Salon.com > spending cuts

Sequester could lead to massive cuts in HIV testing, treatment

Fri, 01 Mar 2013 21:20:00 +0000

The AIDS Drug Assistance Program is among the many federal programs that will take a hit if $85 billion in across-the-board spending cuts go through March 1, and those cuts could potentially lead to an increase in HIV transmission, the White House said Sunday in a report on the anticipated state-by-state impacts of the so-called sequester.

The report — part of the Obama administration’s public campaign to encourage a compromise between Congress and the White House in order to avoid the austerity measures — says the budget cuts could lead to a drop in access to life-saving HIV medications and an increase in treatment costs for those infected with the virus.

“Cuts to the AIDS Drug Assistance Program could result in 7,400 fewer patients having access to life saving HIV medications,” the report says. “And approximately 424,000 fewer HIV tests could be conducted by Centers for Disease Control (CDC) State grantees, which could result in increased future HIV transmissions, deaths from HIV, and costs in health care.”

I just solved the sequester!

Thu, 28 Feb 2013 16:42:00 +0000

OK, maybe the title to this post is slightly inflated, but only slightly.

A central reason we’re heading into the self-inflicted wound known as sequestration is because R’s refuse to budge on any new revenues in a deficit reduction deal to offset the $85 billion in auto-cuts about to hit our already wobbly economy. The problem, they say, is on the spending side, not the revenue side. D’s insist on balance—the solution must include both spending cuts and revenue increases, they maintain.

But what if I offered you–them–a solution that scratched both of those itches at once…a way to simultaneously both cut spending and raise revenues? That would be irresistible, right?

Well, I’ve got exactly that. I’m working up testimony on this for the Senate next week but the solution is so damn compelling—and the sequestration deadline only hours away—it would be downright unpatriotic to keep it to myself a second longer.

So, are you ready?

It’s tax expenditures!

Wait a minute…where’re you going? Get back here right now! I’m telling you, this should work.

“Obama’s sequester”? No way

Fri, 22 Feb 2013 16:55:00 +0000

For my sanity and yours, I rarely get into the silliest corners of politics, but this conservative talking point that the word “sequester” must actually be called “Obama’s sequester,” like they had nothing to do with it, is really beyond the pale. I get that both sides are trying to position themselves to not get blamed for this totally preventable, self-inflicted wound, but here are some facts that belie this ridiculous Republican disowning of a policy they supported.

The sequester was part of the Budget Control Act, passed in 2011 with bipartisan support. In fact, a larger share of House R’s voted for the bill than D’s: 174 (73 percent) voted for it and 66 against, while D's were split 95-95. In the Senate, 28 R's voted for it and 19 against, while D’s supported it 45-6.

Voting in support of the bill that contained the sequester were Reps. Boehner, Ryan, Cantor and Sen. McConnell.

Speaker Boehner said of the bill including the sequester: “I got 98 percent of what I wanted.” Given their highly amped-up disdain of the sequester now, I find it hard to believe that this was the 2 percent he didn’t want.