Senator Susan Collins is reviled on the right these days for helping to get the stimulus bill passed.
Now she is being used as the whipping boy of the left for what she got in return for that vote: in part, scaling back "pandemic-flu preparedness." See, we have a possible pandemic flu on our hands, and she killed preparedness for it!
Here's the problem, though: no one has been able to show what "pandemic-flu preparedness" has to do with a stimulus package.
I am not saying the flu cannot hurt our economy. Of course it does. But preparing for it does not stimulate the economy. Lots of things threaten our economy, but that doesn't make them stimulus. Why not let it go through the normal appropriations process?
By this broad definition of "stimulus," why bother having a budget at all? Just go from year to year with stimulus bills instead.
The left did the same thing with Governor Bobby Jindal and volcanos. He was not saying volcano research should not be funded; he was saying it should not have been in a stimulus bill.
Why is this so hard?
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at April 27, 2009 09:59 AM | Email ThisWhen House Appropriations Committee chairman David Obey, the Wisconsin Democrat who has long championed investment in pandemic preparation, included roughly $900 million for that purpose in this year's emergency stimulus bill, he was ridiculed by conservative operatives and congressional Republicans.
Obey and other advocates for the spending argued, correctly, that a pandemic hitting in the midst of an economic downturn could turn a recession into something far worse -- with workers ordered to remain in their homes, workplaces shuttered to avoid the spread of disease, transportation systems grinding to a halt and demand for emergency services and public health interventions skyrocketing. Indeed, they suggested, pandemic preparation was essential to any responsible plan for renewing the U.S. economy.
But former White House political czar Karl Rove and key congressional Republicans -- led by Maine Senator Susan Collins -- aggressively attacked the notion that there was a connection between pandemic preparation and economic recovery.
Now, as the World Health Organization says a deadly swine flu outbreak that apparently began in Mexico but has spread to the United States has the potential to develop into a pandemic, Obey's attempt to secure the money seems eerily prescient.
And perhaps worse, the article engages in the worst kind of fearmongering over this swine flu nonsense.
And those same Marxist, Slavery Party fascists claim that Conservatives are the ones who only see in black or white...
HOPE AND CHANGE!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on April 27, 2009 10:53 AM"All those little porky things that the House put in, the money for the [National] Mall or the sexually transmitted diseases or the flu pandemic, they're all out," Schumer said.
Posted by: arby on April 27, 2009 11:08 AMIt's insanity.
And yes, if you are a health adult, or older child, you have nothing significant to fear from swine flu. If you get some really bad symptoms, go to the doctor. If you are very young or very old, or have other health problems, go to the doctor.
Just like the regular flu.
This is not a crisis, this is not something to worry about, this is not a big deal.
Posted by: pudge on April 27, 2009 11:36 AMIn the 2008-2009 flu season, approximately 0 people in the US have died from this new "swine flu" pandemic.
Those evil Republicans, yet again cutting funding from programs to save all those lost lives... Terrible!
On a different note, I'm wondering when the Marxist fascists will outlaw the flu? After all, it kills four times as many people as handguns do, so if we're to ban handguns we should ban the flu as well!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on April 27, 2009 11:57 AMPretty fuzzy thinking.
Posted by: BA on April 27, 2009 12:14 PMYou're right, it's "not a big deal" unless of course you are not an older child or healthy adult. For those millions of folks that fall outside of that group it is worth paying attention to.
Posted by: BA on April 27, 2009 12:32 PMThe virulence pastern is similar to the 1918 pandemic.
Posted by: Stitch on April 27, 2009 12:36 PMStitch: stories like that exist with the normal flu, too. The virulence pattern is not the issue I am discussing the actual dangers of this flu, which so far, according to the CDC and the news reports and the White House, do not seem much more significant than any other flu.
Yes, it is dangerous to the old, the infirm, and infants. So is regular influenza. So are a lot of things.
However, this IS a chance by the leftists to politicize science and health once again, and to use it for their own nefarious means. What's new, eh?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on April 27, 2009 12:51 PM2) This has become a common meme for the Left lately: Republicans opposing "science" spending in the Spendulus bill because it wasn't "stimulus" are "anti-science". Steve Mirsky in Scientific (ha!) American went off on McCain and Palin for opposing volcano monitoring in the Spendulus bill. You'd think that as the self-proclaimed "intellectual party" they could at least try on the rare occasion to be either logical or honest, but I guess that's asking too much.
This ought to be making CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, etc. any time now.
Posted by: Frank Black on April 27, 2009 01:06 PMNEVER, EVER MAKE A DEAL WITH THE DEVIL.
Ever.
(and yes, sometimes he looks like a majority in the senate)
Arguing that it isn't right now because on one has yet died from suggests that you're trying to be disingenuous, or because you're trying just as hard to politicize it as you accuse others, or because you missed those classes on critical thinking.
Are you suggesting that the CDC should simply disregard the virus because, as you say, it's "killed exactly 0 people in the US"?
Since the CDC's role is to try and diminish the severity of this virus I'm delighted to know that neither Pudge, nor yourself, work for these folks.
It has been noted that, "A quick and extensive swine flu epidemic could derail a global economic recovery, and even prolong and deepen the worldwide recession. But if the outbreak does grow into a large-scale pandemic, global trade could be disrupted through export restrictions and it could lead to travel restrictions for goods and people through major control over ports and airports."
Enough said???
Even if no one ever dies from it, it could still be a pandemic.
Dee: not nearly enough said, no. As I said at the outset: of course it can and will negatively affect the economy. But that does not mean preparedness for it should go into a STIMULUS bill, because PREPARING for it does not STIMULATE the economy. By this logic, ANYTHING that can affect the economy should be in a stimulus bill ... which is almost everything. You might as well put all the "War on Terror" funding in there too, right?
Which is why this flu preparedness funding WAS done, not in the stimulus bill, but in the omnibus spending bill the following month.
No one argued that this work should not be done. It was simply argued that a stimulus bill was the wrong place for it. Even Chuck Schumer agreed with Collins on this. And Collins voted for it many times over the last few years, including last month.
So you're just not talking sense. You're beating up a straw man.
Is the fact that it's not a killer worth consideration? We're coming out of the 2008-2009 influenza season right now (one month left, and it's the lowest infection month), and we have a strain that apparently is no more virulent than any other strain.
But it does make a good "crisis" that Rahm and Obama can exploit to further their own agendas!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on April 27, 2009 02:13 PMStill, there are concerns that budgets don't cover what they need to cover in terms of emergency preparedness, and it is important to question whether regular budget appropriations are at the level needed.
@13: Yes, it is dangerous to the old, the infirm, and infants. So is regular influenza. So are a lot of things.
Wrong. Actually, nastier flu viruses are more of a problem for healthier people too! More powerful reactions from healthy immune systems are what puts some people in danger more than others.
So this concern isn't necessarily about a little head cold. It may be too early to scream that the sky is falling, but better to be prepared than to be caught flat-footed, especially if this has the potential to cripple the world economy.
Posted by: demo kid on April 27, 2009 02:28 PMYou've got to be kidding. You're normally well-informed, at least.
I'm not panicking yet, and I share your distaste over including so much stuff in the "stimulus" -- though keeping Americans alive is at least as stimulative as cutting their taxes.
Posted by: Bruce on April 27, 2009 02:45 PMFirst, I repeated Pudge's first point that advance dealing with pandemic's doesn't belong in a stimulus package - and I didn't disagree, because I don't.
Second, responding to Pudge's invented definition that a pandemic is possible "Even if no one ever dies from it, it could still be a pandemic."
Nope. Wrong.
A pandemic is a a widespread epidemic.
What's an epidemic? The CDC defines an epidemic relates to the percentage of deaths due to influenza in a given week. I think it's something close to 8% of the all deaths in a particular group of cities.
There was a pandemic plan developed at the Federal level during the last administration...that plan assumed deaths from over 200k upward to 1.9m in this country depending on the severity of the pandemic.
They didn't plan for a pandemic where no one died. Because it wouldn't be a pandemic.
Yes, this is gotcha politics, but what else is new?
And Jindal was clearly sneering at science with his inane ", and $140 million for something called "volcano monitoring." "
Posted by: Robert on April 27, 2009 03:46 PMI never implied otherwise. Nothing you said disagreed with anything I said, that I can tell.
Bruce: You've got to be kidding. You're normally well-informed, at least.
You started like you were going to point out where I wasn't well-informed, but then ... you didn't.
... keeping Americans alive is at least as stimulative as cutting their taxes
Fine, then next time we'll put war funding in the stimulus bill. And requirements for bike helmets. And bans on trans fats.
A pandemic is a a widespread epidemic. What's an epidemic? The CDC defines an epidemic relates to the percentage of deaths due to influenza in a given week. I think it's something close to 8% of the all deaths in a particular group of cities.
I've seen no such definition, but I've never thought the definition of "epidemic" to require death. If the CDC says so, so be it for their purposes, but death is absolutely not always implied by the word in general usage. The WHO says a pandemic can occur when the disease causes "serious illness." Granted, people CAN die from serious illness -- and we've seen some people die already, apparently -- but it is not required by the definitions I've seen and used over the years.
What's that got to do with this? No one is pretending that this funding would have prevented the spread of this disease. Furthermore, this funding DID occur! It was passed in March.
And yes, I absoultely would consider the reasons why the Democrat took it out. When John Kerry voted against the funding of the troops in Iraq for a similar reason -- like Susan Collins, Kerry was not against the funding, but thought it should have been done in a different way -- I publically defended Kerry. In an election year. Even though I can't stand the guy.
And Jindal was clearly sneering at science with his inane ", and $140 million for something called "volcano monitoring." "
You are attacking Jindal for saying volcano monitoring is not stimulus, even though it is not stimulus. You have no evidence of any kind that Jindal is against volcano monitoring. You have no evidence of any kind that he was "sneering" at "science." What we do have is evidence of two things: that Jindal knows that volcano monitoring is not stimulus, and that you don't.
Posted by: pudge on April 27, 2009 04:07 PMThe numbers of folks that would get ill is huge in a pandemic as well (something like 90 million in this country for example) and as a subset of that number are significant hospitalization rates and serious treatment regimes as well, for the folks that will ultimately survive.
I understand that at the end of the day - being technically accurate about all this isn't really relevant to the political point you're trying to make.
Perhaps there should have been a third path to take on funding for pandemics - which would be a contingency in the stimulus package that would have ONLY kicked in if a pandemic occurred overlaying the recession.
We've only had I think three in the last century, so the odds are fairly low - but the potential economic disruption significant. (I wonder what the stimulative effect would be treating 90 million people for an illness relative to the lost economic activity due to that illness - maybe it's a net benefit...)
Posted by: BA on April 27, 2009 04:29 PMI never implied otherwise. Nothing you said disagreed with anything I said, that I can tell.
I'm not disputing what you said. I'm arguing that Shanghai Surprised up there is wrong in downplaying the risks.
Posted by: demo kid on April 27, 2009 05:17 PMThere is no single technical meaning. Again, the WHO says it's a disease that causes serious illness. Says nothing about death. And I've still yet to see a CDC definition.
I understand that at the end of the day - being technically accurate about all this isn't really relevant to the political point you're trying to make.
Nod.
Perhaps there should have been a third path to take on funding for pandemics - which would be a contingency in the stimulus package that would have ONLY kicked in if a pandemic occurred overlaying the recession.
I still don't see the point. The pandemic's economic impact will be serious no matter whether we are in a situation where we need stimulus. I see no connection to the stimulus package at all.
Sorry; yes, you responded to him, but he was echoing what I had said (hence my confusion), and it's still not "wrong." You may disagree with the emphasis, but it's not wrong.
Posted by: pudge on April 27, 2009 05:25 PMThe definition of epidemic. I see nothing about death in there.
Slavery Party Failed Abortion,
Wrong. Actually, nastier flu viruses are more of a problem for healthier people too! More powerful reactions from healthy immune systems are what puts some people in danger more than others.
And the proof this is a nastier flue bug is? Or are you just jumping to conclusions, being the nasty little reactionary that you are?
So far, we have apparently 150 deaths due to this flu. Consider that the US averages 3000 deaths a month from the flu; somehow, 150 in a month is cause for alarm?
I take it you own no firearms, never go outside, ride the bus, get in a car, or even swim in - or walk beside - a pool because, you know, people DIE from those things!
It may be too early to scream that the sky is falling,
OK...
but better to be prepared than to be caught flat-footed, especially if this has the potential to cripple the world economy.
Yes, good thing we're not screaming about that sky falling! You really have a way of just letting your inner hypocrite shine through!
HOPE AND CHANGE!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on April 27, 2009 05:49 PMIt goes back the mantra of the current administration; Never let a crisis go to waste !
Think back in history; FDR used the depression crisis to ramrod through many big government programs and then LBJ used the tragic death of JFK to ramrod through Civil rights legislation and more big government programs in "the War on Poverty".
Posted by: KDS on April 27, 2009 06:53 PMI'm talking about potential, and about rational planning. You're just being a dick.
Posted by: demo kid on April 27, 2009 08:14 PMIs the term "dick" acceptable for the left? I mean, it's not really gender neutral so it may offend some of your fellow fascist Marxists...
HOPE AND CHANGE!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on April 27, 2009 08:38 PMImagine where we would be otherwise.
Posted by: Andy on April 27, 2009 10:27 PMFirst, I am sure he can define those. Why would you think he couldn't? I wouldn't think you would like his definitions, but I'd take that bet.
Second, what "offer" stands and who is a "chicken"?
Marxist - a follower of Karl Marx's political/economic policies.
Marxism - where the "rich" are stripped of everything they have, the "poor" are given a few worthless shekels for their support of the enlightened "leaders" who will take care of them. Notably Slavery Party voters. At least, this is how Marxism (Communism is another name) works out in the real world...
Slavery Party - the more accurate name for the Democrat Party.
Fascist - Governmental control of industry by over-regulation and excessive taxation; see the banking and auto industry under the Obamassiah.
Socialist - Marxism with a belief that tempering that control via fascist policies - leaving the appearance of "free market" - is a good thing. See the supporters of the Obamassiah/Pelosi/Reid triumvirate, otherwise known as Slavers (members of the Slavery Party).
Now Jay, without looking it up, please define:
Liberty, Freedom, Free Trade, Capitalism, Individualism.
HOPE AND CHANGE!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on April 27, 2009 11:09 PMThanks for the confidence! I don't think Jay will like the definitions, but I think they're direct, blunt and accurate.
It's also pretty stunning that the Obamassiah's followers don't realize he's really a fascist. The Obamassiah/Pelosi/Reid triumvirate are forcing one party rule, a hallmark of a fascist Government. They decry the natural difference of success that comes from capitalism, yet do not want to go all the way towards "we're all equal" as Communism because, well frankly, how can we all be equal since they see themselves as our superiors and lords?
And for all the screaming at "fascist Bush" their sheep really don't know that Obama is the fascist - witness his dictatorial takeover of industries - and by their support of him they are fascists as well. Brownshirts, if you will...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on April 27, 2009 11:20 PMWhat's the death rate of this strain of flu so far? You're the one who claimed it was so virulent and dangerous, so how about you back up your statement? You know, use those things called "facts" that so evade your kind.
You can't, and you know it. Because the fact is you are - once again - wrong and lying (such a shock!). The death rate is ZERO. NADA. NONE. Yes, to date not a single death from this new virus.
Meanwhile, just a week ago we had 8 pediatric deaths alone from other strains of the flu. Meaning that normal flu is proving to be infinitely more deadly than this new super-killer flu you're all worked up about. Check the CDC - you can actually find "facts" on this thing call the Internet!
So rather than admit you were wrong, you use name-calling and sniveling dismissal to save what little ego you have left. It's what fascist Slavers do, apparently. Name-call and run away. About what's expected from people who cling to 3rd grade policies - they act like 3rd graders!
HOPE AND CHANGE!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on April 28, 2009 12:18 AMLiar.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/health/29flu.html?ref=global-home
The number of deaths believed attributable to swine flu climbed to as many as 152 on Tuesday -- all of them in Mexico -- as news agencies reported the number of confirmed cases of infection in the United States stood at 50 after further testing at a New York City school.
So I welcome the rebuttal. :)
Posted by: demo kid on April 28, 2009 12:23 AMSo rather than admit you were wrong, you use name-calling and sniveling dismissal to save what little ego you have left. It's what fascist Slavers do, apparently. Name-call and run away.
As far as I can tell, dimwitted name calling is all you CAN do to make your points. :) So... all that pretty much applies to you as well, eh?
Posted by: demo kid on April 28, 2009 12:30 AMInteresting that the Old York Times doesn't bother to mention in their in-depth reportage the fact that 36,000 people die from the affects of the ever-mutating flu strain each year in the U.S. Alone.
Apparently, this isn't pertinent to mention in an article appearing in the "health" section as it would put into perspective, the relative paltry number of deaths (152) to date that have occurred in Mexico.
From the CDC website:
How many people get sick or die from the flu every year?
Each flu season is unique, but it is estimated that, on average, approximately 5% to 20% of U.S. residents get the flu, and more than 200,000 persons are hospitalized for flu-related complications each year. About 36,000 Americans die on average per year from the complications of flu.
Before we start cying "the sky is falling, the sky is falling!", we should remember that the Avian flu and SARS were the next coming of the black plague and we all know how that turned out.
Posted by: Rick D. on April 28, 2009 06:16 AMThe concern is about the potential for pandemic, not about current death tolls. Better to have folks take reasonable precautions now than to just simply blow this off as unimportant. Simple principle of risk management.
Posted by: demo kid on April 28, 2009 07:33 AMI assumed you could follow a thread; I guess I was wrong. Above we were talking about US deaths, which are still at ZERO.
And according to other sources, Mexico has only had 20 confirmed cases of this new flu, none of them fatal (still waiting on tests).
But that's OK, you get your panties in a knot over 1/20th the number of monthly deaths we normally have in the US alone (who knows how many in Mexico - you'll never get an accurate count there). And keep thinking of some way to pin this on Bush!
HOPE AND CHANGE!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on April 28, 2009 08:08 AMIf the "news" article is designed to disseminate information, they should at least include the historical numbers of deaths caused each year in the U.S. in order to add context. Only 2 day in, I'm already tired of hearing about "swine flu" and the hysteria surrounding it.
Since about 70% of Mexican citizens live in urban areas and only 1,600 affected to date, this doesn't appear to be the next "black plague", especially since the first reported cases have been around for about a month now.
Posted by: Rick D. on April 28, 2009 08:08 AM@54: Did I say that the MEDIA response was reasonable? No. It never is, really. But public health experts must act in a way that protects the people. In light of the fact that a flu pandemic has severely impacted the world before, being cautious about this outbreak is not unreasonable. And in terms of whose standards of concern to use, I'd prefer theirs to yours every time.
Posted by: demo kid on April 28, 2009 08:45 AMBeing cautious is one thing, having hysterical aticles adjacent the story you linked entitled:
Swine Flu: A Cause for Panic?, is hysteria peronified, but entirely representative of the sensationalistic journalism practiced today.
"And in terms of whose standards of concern to use, I'd prefer theirs to yours every time."
What standards? I would call most of these precautions the CDC and W.H.O. suggest we use is pretty much common sense for the most part, especially since it's the same cookie cutter advice they give every year a new strain of flu virus arrives on scene. Rinse. Repeat.
Please go back to post 7 where I started talking about mortality rates IN THE US. Now, most logical people would assume that - barring an explicit statement otherwise - the follow-on statements I made were in regards to that same qualification. And in fact, the data presented about the number of deaths (36000 annually) is a US total as well.
Sorry you can't follow. Maybe you weren't a liar this time - you were just dim-witted.
But you do have HOPE AND CHANGE on your side, right?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on April 28, 2009 10:04 AMHOPE AND CHANGE!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on April 28, 2009 08:42 PMhttp://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00096
Posted by: Chris on April 30, 2009 10:55 PM