« | »

What Obama Is ‘Cutting’ – More Details

Some actual reporting from Reuters (of course, not without bias):

Obama budget cuts funds for "abstinence-only"

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama’s $3.55 trillion budget proposal, released on Thursday, eliminates spending for programs that teach U.S. schoolchildren sexual abstinence and shifts funds to programs aimed at reducing teenage pregnancy…

The so-called "abstinence only" programs, backed by many social conservatives who oppose the teaching of contraception methods to teenagers in schools, have received about $1.3 billion in federal funds since the late 1990s.

A report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics published in March said the U.S. teen birth rate rose for a second straight year in 2007 after a long decline.

Some experts blame the teen birth rate increases on government support for "abstinence-only" education under the Bush administration

The American Public Health Association and U.S. Institute of Medicine told Congress last year that scientific studies have not found that abstinence-only teaching works to cut pregnancies or sexually transmitted diseases.


In fact, abstinence has been scientifically proven to cause pregnancies and sexually transmitted disease.

Just ask anyone – in our one party media.

Meanwhile, from the American Spectator:

Obama Slashes Union Enforcement Budget

By Philip Klein

President Obama today unveiled a paltry $17 billion in cuts to the $3.4 trillion federal budget, about half of which will come out of defense spending. But buried in the budget documents released by the White House today is a 9 percent cut in the unit of the Department of Labor that is in charge of regulating unions.

Under the leadership of Elaine Chao during the Bush administration, the Labor Department’s Office of Labor-Management Standards took its job of policing unions seriously. Its actions led to 929 convictions of corrupt union officials and to the recovery of more than $93 million on behalf of union members. Yet the Obama administration has proposed slashing its budget from $45 million in 2009 to $41 million in 2010, citing an insufficient “workload” for the office.

Instead of using the money to make sure unions play by the rules, the Obama administration proposes shifting resources to the department’s Wage and Hour Division, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration — all areas of the agency focused on regulating businesses.

Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, who has had a long and cozy relationship with big labor, already announced recently that the department would loosen union disclosure requirements.

These are the type of actions that occur under the radar, out sight of most Americans, but that have a dramatic impact on life in the workplace.

The message to crooked union bosses by the Obama administration is being delivered loudly and clearly: we’ve got your back.

And, as we have previously noted, this is part of a pattern in Mr. Obama’s ‘cuts’:

Office of Inspector General Field Office Consolidation, Department of Health and Human Services

Office of Labor-Management Standards, Department of Labor

Unemployment Insurance, Financial Integrity, Department of Labor

Unemployment Insurance, Program Integrity, Department of Labor

Defense, national security, prisons holding illegals, nuclear and coal production, farmers and those in rural areas – and anybody who might carp about his giveaways to his constituents are the ones having their funding slashed.

(Thanks to BillK for the heads up.)

This article was posted by Steve on Friday, May 8th, 2009. Comments are currently closed.

21 Responses to “What Obama Is ‘Cutting’ – More Details”

  1. proreason says:

    Well why not subsize hard drug usage?

    After all, drug users are going to do it anyway. Might as well make it psychologically easier to deal with it.

  2. Celina says:

    I wonder if this is going to be listed as a cut, despite the fact that the money is just being diverted to programs like Planned Parenthood that teach valueless sex. I have a very recent experience with the BS PP is trying to pull in my daughter’s local school. Don’t those people pull in a pretty large profit despite receiving hundreds of millions from the government?

    I’d like to see an honest report card on how Planned Parenthood and other such organizations are doing when it comes to rates of STDs, how many adoptions they actually guide women and girls into persuing,etc.

    Shouldn’t our teenage pregnancy and abortion rates be incredibly low since comprehensive sex ed was suppposed to be the answer to the those problems?

    • catie says:

      Celina, you would think right? I doubt there are ever adoptions out of there or one or two at the most. I keep reading that STDs amongst high school and college kids are rampant with herpes being at the top of the list. My friend works as a civilian nurse at Tripler in Hawaii and she said you’d be surprised at the number of Soldiers who come in with herpes and how much the Army spends on Valtrex. But it looks like Sex Ed has failed quite a few people doesn’t it?
      OT: but what do you feel about Obama going to Notre Dame next weekend? My friend Suzy’s family has withdrawn all of their monies to the university and my old Company Commander who is also a graduate and also named Catie said she will never give anything else to her Alma Mater and neither will her husband or his family. It’s a mistake but they can’t “un-invite” him now I guess.

    • Celina says:

      I agree with you, mostly. I think that they should withdrawal the offer of an honorary doctorate. I don’t have much of a problem with him speaking, it is honoring him that really bothers me.

      I have a lot of respect for the woman (and I am totally blanking out on her name) who was supposed to receive the Laetere Medal at the same ceremony as well as speak on the same dais as Obama. She declined the honor because it appears that she was being used as a “see, we know what the Church teaches” prop. I wish I could find a link for you. It is pretty sad that it has come to this. If BO had any class at all, maybe he would decline the honorary doctorate.

      As with “pro-choice” supposed Catholics, I don’t understand why they would identify as Catholics, calling themselves a member of the Church or accept it’s accolades if the Church is just so wrong on such a huge issue.

    • catie says:

      Celina, I don’t remember her name but she was actually supposed to be one of his profs at Harvard while he was in law school. No, I don’t think he should be graced with an honorary degree. But could you see him declining that degree, not on his ego.

    • Celina says:

      Your right, Catie. His ego won’t allow him to do such a thing. And to think of all the Catholics I know who voted for him because of the “he is so good on everything else so naturally abortion rates will drop”. What a croc!

      I wasn’t aware that she was one of BOs professors (sp?). Kinda cool. Sounds like she is in a good place to be aware of his BS. Too bad the admin at ND aren’t.

  3. canary says:

    Obama feels it would be morally wrong to teach about abstinence. After all stem cells can grow eyes, brains, bones, tissue. I saw Micheal J. Fox who was once a Republican, joke that embryo cells would be happier than old cranky brain stem cells. He visited Obama, and plea’d, now he’s got his new optimistic show.
    Boycott it.

  4. Right2thepoint says:


    That is the file detailing all the proposed cuts

  5. Wayne from Jeremiah Films says:

    I’ve linked to your post from White House • Obama’s Agendas with a few quotations.

    • “In fact, abstinence has been scientifically proven to cause pregnancies and sexually transmitted disease.”

      I like that. I wouldn’t be surprised if our media starting talking this up, maybe even find some made up statistics to back this up.

    • Celina says:

      I liked that too. Isn’t it funny how abstinence doesn’t work but condoms seem to work even if one leaves them in the bathroom drawer?

  6. 12 Gauge Rage says:

    Well we all know that cutting the nads off the military is his primary focus. From there on it’s all downhill. You can almost profile with great accuracy on how all democratic presidents cut and spend once they get into the Oval Office.

  7. CGardner says:

    SG, not to be obnoxious, but what studies are you using to show that “abstinence only” education is effective in reducing teen pregnancy rates?

    Let me say where I’m coming from. . .20+ years in the field of HIV/AIDS, and I saw a supression under Bush of public health agencies being allowed to say anything about the effectiveness of condoms. Condoms was effectively a dead subject.

    So, what happens when all those kids decide abstinence is just too much? Do they have the knowledge from their school programs to reduce their risk of HIV and STDs by using condoms?

    My personal preference is to go back to the Clinton years, when abstinence was touted as the only sure way to avoid pregnancy and STDs, BUT if sex did happen, condoms offered protection.

    • VMAN says:

      I don’t want to be vulgar but let me give you a little scenario. Let’s teach those kids all about rubbers (that is what they are isn’t it) and get them screwing each other to beat the band and then something like this happens. “Oh baby this sure would feel better for me and you of course without this glove” “Yea I know what you mean and I do want to make my man happy?” Nine months latter guess what. Keep fooling yourself. My wife and I got our last boy just that way. Just remember “If it feels good they will do it”

  8. Steve says:

    “SG, not to be obnoxious, but what studies are you using to show that “abstinence only” education is effective in reducing teen pregnancy rates?”

    I was being facetious. I thought it was obvious.

  9. CGardner says:

    Whoops, no! Has S&L commented on this issue before?

    • Steve says:

      “Has S&L commented on this issue before?”

      Apart from a couple of the related articles linked above, I don’t know.

      But I thought it was obviously absurd to say that abstinence causes pregnancy and STDs.

  10. MinnesotaRush says:

    How ’bout we “cut” the entire WH executive food service and staff. After all, o-blah-blah and gang are good with burgers and pizza. Chicken to go, too, .. probably.

  11. proreason says:

    It turns out that 40% of the “big’deal” budget cuts were proposed by Bush and rejected by the Dimwit controlled Congress in 2008.

    Amazing, isn’t it?

« Front Page | To Top
« | »