A questionable strategy on abstinence

June 7, 2007

That abstinence-only education programs are ineffective is not news. The Bush administration and the GOP-led Congress pumped enormous resources (i.e., our money) into these programs, which in turn offered students misleading information and failed to actually change young people’s behavior. The funding was a ridiculous waste of time and money.

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.

On the other hand, this lets the Dem’s fund some programs that DO work. This is the kind of bipartisan bullshit we are going to have to put up with until we get a Democratic President. My only fear, after watching the Dems fold on Iraq, is that even with a Dem President in office they will still embrace this kind of stupidity rather than going all out to repair the damage the Republicans have done to our governmental agencies, our budget, our morals and our honour.

  • My instinct is to be upset about this one: “abstinence-only” is a proven failure, and among the more glaring examples of the Bush-era preferencing of ideology over results. It also represents a missed opportunity to point out what I think is a home truth about Republican/Dobsonite positioning on abortion: their real issue isn’t with terminating unwanted pregnancies, it’s about people having consequence-free sex. In a real sense, the Christatollah crowd would *rather* intercourse out of wedlock result in conception.

    But as Craig U points out, there’s presumably something gained here. I’d need to have a better sense of just what it is before really rendering a verdict.

  • I think it is foolish to keep giving in on this crap. Why give those bastards any more money?

  • That abstinence-only education programs are ineffective is not news.

    You mean I could be having sex!?!

    I thought that abstinence-only program they put me through when I was a kid was fool-proof!

  • Great idea? I’m not so sure.

    You’re way too kind. This isn’t just another pork (hur hur) project that wastes a lot of money. This is a waste of money that will have a negative effect on people’s health.

    This on the same day some fascist fucktard is being considered for USSG.

    You’re doin’ a heckuva job Demmies!

  • Some contact from the National Journal:

    The Bush administration signaled last week that it was going to war with Congress over the FY08 appropriations.
    :
    The administration revealed its plan through a letter from Office of Management and Budget Director Rob Portman, who said the amount of spending in the budget resolution being negotiated by House and Senate conferees was too high and that all appropriations would, therefore, be vetoed.

    The White House complaint concerns a roughly $20 billion increase in appropriations over the amount the president included in the budget he sent Congress in February. While Portman’s letter shows that rhetorical flourishes can be used to make this seem like a huge increase, the truth is that it is a virtually insignificant difference — about seven-tenths of 1 percent of the total amount of the federal government’s projected spending in FY08.
    [Bush wanting to portray himself as fighting government spending when the amount fought over is trivial]
    :
    The White House obviously decided it didn’t want to wait for the Pentagon appropriation before talking about excessive spending — or reductions. That’s why the Bush administration had Portman send the letter saying the president would veto every appropriation if the budget resolution assumed the $20 billion increase instead of waiting for the precise bill that caused spending to be higher than what the president proposed.
    :
    Immediately after Portman’s letter was made public, I was told by several people close to the appropriations committees that the bills providing additional funds for Walter Reed Army Medical Center and other veterans programs, the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, agriculture and Katrina relief could be among the first to be adopted and sent to the president. It will be hard,perhaps even impossible, for Republicans to oppose these appropriations.

    This will create enormous problems for the White House. If the president vetoes these bills and one or more are overridden, the administration’s influence on congressional Republicans willappear to have hit rock bottom.

    On the other hand, not vetoing an appropriation after the Portman letter guaranteed it would happen will make the president’s resolve look weak and raise questions about what he might do for the other bills. This will embolden congressional Democrats and Republicans alike to challenge the White House further on other issues.
    :
    The Portman letter makes that strategy impossible. It also puts congressional Republicans in a very difficult position by forcing them to choose between supporting the White House and hurting themselves back home.

    So, the Dems are willing to give up something on this bill to build a veto-proof majority. This will be one of the first bills to go to Bush’s desk and he has promised to veto it. Congress then overrides the veto, making Bush look weak. Or Bush doesn’t veto the bill and he looks weak.

  • Dang, it should have been “Some context from the National Journal:” instead of “contact”.

  • We’re being held hostage by this administration and the Republicans who are so out of touch with Americans it’s not even funny.

    This sucks.

    Two more years of nothing happening because Bush is a self-righteous, pinheaded, dick. We’re so fcuked as a country.

    How to bring America to its knees? Vote Republican.

  • Al Franken had a good idea in his book “The Truth: with Jokes”. Work to elect an overwhelming majority in Congress, then impeach. Congress is sworn in January 2. They could impeach both Bush and Cheney.

    Just my 2 cents.

  • there was a headline within the last week or two,

    something along the lines of :

    95% of american have sex before marriage.

    how can anyone, democrat or republican, justify an abstinence-only program in current american society.

    or for that matter in the two hundred + year old history of the u.s.

    tolerance of sex before marriage sex has been common throughout much of american history, and in my opinion, is good evidence of adult good judgment and common humanity.

    this legislation is just appalling, for both its political and it’s health consequences.

    obey has spent way too much time in the house and way too little time in the urbs and suburbs.

    too clever by half.

  • Yeah, those programs are useless… But that’s par for the course for the malAdmin.
    And yeah, they’re a wicked waste of money… See above.

    But so is the occupation of Iraq a useless adventure and a wicked waste of money. You have to pick your battles and, IMO, Iraq is something that needs to be resolved ASAP, while sex education/lack of it can bowl along for another 18 months with fewer repercussions (like: the Names of the Dead).

    Once we have a Dem Prex and a decent majority in Congress (both houses), health reform is likely to be a priority and sex ed can be discussed within its parameters. For the time being… “Note it, to revisit later on, but let it ride for the time being” would be my reaction.

    Initially, I thought that granting *more* money than asked for for those kind of crappy programs was gilding a lily — give him (and the wingnuts) what he wants, but not a penny more would have been my gut reaction. But Dennis D’s “context” has got me thinking differently. Bush objects to the budget being higher than what he asked for? The abstinence-only sex-ed can be the first thing to get trimmed. To zero, if necessary. I think, this time, Dems have actually crafted themselves a bargaining chip…

  • Smart move…. By the way, isn’t it up to parents to educate their own kids about sexuality, instead of depending on ‘someone’ else – in this case government – to do it?

    and 18 more months of that is easier to take than 18 more months of war in Iraq and ignoring global warming and not eliminating the tax give-aways to the rich.

  • I’m leary about doing the bidding of Republicans with candy. How many times have they been screwed by them before. I’d rather have Dems not compromise on their principles and be in a stalemate than to sell their souls to the used car salesmen from the other side.

    • Comments are closed.