Zuckerman's op ed: Viagra vs. programs for women and families

[Guest guest]

At the end of 2005, Congress had to pass several

budget and appropriations bills. Unfortunately, the

push to " get something done " resulted in several

outrageous provisions, which we will be paying for

with cuts in programs that would have benefited women

and families.

We tried to get this published BEFORE the bill was

finalized, hoping to influence the outcome, but since

we were unable to do so, we will use it to try to make

some changes after the New Year.

This op-ed was published today in the Oregonian, Salt

Lake Tribune, San Mercury News, and Hartford

Courant.

Best wishes,

Zuckerman, Ph.D.

President

National Research Center for Women & Families

1701 K Street, NW, Suite 700

Washington, DC 20006

(202) 223-4000

www.center4research.org

Remember us when you donate to United Way or CFC --

we're # 9884

The Viagra War

Knight Ridder Forum

By Zuckerman

As we consider our goals for the New Year, what is

more important to American taxpayers: free Viagra or

providing essential food, health care and education

for our neediest families? According to our

congressional leaders, free Viagra is the priority.

This sounds like a bad joke. It isn't. Congress

decided this week to restore Medicare funding for

Viagra and other erectile dysfunction drugs, at a cost

of $90 million for 2006. To do so, they had to cut

other programs, mostly for our country's most

vulnerable adults and children.

Rep. Bill , R-Calif., led the charge in favor of

Viagra funding, insisting that Congress keep its

promise to the drug industry — which had expected ED

drugs to be reimbursed under Medicare in 2006. He

apparently thought it was unfair when, a few months

ago, Congress decided to instead use those $90 million

in taxpayer money for relief efforts after Hurricane

Katrina.

In the ideal world, we would have enough federal

dollars for disaster relief, food stamps, and Viagra

for seniors. In the real world, however, tax cuts and

the war in Iraq have meant that billions of dollars in

essential programs have to be cut. And so, Congress

decided to come to the aid of pharmaceutical companies

even if it meant harming parents who were counting on

after-school programs, pregnant women who were

counting on prenatal care, and low-income families who

were counting on food stamps.

Since they had already made tremendous cuts to the No

Child Left Behind education program, community

colleges, and maternal and children's health programs

in earlier versions of the same funding bill, Congress

chose to pay for Medicare coverage of ED drugs by

shifting $120 million in funds intended to prepare for

the flu pandemic.

That seems crazy, but it is really just smoke and

mirrors. Congress passed a different bill that

provides more than $3.5 billion on pandemic flu

prevention and treatment efforts — adding that same

$3.5 billion to our deficit for the year. So in truth,

there is no Christmas miracle of genuine savings to

make up for the $90 million for Viagra and other ED

drugs — other than cuts in health and child-care

programs and an increase in our national deficit. The

kids who believe in Santa now will be paying that debt

for many years to come.

How could this happen? I thought the recent public

outcry against the " bridge to nowhere " would teach

this Congress a lesson about wasteful spending. The

bridge to nowhere was a $223 million bridge that would

have connected the small town of Ketchikan on the

Alaska mainland and Gravina Island (population 50),

replacing the current seven-minute ferry ride. When

federal funding for the bridge generated an avalanche

of protest, the funds were moved — but again, it was

smoke and mirrors. Rather than being used for other

essential programs, the funds were instead given as a

gift to Alaska, to use however it sees fit — for the

bridge or any other purpose. It's kind of like a gift

card for your favorite mall instead of for a specific

store.

But, amazingly, the bridge disappearing act took care

of the public protest. The media and the American

public lost interest in the controversy, even though

the gift of $223 million for unspecified purposes is

equally outrageous at a time when there are not enough

funds for food stamps or health care or better schools

for children living in poverty.

Of course, Congress' latest gift to the companies that

make ED drugs is part of a much larger problem — a

Medicare prescription drug bill that will cost

billions, hugely benefit pharmaceutical companies, and

provide little help to most seniors. The Viagra

amendment just makes it more obvious how the American

public is getting treated by this Congress (fill in

the Freudian metaphor of your choice).

The message is clear: If we ignore this holiday gift

to drug companies, as we did with the $223 million

gift card to Alaska, we can expect similar gifts next

Christmas. And unfortunately, these are the kinds of

gifts that can’t be returned.

———

ABOUT THE WRITER

Zuckerman is president of the National Research

Center for Women & Families. Readers may write to her

at: National Research Center for Women & Families,

1901 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 901, Washington,

D.C. 20006, or via e-mail at dz@...;

Web site: www.center4research.org.

This essay is available to Knight Ridder/Tribune News

Service subscribers. Knight Ridder/Tribune did not

subsidize the writing of this column; the opinions are

those of the writer and do not necessarily represent

the views of Knight Ridder/Tribune or its editors.

———

© 2005, National Research Center for Women & Families

Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Information

Services