The Trump administration's freeze of all foreign aid has thrown a major program to prevent and treat HIV in poor nations into chaos and put millions of lives in jeopardy.
I would like all Africans to have access to the education and medications that are necessary to prevent and treat HIV. I'm just not sure whether the best way to achieve that is for the US to pay for it. I worry that so many years of aid has set up a poor incentive structure for the individual countries to take responsibility for the health and well-being of their citizens. I'm concerned that long-distance funding discourages NGOs from doing their work as cost-effectively as possible. As you point out, this program has been in force for twenty years, and yet we're still paying rent on the buildings they use to run their clinics.
The entire African continent has a GDP of about three trillion, which is three thousand billion dollars. Per your article, the US expenditure on PEPFAR is six billion a year. It doesn't seem unreasonable to ask these countries to allocate 0.2% of their own spending to continue lifesaving services. By gifting this funding, we are also effectively relieving their governments of other budgetary items--items that we aren't aware of and may not even approve of. There are so many reasons it's better to teach a man to fish, rather than feed him a fish.
Perhaps phasing out the aid over Trump's four years would have been a more gradual way of nudging the programs in these countries toward other sources of funding, but that's different conversation.
Came here to say this. Why, after so many decades, is the US still funding Africa's AIDS medications? How can they not have managed to take care of this for their own people after all this time? The answer? The same reason drug addicts don't get clean. Because they don't have to. Let's teach other countries to fish, not just give them fish. We can't keep funding the world's needs. Look at the standoff between Trump and Colombia. First, they refused to take their migrants back, now they are not only inviting them back but asking them to return AND offering them incentives to start businesses so they can make their own country stronger and disincentivize migration to the US! It is time the world stopped sucking off America's teat.
With all the controversy about federal government staffing levels I asked DeepSeek this question.
Does Congress set federal agencies staffing levels or is that task left up to the executive branch?
It’s thinking process:
“First, I think Congress controls the budget. They pass appropriations bills that fund the government. If staffing levels are tied to funding, maybe Congress has a say through the budget.
But the actual hiring and managing of staff is probably done by the agencies themselves, which are part of the executive branch.
Wait, but how exactly does it work?
Maybe Congress sets the overall budget, which includes money for personnel. So they might allocate a certain amount of money for salaries, which would effectively limit how many staff an agency can hire. For example, if an agency has a budget that allows for 1,000 employees, they can't hire more than that without additional funding.
But generally, I think the executive branch has more discretion in how they use their allocated funds, including staffing. However, Congress can influence staffing through funding levels and specific legislative mandates. So the answer might be a combination:
Congress controls the budget which affects staffing levels, but the executive branch manages the actual staffing within those constraints.
Wait, but sometimes there are hiring freezes or increases directed by the President. For example, a President might order agencies to reduce staff or hire more in certain areas. That would be part of the executive branch's management.
So in summary, Congress doesn't directly set the exact number of staff for each agency, but they control the funding that determines how many staff can be hired. The executive branch agencies then manage their staffing within those budgetary limits, unless Congress has specified particular numbers in legislation.“
This response seems to suggest that the president has considerable discretion in determining how many employees are needed to carry out the functions of any agency funded by the Congress.
Thanks so much for your empathetic coverage of this. I’ve followed you because of it. It’s been such a depressing week with so much callousness for the some of the most vulnerable. Glad some like you are asserting the value of humanistic care.
Thanks. It's funny, because an LGBTQ listserv I'm on lambasted me for supposedly writing propaganda for Trump with this piece. I told them that I couldn't help them if they couldn't handle hearing the news.
Wait what? That’s so confusing to me. I had to go back and reread your piece with that in mind but it makes no sense. Good on you for putting up with the wild feedback.
whatever good was done via past and present intl health initiatives, as referenced, was undone by Biden when he made US help contingent on kow towing to the gender ideology religion. the gender ideology religion is severely harmful to gays. its also severely homophobic. erasing womens safety worldwide by allowing men into womens safety harms half the planet. promoting gender affirmation that benefits no one and harms kids, gays and ppl with psych issues worldwide was done by Biden.
Yes, its going to take a while to undo all the harm Biden caused.
At my place of employment a hacker gained access to part of the computer system. we had reduced computer function for 2 weeks. was this caused by the hacker or the people who were addressing the hack?
Thank you. First Obama, and then Biden, betrayed half the world's population with their support for the misogynist, homophobic, postmodern dumpster fire of "gender." A generation of lost common sense and the promotion of self-harm because of those two. Said as a former Democrat.
Edit: I see my first comment was removed. When I made this comment, my first comment was still on my screen. I didn't make this second comment to be obstinate, I was already making it as a related comment. I am not trying to get around being censored. I thought my first comment was also fine, but if the author doesn't want that discourse here, then ok. And if the author decides this second comment also should not be here, then ok.
2nd comment:
As a separate but related comment, I don't even like the word assault in the title. If I decide I am not longer going to buy chicken from a particular store because I decide I want to spend the money on something more frugal, I am not assaulting anything. I am just choosing not to spend money. It is not an attack on anything, it is changing from taking an action to taking no action. This is the opposite of assault. I think that people may say I am missing the point of the article, but I would say the opposite. I would say the article title misses the point of what Trump is doing. He is moving something from action to inaction. He is not moving it from inaction to action, in this case.
What a disaster, thank you for reporting it so thoroughly!
I would like all Africans to have access to the education and medications that are necessary to prevent and treat HIV. I'm just not sure whether the best way to achieve that is for the US to pay for it. I worry that so many years of aid has set up a poor incentive structure for the individual countries to take responsibility for the health and well-being of their citizens. I'm concerned that long-distance funding discourages NGOs from doing their work as cost-effectively as possible. As you point out, this program has been in force for twenty years, and yet we're still paying rent on the buildings they use to run their clinics.
The entire African continent has a GDP of about three trillion, which is three thousand billion dollars. Per your article, the US expenditure on PEPFAR is six billion a year. It doesn't seem unreasonable to ask these countries to allocate 0.2% of their own spending to continue lifesaving services. By gifting this funding, we are also effectively relieving their governments of other budgetary items--items that we aren't aware of and may not even approve of. There are so many reasons it's better to teach a man to fish, rather than feed him a fish.
Perhaps phasing out the aid over Trump's four years would have been a more gradual way of nudging the programs in these countries toward other sources of funding, but that's different conversation.
Came here to say this. Why, after so many decades, is the US still funding Africa's AIDS medications? How can they not have managed to take care of this for their own people after all this time? The answer? The same reason drug addicts don't get clean. Because they don't have to. Let's teach other countries to fish, not just give them fish. We can't keep funding the world's needs. Look at the standoff between Trump and Colombia. First, they refused to take their migrants back, now they are not only inviting them back but asking them to return AND offering them incentives to start businesses so they can make their own country stronger and disincentivize migration to the US! It is time the world stopped sucking off America's teat.
The Anthony Fauci many have learned about is far different from the picture you paint.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/58063409-the-real-anthony-fauci
With all the controversy about federal government staffing levels I asked DeepSeek this question.
Does Congress set federal agencies staffing levels or is that task left up to the executive branch?
It’s thinking process:
“First, I think Congress controls the budget. They pass appropriations bills that fund the government. If staffing levels are tied to funding, maybe Congress has a say through the budget.
But the actual hiring and managing of staff is probably done by the agencies themselves, which are part of the executive branch.
Wait, but how exactly does it work?
Maybe Congress sets the overall budget, which includes money for personnel. So they might allocate a certain amount of money for salaries, which would effectively limit how many staff an agency can hire. For example, if an agency has a budget that allows for 1,000 employees, they can't hire more than that without additional funding.
But generally, I think the executive branch has more discretion in how they use their allocated funds, including staffing. However, Congress can influence staffing through funding levels and specific legislative mandates. So the answer might be a combination:
Congress controls the budget which affects staffing levels, but the executive branch manages the actual staffing within those constraints.
Wait, but sometimes there are hiring freezes or increases directed by the President. For example, a President might order agencies to reduce staff or hire more in certain areas. That would be part of the executive branch's management.
So in summary, Congress doesn't directly set the exact number of staff for each agency, but they control the funding that determines how many staff can be hired. The executive branch agencies then manage their staffing within those budgetary limits, unless Congress has specified particular numbers in legislation.“
This response seems to suggest that the president has considerable discretion in determining how many employees are needed to carry out the functions of any agency funded by the Congress.
Thanks so much for your empathetic coverage of this. I’ve followed you because of it. It’s been such a depressing week with so much callousness for the some of the most vulnerable. Glad some like you are asserting the value of humanistic care.
Thanks. It's funny, because an LGBTQ listserv I'm on lambasted me for supposedly writing propaganda for Trump with this piece. I told them that I couldn't help them if they couldn't handle hearing the news.
Wait what? That’s so confusing to me. I had to go back and reread your piece with that in mind but it makes no sense. Good on you for putting up with the wild feedback.
China is not waiting in the wings of Africa they are fully involved .
Waiting in the wings to fill the void left by US absence.
whatever good was done via past and present intl health initiatives, as referenced, was undone by Biden when he made US help contingent on kow towing to the gender ideology religion. the gender ideology religion is severely harmful to gays. its also severely homophobic. erasing womens safety worldwide by allowing men into womens safety harms half the planet. promoting gender affirmation that benefits no one and harms kids, gays and ppl with psych issues worldwide was done by Biden.
Yes, its going to take a while to undo all the harm Biden caused.
At my place of employment a hacker gained access to part of the computer system. we had reduced computer function for 2 weeks. was this caused by the hacker or the people who were addressing the hack?
https://www.heritage.org/gender/commentary/if-you-want-our-help-you-must-accept-our-gender-ideology
Thank you. First Obama, and then Biden, betrayed half the world's population with their support for the misogynist, homophobic, postmodern dumpster fire of "gender." A generation of lost common sense and the promotion of self-harm because of those two. Said as a former Democrat.
HIV is a lifestyle disease. Stop having immoral sex and HIV will disappear.
Edit: I see my first comment was removed. When I made this comment, my first comment was still on my screen. I didn't make this second comment to be obstinate, I was already making it as a related comment. I am not trying to get around being censored. I thought my first comment was also fine, but if the author doesn't want that discourse here, then ok. And if the author decides this second comment also should not be here, then ok.
2nd comment:
As a separate but related comment, I don't even like the word assault in the title. If I decide I am not longer going to buy chicken from a particular store because I decide I want to spend the money on something more frugal, I am not assaulting anything. I am just choosing not to spend money. It is not an attack on anything, it is changing from taking an action to taking no action. This is the opposite of assault. I think that people may say I am missing the point of the article, but I would say the opposite. I would say the article title misses the point of what Trump is doing. He is moving something from action to inaction. He is not moving it from inaction to action, in this case.
The “move” itself, from “action to inaction”, is what constitutes the assault in this case.