The Global Fund and PEPFAR (among others) Will More Than Survive the Sequester

…and the Republicans’ point is this:  you hear threats and promises from politicians all the time, that they are going to cut spending on Programs X Y and Z, but 99 times out of 100 they end up not only failing to cut spending, they increase it.

Again, this is not to say I agree with the negative connotation they assign to that claim, just to say that it seems to be one of those cases where some politicians made lots of noises about spending cuts, and a lot of people took them very seriously, but in the end the cuts didn’t actually happen, and in fact we’re seeing a $200 million increase.  (But from what baseline?  I don’t know.)

And no, you can’t just point to a graph of federal spending and say that it proves me wrong, because this claim is not about actual spending cuts per se, it’s about the ratio of actual spending cuts to spending cuts you hear about but never happen.  Show me a graph of the latter and I will reconsider.

I still have hope that the sequester will not be as bad as people think.  Not preferable to no sequester, but better than expectations.  It is a 10-year plan, yet every couple of months or so we either find ourselves in some new crisis and make a new deal, or we pass some continuing resolution or appropriations bill, and we ignore whatever decisions were made in the past, and spending stays more or less put (or even rises… though, again, baseline…).

Back to the Global Fund and PEPFAR – click here if you would like to get involved with ONE.  There is a good reason why spending often survives the threats, and promises, and yes, eventually, I think, crises like the sequester (hint: it’s voter preferences).

If you’re thinking about volunteering for ONE, do note that ONE is an advocacy organization, not an organization providing goods or services directly.  I support their work and think so should you, but you shouldn’t just want to end poverty — you should also like policy and advocacy.