Thanks, Obama

At Obama's final rally before the election in 2008.

For the people reading this in the year 2050 (assuming America still exists), "Thanks, Obama" was a sarcastic meme that people used to blame Obama for everything wrong in the world. But I'd like to reclaim it and offer a sincere Thank You to the man who led us for 8 years.



I'd be the first to recognize that Obama failed on a lot of fronts. He did not succeed in uniting us, and left us in many senses divided. He was not able to get a lot of his policy ideas through Congress, due partly to Republican obstructionism but also I think partly to a lack of relationships and ability to work with others. He also presided over the loss of over 7,000 state/local level Democratic seats over the past 8 years, which means the Democratic Party has some rebuilding to do. Syria is one of the worst vacuums of foreign policy in recent years and is a humanitarian disaster of epic proportions. Obama may have excelled at the poetry and vision of campaigning, but he was not always great at the prose of governing.

Me, voting live for the first time, for Obama in 2008

Despite this, I honor his accomplishments and dignity. He never descended to personal insults with those who disagreed with him. He did work hard to make this country better, and was able to accomplish much. The Affordable Care Act expanded access healthcare to millions and likely saved lives. He worked with other countries to address the global challenges of climate change. The Obama administration was also able to reach a historic deal with Iran to dismantle their nuclear weapons program. We repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," allowing all to serve with honor in our military, regardless of sexual orientation. He appointed two able Supreme Court justices, both women. He worked to keep our country safe from terrorist attacks. Ultimately he spoke eloquently of the need for racial justice and gun control, despite not being able to accomplish much in the way of legislation to address these issues.

It's easy to forget how historic Obama's win in 2008 was!

Obama was far from perfect, but I think he was a good and decent man and a faithful public servant. So, for all this, Thanks Obama. Even though I know you were constitutionally prohibited from staying, I will miss you.

Minority/Majority Report

Late this week, Harry Reid, the U.S. Senate Majority leader invoked what some have termed the "nuclear option." This means that instead of requiring 60 votes to confirm the President's nominees, the Senate will simply need a majority (51). Of course, Democrats currently think this is a great idea, as they hold a majority in the Senate, and President Obama is also a Democrat. As has been rightly pointed out, they will likely feel differently when Republicans control the Senate and there is a Republican president.  

In this situation I don't think there's an absolute moral right here, but it does put a spotlight on the inherent tension between majority and minority rights in our democracy. This conflict is all over our constitution. The Bill of Rights prevents majorities from controlling minorities. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press protects unpopular movements or sentiments - popular opinions don't really need protection. For all our extolling our constitutional forefathers, many of them used "mob rule" as a bogeyman, and feared rule by the uneducated "common man" majority. 

Tension between majority and minority rights is baked into the structure of our government. The House of Representatives, or lower house of Congress, represents the people while the Senate is supposed to be a step removed from the people. Even the President isn't directly elected, instead chosen by electors. The Supreme Court in its isolated perch is the farthest removed from public opinion, supposedly allowing it to protect the rights of unpopular minorities. 

I believe Mormons should be one of the biggest supporters of minority unpopular groups. Early in our history, members of our church were beaten, driven, and in some cases murdered for espousing unpopular opinions. This history should make us defenders of opinions we disagree with. At one time or another, each of us will be part of a minority group, so while we are part of a majority we must protect minority rights. The only way we can make sure our religious freedom is protected is to protect others' freedoms to believe (or not believe). 

The debate about the nuclear option shows the power of a minority. Democrats have pointed out that of all the filibusters of nominees in the history of America, over half of them have been on Obama's nominees. See the graph below showing the number of filibusters over time. Mitch McConnell, minority leader in the Senate, has really used the power of the filibuster to block Obama's choices to head agencies, or even delay confirming nominees (the statistics show that the average Obama nominee waits 100 days longer than George W. Bush's nominees). Democrats rightly argued that Republicans were using the filibuster and other delaying tactics to oppose even non-controversial nominees. Minorities can abuse their power just as much as majorities can.

I think both parties have used the filibuster to do stupid things. However, blaming the filibuster is blaming the symptom of the problem, not the actual problem. The actual problem is a refusal to compromise and work together. The dysfunction in our government is present because of stubborn pig-headed-ness on each side of the aisle. It's a refusal to work with or hear the other side's arguments. Democrats were driven to it by obstructionism on the other side, but I think they would have been just as obstructionist in the current climate if they had been in the minority. I think this needed to happen simply to get some of the machinery of government working again, but it's sad that it needed to happen.

The Day After

You might guess that my reaction to the news last night was...ENTHUSIASTIC!  Obviously, my guy won so it is easy to be happy today.  However, based on some of my friends' Facebook statuses, last night's reelection (!) of Barack Obama can best be described by this R.E.M. song:

Seriously, I had to exercise self-restraint to NOT comment on statuses that declared the end is near and we should be stocking up on canned goods.  Obama's reelection does not merit sackcloth, ashes, or discourses on how we are all going to Hades in a Handbasket.*  If the re-election of a president you disagree with is the end of your world, maybe you need to get some perspective.  Obama will not have unilateral power, and the Republican party still controls the House of Representatives and can filibuster the Senate ALL. DAY. LONG.  I may disagree with Governor Romney, but I don't think his election would have spelled disaster for all mankind.  Of course, you may point out that it easy for me to say this, because my party was victorious.  You are completely right, but hopefully I will remember this post the next time a Republican wins the White House.

As C.J. Cregg once had to remind President Barlett in the fictional world world of The West Wing, "In a democracy, often times other people win."  Now is the time where we should be sitting down as a country and saying, we are very divided - this was a close election.  People elected a Democratic President, a Republican House, and a Democratic Senate.  How can we make this work?  It's time to govern, and I hope both the Congressional Republicans and President Obama can make the tough choices that it's going to take to deal with the debt and all the other problems facing this country.  In that respect, I am hopeful - Speaker Boehner said he is open to "new revenues" to address the fiscal cliff.  I'm hoping the parties can reach a deal.

Besides the headliner, here's other election news I found exciting:
- Tammy Duckworth, a double amputee, was elected to the House of Representatives.
- New Hampshire has the first all-woman congressional delegation (two senators and two representatives!).
- Speaking of women, for the first time 20 (!!!!) of the U.S. Senators will be women.  That's one in five!
- Jim Matheson, a Democrat, held on to his seat in that reddest-of-red states, Utah.
- The Mormon Church put out a classy statement about the election.

The other big Facebook comment by Republican friends?  Already gearing up for 2016...sigh...


*Incidentally, Hades in a Handbasket would make a great band name.

Forward

We all want to move our country "forward."  I really like the video below by President Obama's campaign.  However, if you are a dyed-in-the-wool Republican, then I give you fair warning: this will probably drive you  nuts.

True Blue

Joseph F. Smith (a former President of the Mormon church - along with Joseph Smith and Joseph Fielding Smith) was once accosted by a group of drunken men who pointed a gun at him and asked "Are you a Mormon?"  Joseph responded "Yes siree; dyed in the wool, true blue, through and through."  The man was surprised and said: "Well, you are the … pleasantest man I ever met! Shake, young fellow, I am glad to see a man that stands up for his convictions" (quoted from "Lesson 20: Joseph F. Smith-A Voice of Courage" in  The Presidents of the Church: Teachers Manual).

I doubt very much that anyone will hold a gun to my head and ask me to choose a political party.  But, if they did, the political conventions over the past two weeks reminded me that I am a True Blue Democrat.  Lately I've been wondering if maybe I just wanted to join some kind of non-partisan group urging greater political civility.  But, I realized as I watched both the Democratic and Republican National Conventions that I am simply a liberal.  It's who I agree with, for the most part.  This was especially evident to me as I watched my favorite speech, linked below:



Now, my logical brain (and reading the fact checking websites) will tell me that there are points in the speech where Clinton stretched the facts (just as Obama, Ryan, and Romney did).  But my heart and emotional connection was with him the whole time.  I loved this speech!  So, yes, I'm a true-blue Democrat.  The problem is that there are Really Red Republicans too.  How can we ever hope to work together when we stand so far apart in political philosophy?  The end of this Washington Post article expresses the same frustration - it talks about the difficulty of fact checking someone's politics:

"One can question some of the specific claims, such as billionaires paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. (The data show that is not especially common, just as the data suggest that voter fraud, a major concern of Republicans, happens only on rare occasions.) But it is virtually impossible — and probably foolhardy — to fact-check such deeply held beliefs."

How can we overcome this?  I guess by realizing that even if we are True Blue Democrats or Really Red Republicans, that there's an illogical and emotional component to our arguments.  By giving up some things we want to get things we need.  In a religious context, this is called sacrifice.  In political terms, it's compromise.  Either way, it means giving up some of the things we might really believe are good and doing what is necessary.

Anyways, I am EXCITED about this election, and excited about re-electing Barack Obama!  I'm True Blue, Through and Through!!!

Taxman, Yeah, Yeah, He's a Taxman

I know you have all been waiting in breathless anticipation of part 2 of my evaluation of Mitt Romney's tax plan(s).  Well, wait no longer!  Pull up your beverage of choice (you know, the one that helps you stay awake) and join me for an exciting conclusion.  You can read part one here.



Today we discuss Governor Romney's plans for corporate taxes.  These are taxes paid by businesses which are organized as corporations.  I should note that this is probably most "big businesses" that are household names, but not all businesses are organized as corporations.  Your local businesses down the street may operate as partnerships or pass-through entities, and they are taxed based on the individual tax rates of those who own them.  So this tax plan would not apply to them.

[Begin tangent] Some people have a problem with taxing corporations because they view it as double taxation - the income is taxed once when it is earned by the corporation and again when it is distributed to shareholders in the form of dividends.  Suffice it to say, I do not really buy this argument, because I think corporations (while not people, ahem, Governor Romney) do need to contribute to society, and the benefits they enjoy (an educated workforce, enforcement of contracts by law, a highway system, among others) are all things that they should pay for.  But we will assume for purposes of this post, that corporate taxation is likely to continue to exist [End Tangent].

Governor Romney's corporate tax plan has four parts, let's examine each of them.

Part One: "Cut the corporate rate to 25%."  My question: why?  The top statutory rate is currently 35%, but VERY few corporations actually pay tax at this rate.  There are so many ways around this that corporate taxes paid are actually significantly lower than the relatively high rate would suggest.  Why make a low rate even lower?  What loopholes are you going to close to make this possible?  Lowering the rate will lower the amount of tax collected, so you've got to offset that by stopping some of the tax breaks to industries that are favored in the current tax system.  Governor Romney's website doesn't elaborate on this, but he needs to find a way to pay for this.

Part Two: "Strengthen and make permanent the R&D credit."  The R&D credit is a tax credit that reduces the tax bill of companies that invest in Research and Development in the U.S. by building labs and employing engineers and scientists here.  This makes sense to me, and I agree with this - having an research & development credit encourages businesses to build labs and employ people in this country, and encourages innovation.  If companies are going to make a multi-million dollar investment, they want the certainty that this tax credit will be available to them over the long term.  Right now the R&D credit is haphazardly renewed whenever Congress can find the time to do it on a year-by-year basis.  A long-term R&D credit would, I think, be a good idea.  President Obama has also signed on to this - so they actually do agree on something!

Part Three: "Switch to a territorial tax system."  I'm conflicted about this.  Currently the U.S. is one of the few countries which employs a worldwide tax system.  That is, if you are incorporated (organized) in the U.S., you eventually pay tax on your worldwide income.  You can keep profits offshore, but when they are repatriated (i.e. brought back to the U.S.) you pay tax.  People argue that the U.S. is unfairly burdening corporations with U.S. taxes on their worldwide income.  However, through tax accounting magic (stupid tax accountants!), many companies can hide income that really relates to the U.S. offshore, so it's argued that it should all be taxed in its "home" country.  This one I'm holding out as undecided, but until we can come up with a system that better allocates income between countries, I'm going to be skeptical of any "tax holiday" that lets companies bring back money to the U.S. and skip the taxes due.

Part Four: "Repeal the Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax."  The AMT, as its known, is levied at a lower rate than regular taxes but requires companies to addback certain items - so if a company isn't paying regular tax in a year, it may very well have to pay a little bit of AMT.  This is a disagree from me, which is surprising because I am all for getting rid of the individual minimum tax.  However, I think that the corporate AMT requires corporations to pay at least a little bit of tax in most years.  As I noted above, I think corporations get a lot of advantages in our society, and they should pay the price for these benefits.  Corporate AMT provides a carryforward benefit - so if you pay AMT, and in the future your tax bill rises above the AMT threshold, you get to reduce tax in future years.  What can I say, I'm a Democrat who has an inherent anti-corporate bias, so I'm okay with the corporate AMT.  Let the hypocrite allegations begin.

So overall, somewhat of a mixed bag on taxes for Romney.  Both candidates, however, need to do a better job of explaining the costs and benefits of their tax policies - for every tax "goodie" we receive (or someone else receives) there is a cost - usually higher rates overall.  Obama and Romney need to have a frank discussion of trade-offs.  Sigh.  Why do I feel like an intelligent conversation is the LAST thing that's going to happen this election cycle?

Take a Deep Breath

My facebook feed has both liberals and conservatives, so it's always funny when one side or the other makes a ridiculous remark.  Those disagreeing with the political views of the person who made the remark instantly ascribe the most vicious and sinister motives to all members of the speaker's political party or persuasion.  This has been true this week, as the comments of Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen have been under fire for saying that "Ann Romney has never worked a day in her life."*

But for me, this remark, and the accompanying charges that Democrats hate stay-at-home moms, are so utterly ridiculous.  The difference is that this is ONE remark, which was widely condemned - by Michelle Obama, David Axelrod, and many others, while the Republicans have engaged in some actual policies that harm women.  The real question is, which party is supporting policies that matter to women and really make a difference in their lives for the better?  Hmmm....let's see.

Pay Equity
Republicans opposed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay act, which gives women more time to sue employers who discriminate against them by paying them less.  The Democratic congress passed it and Barack Obama signed it into law in 2009.  Republicans in Wisconsin recently repealed legislation that allowed punitive damages in cases of gender discrimination.  I'm sorry, but unless we make it painful for employers to pay women less, they're going to keep doing it.  Right now women make 77 cents to every dollar a man makes.  This is wrong, and I'm with the Democrats - we need to stop it.

My Body
Recent attempts by many Republican legislatures have led to proposed laws requiring women to have ultrasounds before having an abortion.  In some cases, this would require a transvaginal probe inserted into a women's body.  This, from a party allegedly based on personal liberty.  No thank you, I'm old enough to make my own medical decisions.

I don't have the time to blog about all the issues I see regarding women.  But until the Republicans start supporting paid family leave, reduced work requirements for poor moms on welfare, or government policies helping women who work with childcare, I think it's disingenuous at best to suggest that one remark by a Democratic strategist constitutes a war on women.  So, everyone just take a deep breath - Democrats like myself do NOT hate stay-at-home moms or think that they're freeloaders.  I'm grateful my own mom made the choice to stay home with us crazy kids and raise us right.  But the point is, it was her choice - we need to support women who make a different choice too.  Hooray for moms!  They're awesome!

*For the record, I think Rosen was quoted out of context - she was saying that Ann Romney doesn't understand the concerns of those women who have to work a paid job while raising kids.  But I know I'm not going to win that battle, because any remark can be taken out of context and blown out of proportion.  So we'll just deal with it on it's face.

Good Compromises

Perhaps I've used this phrase before on this blog: "A Good Compromise Leaves Everybody Unhappy." This is how I felt while reading reports over the past couple days covering President Obama's deficit reduction commission. The proposals had something to offend everyone, it seemed. Conservatives hated letting the Bush tax cuts expire. Liberals despised cuts to spending programs like social security and medicare. The point is, everyone is going to have to meet halfway.

No one (least of all politicians) is right ALL the time. Nor do we live in a world where we can unilaterally force people to agree with us. This necessitates compromise and common sense. That's what disturbed me as I read both sides' reactions to the proposals. No one seemed willing to go out on a limb and do something truly courageous: compromise. We Americans, in our rugged individualism, tend to associate courage only with "taking a stand" and "not giving in." But sometimes the big and courageous decisions are those decisions that are humbly made, acknowledging that neither party is completely right and neither party is completely wrong. Part of this, I think, stems from the enormity of the problem: the deficit is HUGE and growing! It's also from the fact that it's really a FUTURE problem. Politicians don't deal well with long term challenges, in my opinion. And sometimes we, as a public, tend to tune out of the policy nuances and just say: FIX IT (see about the 2 minute mark of the SNL clip below...cracks me up).

So, currently the budget deficit is projected to exceed $1 trillion by 2030. The New York Times has come up with an interactive budget puzzle - you can choose how you would cut spending, raise taxes, or do both to come up with your solution to our budget mess. How would you solve the deficit? Remember - you won't be able to get your proposal through a divided congress unless you use ideas that appeal to both sides!

Don't be part of the problem - be part of the SOLUTION.

Health Care, Part II: Sort of

I fooled around on the internet this evening and put up a new template on the website (kind of has a summery feel to it!). As no one commented on my original post on health care (here), I figured that no one was really interested in part two. If you do want a good summary of the constitutional issues, I read one in a tax journal and it's rather lengthy, so I can email it to you. It's by a conservative and I don't agree with all his points but it's a good summary of the pros and cons. Go Health Care!

Health Care - We Did It!

I've been so busy lately that I have not celebrated the legislative victory of President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid. This was one of the moments that I was dorky enough to watch on TV. As I was watching it, I though about how glad I was that I live in a democracy. I am so lucky and blessed in that regard!

Now, this post is not to say that the Health Care Bill is perfect. In my mind, one of its strengths is that the bill has things that both the left and the right don't like. As the saying goes "a good compromise leaves everybody unhappy." But a recent post by a friend about how unhappy she was with the bill has caused me to think about how I would respond to her, and my many Republican friends, in their charges against the health care bill. From talking with them, I think these are some of their main arguments:

1. The bill will provide government funding for abortion.
2. The bill is not supported by a majority of Americans.
3. The bill impinges on individual freedom.
4. The bill is unconstitutional.
(Now, please tell me if I'm not being fair or leaving out any important points to you)

I'd like to address points number 1 and 2, and address 3 & 4 in a more in depth post later. I'm going to avoid using scriptural based reasoning, because I don't like it when people use scriptures to push their own political agenda (tho I have been guilty of it on occasion).

Abortion
Claiming that someone who voted for the Health Care bill wants to kill babies is as ludicrous as saying that Republicans who voted against the Health Care bill want all the people who are dying without health insurance to die. Bart Stupak, a pro-life Democrat, voted for the bill. People have condemned him for it, but I applaud him for valuing life, including a baby's life after he or she is born. I really liked Stupak's OpEd in the Post about why he was voting for the bill. I think the pro-life movement has it wrong on health-care, because there are many reasons that health care reform will actually reduce the number of abortions in this country.

I think we better face up to the fact that abortion is going to be legal in the U.S. in the long term. What we can do, instead of being counterproductive in accusing others, is work to reduce the number of abortions. There are methods to do this - sex education in schools, better pre-natal care, increasing penalties on dads who don't pay child support, and, YES, health care. In fact, I think health care reform will reduce the number of abortions by providing health care to moms pre- and post- birth. Women are more likely to go through with a pregnancy when they know they and their child will have access to affordable health care. Having health care also means that women have access to birth control, which reduces the risk for unplanned pregnancy, thus reducing the demand for abortions. Please don't label me as pro-abortion because I support health care.

Public Support

Many people pointed to the high number of protests and anti-health care phone calls to Congress, as well as polls showing public opposition, as a reason not to pass the health care bill. Two points: (1) people were not universally opposed to the health care bill as you might think and (2) this a dumb reason not to do something.

First, while some polls showed a majority against the bill, many of the individual provisions, such as requiring coverage of pre-existing conditions, were very popular. In most cases, the "against" vote hovered around 50%. This hardly means a wholesale rejection of the bill. It does show deep division, but this leads me to my second point: are we supposed to do what's right or what's popular? Representatives voted for the bill because they believed it was the right thing to do, and I respect that. Disagree with them? Vote 'em out of office!

Mormons in particular are proud of going against public opinion. I think that many representatives voted for the health care bill even though they knew it would likely cost them their jobs in November, and in my mind that shows political courage and a willingness to do what they believed in even if it wasn't popular. This prong of the debate goes to the heart of what it means to be in a representative democracy. There are two ways you can look at a "representative." Option #1: Representatives should do exactly what their constituents want, voting how their constituency would vote if it could be in congress. Option #2: Representatives should do what's in the best interests of their constituents, even if it's not politically expedient. I'm not saying one of these views is better than the other, but if you are thinking to yourself that Option #1 is how democracy should work, then I hope you're consistent. I hope you thought we should pull out of Iraq once a majority of Americans were against the war. I hope you support current efforts to let homosexuals serve openly in the military (70% popular support). I hope you supported the resignation of President Bush when his approval rating fell to historic lows. If you don't/didn't support those things, then it's hypocritical to argue against health care reform for that reason - let's talk about the merits of the bill.

As always, I end with an apology for the length of the post. Please do leave your comments and thoughts - if I'm not responsive PLEASE don't be offended - I'll be on vacation with limited email access for a while.

Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? (or Crawford, TX?)

There is a verse in the bible that I've been thinking about as it applies to politics. Phillip, a follower of Christ, goes to his friend Nathanael and tells him about Jesus Christ. Nathanael's response is interesting:

"And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see."

What I get from this is that Nathanael has some preconceived notions about Nazareth, because it's a po-dunk town. He's thinking to himself: nothing good can come from there, I know it's all bad. Do we have some of the same views of our political opponents?

The reason I've been thinking about this is that I've been, quite frankly, surprised by some of the venomous discourse directed at President Obama. Some of my friends literally cannot find anything about him to like! This seems to show a pre-judging and uncharitable spirit. But then I had a thought: maybe I'm the same way about President George W. Bush. So, I urge you to take a politician that you disagree with, or think is stupid, or cannot find anything about to like, and look at that person with fresh eyes. Take a walk in their shoes, and you might find more to like than you think. Now, it's no fair to say things like "Congressperson A is less dumb than I thought" or other sarcastic things like that. You have to truly find things to value in this person. I didn't say it would be easy (and for me it wasn't), but I am going to say that it's worth it. I think this is so important in politics, because it is much easier to demonize the other side than to try to understand them.

In that spirit, I've come up with five things to like about George W. Bush, and I'm going to share them with you:
5. Immigration policy: President Bush actually made a lot of sense on immigration policy. He supported temporary guest worker programs and a path to citizenship for those already here.

"We must make our immigration laws more rational, and more humane...I believe we can do so without jeopardizing the livelihoods of American citizens."
"I ask Congress to reform our immigration laws so they reflect our values and benefit our economy. I propose a new temporary-worker program to match willing foreign workers with willing employers when no Americans can be found to fill the job. This reform will be good for our economy, because employers will find needed workers in an honest and orderly system. A temporary-worker program will help protect our homeland, allowing border patrol and law enforcement to focus on true threats to our national security."

4. Not pardoning Scooter Libby. A recent Time Magazine article reveals that Bush was pressured by Vice President Cheney to do so, but he thought Libby deserved punishment for breaking the law. I like what he said when he commuted Libby's jail sentence (which he thought excessive), while allowing the fine and guilty verdict to remain:

"Our entire system of justice relies on people telling the truth, and if a person does not tell the truth, particularly if he serves in government and holds the public trust, he must be held accountable."

Also, I thought Bush's reason for not granting more pardons was interesting, and I agree that pardons do tend to favor the well-connected and the rich:

"Bush had long approached pardons with suspicion. As Texas governor, he granted them sparingly. His reluctance stemmed not from a lack of mercy but from his sense that pardons were a rigged game, tilted in favor of offenders with political connections. 'He thought the whole pardon system was completely corrupt,' says a top Bush adviser."

3. Creating an awesome National Park that I want to visit someday. And if you can say its name five times fast, I salute you.
2. Going to war in Afghanistan. I don't think it's ever easy to order troops into battle, knowing that some of them will die or be wounded. But, taking out the Taliban was (and still is) essential to our national security. It was a repressive and horrible regime, and while the ongoing fight will be difficult and prolonged, it is the right one, because America should be on the side of freedom, women's rights, and progressive values. I'm glad President Bush choose to fight there.
1. And finally, one policy that is truly compassionate: providing billions in funding for AIDS medication to those in poor countries. Saying that the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (Pepfar, for short) is a good thing would be understating it! This was something President Bush didn't have to do, and he might not have won any votes on it, but it saved countless lives and was a truly good deed. From a NY Times article, a doctor who worked with the program had a good summation.

"Dr. Coutinho said Ugandans were terrified that when Mr. Bush left office, 'the Bush fund,' as they call it, would go with him. "When I’ve traveled in the U.S., I’m amazed at how little people know about what Pepfar stands for,” he said. “Just because it has been done under Bush, it is not something the country should not be proud of.”"

So, just because Bush/Clinton/Obama/Whoever does it, doesn't make it a bad thing. Finding good things in others makes you a better person yourself :)