Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama Breaks Campaign Promise on AIDS
WASHINGTON - U.S. President Barack Obama's failure to lift a federal funding ban on syringe exchange -- a policy that allows intravenous drug users to swap used needles for clean ones -- is a blow to AIDS-prevention efforts, says a global health group.
AIDS activists rally in support of US President Barack Obama in Washington, DC., last November. President Obama's failure to lift a federal funding ban on syringe exchange -- a policy that allows intravenous drug users to swap used needles for clean ones -- is a blow to AIDS-prevention efforts, says a global health group.
(AFP/Paul J. Richards) Although Obama pledged on the campaign trail to overturn the federal ban on funding for syringe exchange, he refrained from doing so in his proposed 2010 budget. "Providing clean syringes is proven to be one of the most effective public health interventions since the polio vaccine," said Jennifer Flynn, managing director of Health Global Access Project (GAP). "It is clear that it works, but yet, we now have to wait for Congress to act to have the freedom to use every possible resource to make it widely available." (See Health GAP's full statement below.)
Overall, U.S. health advocates were extremely disappointed by the health provisions in the president's 2010 budget, unveiled yesterday. "Our analysis of the information provided by the White House today show that the president's FY10 global health budget essentially flat-lines support for global health and ignores the president's campaign promises to fully fund PEPFAR (the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief) and to provide a fair-share contribution to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB [tuberculosis], and Malaria," said Paul Zeitz, executive director of the Global AIDS Alliance. "This proposal is even worse than we had feared," added Christine Lubinski, director of the Center for Global Health Policy. "With this spending request, Obama has broken his campaign promise to provide 1 billion dollars a year in new money for global AIDS, and he has overlooked the growing threat of tuberculosis."
Just after Obama's election, AIDS activists spoke of high hopes for a renewed U.S. commitment to fighting the disease. Last month, however, a U.S. health care foundation said Obama's first official plan to fight domestic HIV/AIDS "falls far short" of what is needed to confront the growing epidemic. The $45 million media campaign, launched in early April, aims to raise awareness about domestic HIV/AIDS over the next five years. "If this proposal is any indication of how President Obama and his Administration intend to address the AIDS epidemic domestically or globally, we are deeply disappointed," said Michael Weinstein, president of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation.
* * *
PRESIDENT BREAKS ANOTHER CAMPAIGN PROMISE
From: Health Global Access Project (GAP)
Federal Ban on Funding for Syringe Exchange Remains in Budget
Washington, DC -- President Obama's budget does not follow through on one of his key campaign commitments - to lift the ban on federal funding for syringe access. Before and since taking office, President Obama has repeatedly asserted his support for syringe exchange programs. This latest disappointment comes on the heels of a newly announced six-year global health initiative that would actually reduce spending on global AIDS by $6.6 billion.
"Providing clean syringes is proven to be one of the most effective public health interventions since the polio vaccine. It is clear that it works, but yet, we now have to wait for Congress to act to have the freedom to use every possible resource to make it widely available," said Jennifer Flynn, Managing Director of Health GAP. Flynn lost a family member in 2005 to hepatitis C contracted from sharing used syringes. "If needle exchange programs were around when my cousin was injecting heroin, he would be alive today. President Obama could have done something simple to save lives. Now Congress needs to take action," she continued.
Jeff Crowley, national AIDS czar, said that the "President doesn't think policy should be done in the budget process." However, the federal ban on funding syringe exchange is housed in each annual appropriations bill, and must be removed from there to allow federal funds to go to these lifesaving programs. Removing the language would allow syringe exchange to be included in the HIV prevention toolkit, and as a result, HIV infections would be reduced. Crowley continued to say that syringe access will be discussed during the National AIDS Strategy. When asked for the time frame of this plan, he said that they are working on it as we speak and did not commit to a final due date. "When you are dealing with the containing the spread of a deadly virus, and you know something works, you don't need to wait for a "strategy" as well. Taking your time to develop a National AIDS Strategy is no excuse for NOT implementing lifesaving public policy now. Furthermore by NOT taking action, President Obama did set policy on this issue. The right thing to do is to remove the ban in the budget so that we can discuss using federal funds for this lifesaving program," said Kaytee Riek, Director of Organizing for Health GAP.
The federal ban on syringe access does not formally apply to programs outside of the United States, but under the previous administration, the ban became policy for foreign aid funding as well. That has meant that countries receiving funding from US-supported programs fighting AIDS could not use it to pay for syringe access programs.
"It is sad that my President broke his campaign promise by leaving the funding ban in the budget. Congress must now act and lift the funding ban when they take up the budget next week." said Jose DeMarco, Health GAP Board member, long-time member of ACT UP Philadelphia and founder of Proyecto Sol Filadelphia.
44 Comments so far
Show AllAfter breaking most campaign promises than the last 4 Presidents put together and playing obviously corrupt political games such as threatening California with the loss of 7 billion dollars if they lowered the wages of Andy Sterns health care workers (OK to lower the others, but not his Union buddies members) and getting ready to betray the American Worker and people later in the year with his business amnesty, I fail to see why another broken promise or another lie is big news.
What other campaign promises do you think he's broken?
Transparency, no more earmarks, no lobbyists in the Whitehouse or his administration, no more political payoffs, bi-parttisanship...crushed under foot in the first "stimulas" bill, to stamp out corruption and cronyism......
There are plenty. How many of our kids has he brought home from Iraq?
None, so far. He is sending more over there.
Was I ever wrong about him. Perhaps my sister has the right idea - elections no longer count in this country. We only have one political party and they are all owned by the corporations.
I cetainly can't argue with a lady!
I don't know as if elections ever really counted in this country.
Some of the feminists who first campaigned for women's suffrage were criticized by others who felt that trying to gain the right to vote would do nothing to change women's place in society as voting was a charade created to make people feel like they have power and cement their loyalty to a system that benefits only a few.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" -Epicurus
Exactly. Only a massive shift to a Kucinich or Nader with a new party banner will work for the people. And even then, term limits would be required to keep up the rotation so the bribers would be priced out of the market.
Hold him to his actual promises. He never campaigned to eliminate earmarks, he campaigned to eliminate wasteful spending, reform the earmark system, and cut them in half I believe. What political payoffs are you talking about? UAW? Their health benefit money it getting poured into stocks for Chrysler. You think they wanted that? Bipartisanship is completely bullshit, the conservatives want to do nothing but continue their Bush-era policies and ignore our real problems and you know that. Want to know the GOP alternative to cap and trade? An energy bill that COMPLETELY IGNORES CARBON! Doesn't even bring it up as an issue. How are you supposed to compromise with fools like that?
According to PolitiFact, the only promise you mentioned that he's broken has been the lobbyist issue.
You should follow them here:
http://www.politifact.com/
truth-o-meter/promises/
"Hold him to his actual promises. He never campaigned to eliminate earmarks"
He can't eliminate earmarks, he doesn't have that power. He said he would not sign a bill containing earmarks. Specifically. That was his promise. I heard it specifically. Its one of the reasons I decided to vote for him. He specifically vowed to wait 5 days before signing any bill to give time for public comment on it. Specifically said.
Political payoffs? See above....threatning California with that was a direct pay
off to Andy Stern. Seems fairly "transparent" to me. Removing the two laws to favor Unions just happened? Did you miss the staffing hires from LaRaza and other place.
"UAW? Their health benefit money it getting poured into stocks for Chrysler. You think they wanted that?s?"
Considering their only other alternative? Probably.
As to Cap and Trade we don't agree. Its a transparent tax proposal that benefits business, raises new taxes and guess who pays those new taxes? Not business. It hasn't worked anywhere its been tried. Its simply passed off as a cure dressed up in Enviornmental frock. I've been around far too long to be fooled by something like this. Any claim that it will have an effect on our emissions is false.
I don't believe that all conservatives have horns as you do and since they outnumber us greatly it might be a good idea not to keep giving them the shovels to bury us with. But I can't argue about the BS bill they put up.
A mans word is either good or it is not.
Here's another.... http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/jan/29/obama-first-broken-promise/
"Political payoffs? See above....threatning California with that was a direct pay
off to Andy Stern."
I saw that mentioned at Fox Biz at work last week but don't really know many details about it. And I'm not about to take their word on something political. Do you have more info?
"Removing the two laws to favor Unions just happened?"
The counterclaim to this is that the Bush administration added in a new rule to force regular level workers of a union, not just executives which already had to do this, to detail their tax returns as much as the executives did. That doesn't seem fair at all to me, and if true, then I totally support removing those regulations.
"Did you miss the staffing hires from LaRaza and other place. "
Yes, I did miss this. What are you referring to?
I got that from my Sister in Law in California who now dates (brother died) a States attorney. When I checked it out, that is what the Feds told California. And it was only those Union employees that it applied to.
Seems fair to me that e very Union employee should have to disclose everything. Too much corruption ihe past. But you could be right.
Shouldn't have put the last under broken promises. He made it quite clear he would stand with business just as Bush did on Amnesty. I view it as a broken promise in not defending our Constitution and its laws and a betrayal of all Americans, but most importantly a betrayal of the American Worker. I still have hopes he will not do this.
But.....what about the promise to not take private donations for the election?
"But.....what about the promise to not take private donations for the election?"
Ummm...his campaign was ENTIRELY privately funded, remember, he declined to use public funds. I assume you mean he wouldn't take money from PACs or lobbyists, at least I think that's what he said, there are too many ways to funnel money in campaigns that I'm note sure. I don't really know if he kept his promise about that, but that was for running his campaign, not anything that would apply to his presidency.
He and McCain both promised to take only the Federally povided funds. That was his first campaign promise. He immediately broke it. I view it as another measure of the man. I guess you could technically say it wasn't broken during his Presidency.
Be lieve me, I was hoping against hope, but all I see coming is a one term Presidency and one year of grandiose plans that will come to little. A lot of debt that will hinder us and some non-sensical pursuits. Thats my view now . Maybe this guy will prove me wrong, maybe human nature has changed and people will do things detrimental to their own best interests. I doubt it.
"his campaign was ENTIRELY privately funded, remember"
That was the biggest line of crap this entire election. If you consider all those Wall Street executives maxing out contributions to the Obama campaign to be somehow different from the bank companies themselves then yes it was 'privately' funded but if you step back you'd realized that there really is no difference whether the check is signed by the CEO or by the corporation.
Unless we have a publicly funded campaign system or one where only personal funds can be used the corporations will always buy the show.
What would be better is a limit on donations per person that a modest American can afford. Ordinary people can't afford to give, what, the limit is about 5k per election, half in primary, half in general election? But ordinary people can afford to give 1-200 total. Then Wall Street could go screw itself.
"As to Cap and Trade we don't agree. Its a transparent tax proposal that benefits business, raises new taxes and guess who pays those new taxes? Not business. It hasn't worked anywhere its been tried. Its simply passed off as a cure dressed up in Enviornmental frock. I've been around far too long to be fooled by something like this. Any claim that it will have an effect on our emissions is false."
Thank you Thomas. I'll probably get called a "looney libertarian" for saying this but I think that instead of cap and trade which looks more like a venture capitalist idea having studied the basics of Finance to know this one, a better idea would be to allow farmers across the country their rights to grow hemp and algae for biocrude and allow locally green economies to develop and grow. Your state of TX is a stronger candidate for growing algae for oil than CA though FL might be an even stronger candidate since it's hotter there. Hemp can almost replace petroleum except on certain plastics and other items which require light sweet crude oil but algae can be grown anywhere as well to produce the chemical equivilant of light sweet crude oil. In both cases of hemp and algae, the result is carbon neutral fuel from what a biologist has informed me and she explained and proved to me that decentralizing the operation will help revive even the most rust-belt battered rurals in the country. What do we have to lose when, unlike corn, hemp and algae do not take up as much farmland and can even be grown on waste?
JenniferBedingfield
But you are right Jennifer.
And since China is adding the equal to one America each year in coal burning power plants, the very idea is an insult to any ones intelligence. WE won't mention India or the rest of Asia.
Look no farther than the elites ideal...Europe...to see how silly the idea is.
I like Europe's public transportation infrastructure although I know that getting the same here in the US is a long shot. The inner cities generally have poor service, the suburbs are tough to get the services approved since people love their gas guzzlers and their typical NIMBY (Not-in-my-backyard) attitude, and don't even think about the rurals. As for China burning coal, well what else are they going to use to manufacture all that clothing and plastics that rely on light sweet crude oil and coal even if it turns their farmlands into sludge lands? If they turned to algae oil and hemp, the price of those "cheap" Chinese imports would go way up the roof even if they were still being worked as slaves. If last year was any indication, Peak Oil and/or Peak Coal will certainly put an end to China's already unstable economy. Of course, I don't think they'll let us go quietly unless we can pay it all up. If India and the neighboring Arab nations get to be just as aggressive as China as far as capitalism is concerned, I fear the worst blackout this country will endure for at least a millennium.
I would just point out as to Europes infrastructure how small they are in comparison to us and how different our cities are laid out.
We have plenty of energy resources here in the US , more than enough to take care of ourselves. If we care to tap them.
Why should we care about salvaging Big Auto or even UAW anyway? Why not let it collapse so that smaller and local auto businesses can have a chance for a change? I'd like to see the union workers work in those smaller businesses with their skills and possible creativity and innovative skills where they can get credit for putting for newer and better technologies than Big Auto treating them like shit.
One of my cousins when he was young dreamt of inventing a better car and wanted to get to work on it but thanks to our Corporate Mafia that Big Auto has become, he wouldn't stand a snowball's chance because they'd either buy out his patents, sue him till he's broke, try to falsely accuse him of stealing their technology, etc ... Thanks to our messed up system, all he's gotten to being is just a mere car mechanic even after graduating with a bachelor's degree in physics. His being known as a quality driven mechanic has helped him keep his job and he'll even tolerate the pay and benefits buts he has had to put up with but if Big Auto would just be allowed to collapse, then there won't be as many innovative and creative thinkers having to suffer the same fate as my cousin.
As for the carbon issue, cap-and-trade still sounds more like it's about money more than the environment. See my reply to Thomas.
jennifer b., growing stuff surely beats oil/coal/nuclear any day, but would you have a similar problem w/hemp & algae that you have w/biofuels (corn, etc.)? not the problem that they are hyped out the whazoo, but that they displace land from food production.
i've heard a lot about the wonders of hemp, but don't know much about it (though the fact that our gov't makes growing it illegal certainly makes me suspicious. of our gov't's motives, that is).
i ask b/c i've believed for a long time that a BIG part of our energy problem is simply the West's (esp. the US) refusal to reduce consumption & use. and assume that any position that doesn't 1ST address that fact is probably shilling for some sector of our economy making billions off of our wastefulness (wal mart, shell, whoever).
they are all related of course. reducing/stopping say oil/nuclear consumption will help fish populations, but the world is still going to have to eat less fish, no?
I'm not saying that we should guzzle. In fact, by supporting better bio sources such as hemp and algae, not only will it all be decentralized and localized but consumption reduction will automatically be enforced because no longer will we be able to take fossil fuels for granted. This also would result in forcing the creation and invention of more fuel efficient but better performance transportation that Big Oil/Auto/Coal has been desperately hiding from us. Think of it as hitting two birds with one stone. In the case that hemp and algae don't work out as expected, then my apologies. However, there's nothing to lose by trying it out. We've tried out "cap and trade" already and so far the results are lackluster.
Obama's full of double speak, blatant bullshit. The man stands for nothing far as I see.
Everything he's done is mere window dressing. Once you scratch the surface, nothing's changed.
Hard to believe, but he's really looking like Bush's third term with each passing day.
Some of the bullshit or broken promises that immediately come to mind:
1) Out of Iraq in 16 months, 19 months, well not sure anymore.
2) No raises for gov't workers, except the 1.8 billion dollars for the workers who did get raises.
3) Holding everyone accountable, nobody is above the law.
Unless you worked for the Bush administration or spied for Israel.
Those crimes were committed "in the past" so to move forward they will not be pursued. Sweet.
4) End of secrecy, full transparency.
Where to begin? In nearly 100% of the Bush DOJ cases, Obama's DOJ has followed the exact same line. Zero trnasparency on the trillions doled out to bankers.
The Imperial Executive still stands. They are full of excuses, delay tactics, and economic hogwash. Still, no regulations on the financial sector, and we're approaching the one year mark since the Paulson/Goldman Sachs coup.
5) Closing Gitmo within a year, has changed to rethinking the Military Tribunal rather than trying all detainees in US courts. There are about 100 of the "worst". Like keeping the most tortured silent.
6) We will not torure ever again, unless we have to per Leon Panetta. There's also the 650 people in Bagram, which according the ICRC makes Gitmo look like the Riviera.
7) Promised big time to make sure bankruptcy laws would be changed to allow struggling homeowners to stay in their homes, but Obama was totally MIA before Congress voted on cram down legislation last week. His complete silence on that legislation was a true test of Obama's integrity.
He obviously has none.
"Transparency, no more earmarks, no lobbyists in the Whitehouse or his administration, no more political payoffs, bi-parttisanship...crushed under foot in the first "stimulas" bill, to stamp out corruption and cronyism......"
This is just vague rhetoric, not actually policy positions. However, he certainly fulfilled his "bipartisan" promise.
Actually, it seemed fairly specific to me. No usually means no.
Well, I understand what you mean but there's a ton of loopholes, caveats, and "read the fine print..."
As in "I've banned torture" or "I've closed Guantanamo" - sounds clear and specific - but read the fine print, and you realize that both statements don't mean what they appear to mean. Or, for example, his Iraq withdrawal plan was sold to the public as "16 months" but he was always careful to suggest that it might take longer (i.e phased withdrawal vs. precipitous withdrawal, "listening to commanders on the ground", residual forces, etc...)
Therefore, like a magic trick performed with all the charm of a Bush-era lawyer, he can claim no broken promises. Even though the public definitely thought they had elected someone else, some less like Bush, someone at least somewhat less of a warmonger. Oh well. Too bad.
But you are right, he has also broken promises - earmarks, government raises etc...
If US combat troops aren't out of Iraqi cities by June, that will be a big broken promise. And it will happen if we proceed with plans to lock down the country for elections in December. Never mind that "left wing" war supporters like Juan Cole apologetically refer to it as a an "exception" (at the guest discussion he participated in on FireDogLake), in reality, it will be a giant broken promise.
However, phrases like "end of secrecy, full transparency", "stamping out corruption", "no one is above the law", are pretty much meaningless due to the many ways they can be interpreted.
With regard to bipartisanship Obama offered this illuminating statement back in a 1996 interview in which he sounded skeptical of President Bill Clinton’s efforts to reach across the aisle:
“On the national level, bipartisanship usually means Democrats ignore the needs of the poor and abandon the idea that government can play a role in issues of poverty, race discrimination, sex discrimination or environmental protection,” Pretty funny, right?
I think what Obama and the media did (more than breaking promises) was encourage people to remain ignorant of what he actually stood for.
As he once wrote, "I serve as a blank screen, on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views. ..."
I don't think anyone could have said it better.
Gotcha! I agree, its a matter of parsing.
The most obvious one is change.
Obama Breaks Campaign Promise on AIDS
_____________________________________
Breaks campaign promise? Oh, no-- surely, you jest!
Obama doesn't "break promise(s)"!
Oh, he may MODIFY, he may "WALK BACK", he may TEMPORIZE, he may CLARIFY, he may CONCEDE, he may DEFER, he may COMPROMISE, he may EXAGGERATE, he may RECONSIDER... but "break"?
That is SO unfair!
· Yr Obd't Servant
wow. not suprised, more medievalist/puritanical thinking from the gov't. hmmm...which is more expensive, a clean needle or condom, or HIV or pregnancy?
"what other campaign promises has he broken"? well, sense he fudged on a lot of stuff, and as he said in his book, the braggadocio of false expectations, everybody projects their aspirations onto his calculated vacuity, no, he probably has not literally "broken a lot of campaign promises."
but if he's fulfilling your general expectations of a populist leader, clearly you must be on the board of AIG.
Okay, am I the only one that laughed at the juxtaposition of NEWS - OBAMA BREAKS CAMPAIGN PROMISE...?
At the rate Obama is going, I wouldn't be surprised if he names a former Ku Klux Klan member to the supreme court.
This government is for the corporations, period. If they really wanted to level the playing field, they would have a progressive tax based on your carbon footprint. The poor could even sell a portion of their low footprint to a rich, high foot print person. Now that would be cap and trade for real. The stuff being peddled as improvements and global warming action is all a bunch of cosmetic crap.
While Obama has shown immense compassion and stunning generosity towards the hard-pressed Wall Street billionaires, his concern for the world's poorest, for drug users at risk of HIV, and for Afghans, Pakistanis, Iraqis and Palestinians has been inconsequential. In reaction to massive public outrage and threats of prosecution he did officially ban torture, but still refuses Geneva Convention and Constitutional due process rights to military detainees, most of whom have eventually been determined by the military itself to be innocent. He even goes so far as the praise torturers and murderers as dedicated public servants who acted in good faith, and to vow protection from prosecution or discipline and keep them in their jobs.
On public health and human rights issues, Obama has shown himself to be distinctly right wing. The theodicy invoked by the Obamolaters to justify his perfidy insults our intelligence.
While I once thought of the Green Party as a vote waster at best and a spoiler at worst, I now think that a massive grassroots efforts to gain enough Green seats in Congress to deny either major party an outright majority is essential.
"On public health and human rights issues, Obama has shown himself to be distinctly right wing."
Not necessarily too right-wing on public health...he did request $900 million for pandemic preparedness in the stimulus, which he didn't get, and requested $1.5 billion to deal with the swine flu. A real right-winger wouldn't have bothered, they don't think government can do jack to help with anything.
But yes, he seriously needs to shape up on human rights, and fast. And quite a few other areas too.
maplight.org check out where obama got his $$$ yeah he raised alot from citizens but maybe 350 mil from corps or
their employees know how that goes right? he has to obey his corp. masters! SO WHAT CAN YOU EXPECT?
time to get off our asses and start marching and marching and marching. time to call the everready bunny.
wonder how much obama got from him? ps if they don't like your tone here they disappear your your post
who runs this?
This will soon be nothing more than a template:
"Obama Breaks Campaign Promise On (insert broken promise.)"
But he had a cheeseburger, so it's all good and stuff...
When Obama chooses to put bailing out Wall $treet and continuing war spending with more to inevitably come and giving no priority to healing the health and well-being of people not only in this country but around the world, he can't be too surprising. If Obama had to choose between pardoning the sweetheart pediatrician Dr Flowers who was wrongfully arrested for fighting for single payer even when the pols tried to evade the idea in the Senate and pardoning a Wall $treet criminal such as Tim Geithner should he ever go to jail, it's safe to assume that the latter will be pardoned. Having carefully studied Obama's voting record in the Senate and his rhetoric in the campaign trail, I saw this one coming and I'm pretty sure that most of us who voted against Mccain and Obama saw it coming as well. As far as I can tell by his governing so far, Obama's only goal is to win over the Republican voters in 2012 thinking that he'll win a second term like that. The base of the Democratic Party should leave the party and vote for an independent that actually stands for them.
Another promise broken? Whouda thunk?
If he keeps going like this then we may have a repug iin 2012 due to many dems just staying home and not voting,
I think it was Sir Francis Bacon who said, "Hope is an excellent breakfast, but a poor supper."
As long as people keep voting for Demos and Repubs, that's how it's going to be, as I see it, for the two big parties (who arguably are actually two wings of one Statist party) are part of the problem and will never be part of the solution.
Sometimes, come to think of it, when one looks at the issues and where most members of each party stand, the Libertarians end up looking nicer compared to even the Democrats let alone the Republicans. There are some things I admire about the Libertarian Party myself. :)
Take a look at the Socialist Party's website. It's positions aren't as radical as
the ruling parties would have you think-- unless working for the common good is radical. I'm going to become a member. I'm fed up, sick and tired, getting older and just can't wait for the Democrats and Republicans to get their acts together.
You know what's funny, the objectives of the American Communist Party closely align with Obama's stated objectives. It was close enough for Beck or some other schmuck to say the communists were happy Obama was President. I checked it myself and they were pretty damn close. So yes, socialists and communists in America are not nearly as radical as those in the media suggest...I doubt they've even studied those positions.
There are a lot of things I like about the Socialists just as there are about the Libertarians. Believe it or not, there's a lot of common ground between the two. Don't think of the party. Take it issue by issue.