Why isnt media linking forbidden words at CDC to Mulvaney being director of OMB?

[suffragette]

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/cdc-bannedwords/

CDC gets list of forbidden terms, including: ‘fetus,’ ‘transgender,’ ‘diversity’

At the CDC, the meeting about the banned words was led by Alison Kelly, a senior leader in CDC’s Office of Financial Services, according to the CDC analyst who spoke on condition of anonymity. Kelly did not say why the words are being banned, according to the analyst, and told the group that she was merely relaying the information.

Other CDC officials confirmed the existence of a list of forbidden words. It’s likely that other parts of HHS are operating under the same guidelines regarding the use of these words, the analyst said.
Mulvaney is anti-science, against govt funding for science and in charge of OMB which is where that directive likely originated.

~~~

The ban is related to the budget and supporting materials that are to be given to CDC’s partners and to Congress, the analyst said. The president’s budget for 2019 is expected to be released in early February. The budget blueprint is generally shaped to reflect an administration’s priorities.

Federal agencies are sending in their budget proposals to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which has authority about what is included.

The linkage from Mulvaney at OMB to these orders seems pretty direct.

Mulvaney is anti-science, against govt funding for science and in charge of OMB.

As noted in the article above, OMB is the office which has authority about what is included in the budget proposals.

Mulvaney has expressed doubt about Zika and funding research about it before, so it looks like he is manipulating the language CDC can even use to request budget for research.

He’s also acting director of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Bureau.

This is the stuff of nightmares.

https://www.snopes.com/trumps-budget-director-pick-asked-really-need-government-funded-research/

On 19 December 2016, Mother Jones’ Pema Levy reported on one of Mulvaney’s since-deleted Facebook posts, unearthed by a Democratic opposition research group named American Bridge. This post from 9 September 2016 came at a time that Congress was debating funding research into efforts to fight the spread of the Zika virus. In it, Mulvaney suggested the federal government (whose budget office he is now nominated to lead) might not be well served by funding science research at all:

It has been a busy week, and with everything else going on I haven’t had a chance to post on Zika, which I know has been in the news a bit. I have received all sorts of emails and FB comments this week on Zika. Some people want me to pass a “clean” bill (which I suppose means not paying for it with spending reductions elsewhere). Other folks want us to fund more research if we can find a way to pay for it. No one has written me yet, though, to ask what might be the best question: do we really need government-funded research at all.

The post, though deleted, can still be viewed on a cached version of Mulvaney’s Facebook page. His argument against science funding (and science in general) seems to follow arguments made by other prominent Trump transition team figures: because science is sometimes wrong, or not clear cut, it shouldn’t be trusted.


https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/judge-declines-remove-trump-pick-mulvaney-consumer-financial-protection-bureau-n824711

[Tanuki]

1. Moreover, references to climate change, etc.have been censored by 45's EPA,

and other departments right from the start.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/energy-and-environment/2017/11/9/16619120/trump-administration-removing-climate-change-epa-online-website

"Ever since January, the words “climate change” have been disappearing from government websites. It’s happened not just at the Environmental Protection Agency but also at the Department of Energy, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Health and Human Services.

In some cases, the removal of references to climate change is a political directive from new Trump appointees — what some scientists have described as censorship. In other cases, agency staffers are tweaking program names and language in internal documents to try to stay out of the crosshairs of their new bosses. In other words, out of sight, out of mind, and maybe out of
range for budget cuts.

While largely superficial, these changes in wording are symptomatic of broader shifts of the Trump era occurring within federal agencies that are trying to boost fossil fuels and roll back efforts to study, mitigate, and adapt to climate change."...(more)

[suffragette]

4. Exactly. He installed heads of agencies who censor the terms used, which shapes the policies

and views of those policies and is anti-science at its core.

I would argue this isn’t “superficicial” at all. In fact, this political propaganda goes directly to the center of defining and funding or cutting the funding of essential services.

[Laffy Kat]

2. Sounds like Germany in 1939.

They did nothing. We have to raise hell.

[suffragette]

5. Sure does. If you cant even use the correct descriptive language to justify your budget request

then you likely won’t be able to receive funds.

They are trying to redefine these areas out of existence.

We have to raise hell and point fingers at those directly responsible and not let them hide these actions behind layers of bureaucracy.

[Kirk Lover]

3. So when we have a health crisis of some sort the United States of America will be ill prepared.

Just so fucking disgusted.

[suffragette]

6. Likely theyll trot out some version of who could have foreseen this and then shift blame to

Obama and Dems.

Makes it even more important to clearly draw the direct lines to them when they are first doing this.