WI: Reagan Tackled AIDS earlier?

It's not impossible to be both hard on drug trafficking, yet take harm minimisation approaches to drug users themselves.

It is also possible that if Reagan were to take the approach of funding needle exchange programs, he could do so 'quietly'.

Here in Australia, that is what the Howard Liberal (right-wing) government did, during the time period 1996-2007. Howard and his government was known for trumpeting zero tolerances policies and lampooning the harm minimisation approach; yet they quietly continued funneling money into needle exchange programs. This allowed Howard to appear tough on law and order, yet also taking a sensible policy approach.

I would suspect that it is plausible that Reagan does similar; especially given that the programs will themselves likely be delivered at the state and local government levels (yet he would fund them federally).

Stop me if I'm wrong, but isn't the PM of Australia also the head of parliament and therefore has control over the government's pursestrings?

American Presidents don't control the federal pursestrings. That's done by Congress, the legislative branch. As a result, Reagan can't exactly fund such programs quietly, particularly not when Congress is controlled by the Democrats.
 
SC, you are correct. Yes, the PM has authority over the budget, as he does over all legislative (de facto, not de jure) and executive powers in a parliamentary system.
 
SC, you are correct. Yes, the PM has authority over the budget, as he does over all legislative (de facto, not de jure) and executive powers in a parliamentary system.

So it's safe to say that as a result the PM in a parliamentary system can do a lot more "quiet" funneling of money to programs than the American President.
 
Of course, but a PM has to keep at least his senior Cabinet in the loop. A funding diversion can be done by Order-in-Council (OIC), which despite nominal need for Cabinet approval is a prime ministerial Executive Order in all but name.
 
Stop me if I'm wrong, but isn't the PM of Australia also the head of parliament and therefore has control over the government's pursestrings?

As RogueBeaver said, you are correct on this.



American Presidents don't control the federal pursestrings. That's done by Congress, the legislative branch. As a result, Reagan can't exactly fund such programs quietly, particularly not when Congress is controlled by the Democrats

My thinking however, was that the Democrats as a rule would be more in favour of safe needle programs. Not all Democrats, such as conservative Democrats mind you, but probably most of the Dems nonetheless.

I would suspect then, that the Dem in control of the Committees on such things, might on Reagans advice not subject funding 'diversions' to too much scrutiny (indeed the risk is that the Republicans in Congress will attempt to do so).

Just out of interest, how 'ear-marked' is federal expenditure in the USA. This is an imprecise term, but I mean does federal legislation micro-manage the minute detail of program funding to fund programs at the state level?

For instance, would is it possible under federal law in the US, for the federal government to say fund 'HIV/AIDS preventios programs' administered by state governments, whilst leaving it up to state governments to determine how to spend the money, subject to periodic review of the effectiveness of such programs (thereby allowing Reagan to distance himself from harm minimisation approaches)?
 
Top