrong-headed is it? For those less familiar with it, there is no greater indicator than the fact that Brazil turned down $40 million in US funding because they had already seen great results from condom-use education and refused to backtrack on it.

So what of the Dem candidates' positions going forward? I hope anyone with better understanding of funding timelines will comment, e.g., though PEPFAR expires this month, is there still money available until Congress passes an extensions/revision?

Two things are clear, the Dems would eliminate the abstinence-only/anti condom provisions, and, at least two of them, radically increase funding even beyond that requested by Bush. The plan just now expired allocated $15 billion over five years which was far too little. Gay Republicans are still blowing kisses at him for requesting to double that to $30 billion over the next five years—still too little given that 33 million are now infected with HIV and, of those, 2.5 million were NEWLY infected last year alone, and, again, the effects of inflation.

There are links below to the HIV/AIDS plans of the top Dems. Frankly, I haven’t had time yet to read them closely [Clinton’s is 8 pages; Edwards’ 5; Obama’s 3], but from a quick scan it appears that Edwards and Clinton would increase that funding to $50 billion or $4 billion more per year than proposed while Obama seems to speak only of an additional $1 billion a year.

http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/health-care/hiv-aids/

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4392

www.kaisernetwork.org/election2008/OBAMAFactSheetAIDSFINAL.pdf

Well, there's nothing Bush can do that wouldn't look like a publicity stunt. It's all he's done his entire presidency...

The sham of American politics! Look into the abyss, Mr. Bush, for that is your legacy!

Waymon, thanks for pointing this out!

And Michael, for filling in the gaps.

I remember when Bush gave his first speech on global HIV, promising increased funding. I basically thought at the time, "I'm sure as hell not holding my breath for him to follow through on this one."

What a twisted, hypocritical liar he is.