"If what you are asking is, has George Bush as president of the United States established priorities in spending for his administration? The answer is yes," said Wade F. Horn, who as assistant secretary for children and families at HHS oversees much of the spending going to conservative groups. "That is a prerogative that presidents have."
Horn and other officials said politics has not played a role in making grants. "Whoever got these grants wrote the best applications, and the panels in rating these grants rated them objectively, based on the criteria we published in the Federal Register," he said. "Whether they support the president or not is not a test in any of my grant programs."
A lot of Conservative groups are deserving of this money, because they do a lot of good in society. With that said, I have a hard time believing that there is nothing political about some of these grants. The Bush administration has given a lot of money to abstinence-only programs, which could only be a political move to appease his radical base. Why else would the administration give so much money to people who advocate teaching an education system that has been shown to be ineffective? If it is not political, then what is it?
In a Dec. 12, 2002, executive order, Bush addressed one of the major concerns of religious groups considering applying for public money. Bush declared that religious groups receiving federal grants would not be required to comply with certain civil rights statutes, and could discriminate by hiring employees of specific religious faiths.
This is something that I have always disagreed with. If a religious group is going to get money from the state, they should have to follow all laws, including ones that disagree with their religious beliefs. These religious groups made the choice to get money from the government, which should allow the government to regulate them. If a religious group wants to get involved with the state, they have broken down the wall of separation and should have to uphold on laws.