This page was last updated on February 21, 2011.
Don’t cut funding for cancer research; Mary Bryner; Beaver County Times; February 20, 2011. An editor’s note asserts, “The writer is a member of the Ambassador Constituent Team for the American Cancer Society’s Cancer Action Network.” In other words, the ACS provides talking points to ACT! members so they can lobby for government policies the ACS wants implemented.
Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.
“Congress is under a lot of pressure to cut budgets and reduce the deficit.
“However, the spending bill just passed by the U.S. House of Representatives for the remainder of the fiscal year is not the way to do it. Slashing budgets for cancer research and prevention programs jeopardizes progress in the fight to defeat cancer.
“Not only does cancer research have the potential to save lives, but the funding creates jobs. Eighty-five percent of the federal funding for the National Institutes of Health goes directly to fund research in communities in all 50 states.
“The NIH estimates that in 2009 federal research dollars supported more than 325,000 researchers, lab technicians and support staff in facilities across the country.
“In Pennsylvania, we received $1,405,917,085 in federal funding for our research facilities in 2010. Those grants translate directly into jobs in our local communities. Funding cuts could jeopardize the next great breakthrough that could be discovered in our own backyard.
“Investing in research is the surest way to continue to reduce human suffering and the economic burden caused by cancer. I’m asking U.S. Sen. Pat Toomey to please help protect our local research centers from these proposed cuts and preserve funding for NIH and cancer research.”
[RWC] I wonder why Ms. Bryner didn’t mention Sen. Bob Casey (D).
Without commenting on the worthiness of any program, we could get letters like this for zillions of programs some group believes is important. That’s what makes cutting spending so difficult. Spending cuts would be easy if all the excessive spending went to subsidizing tattoo removal shops.
© 2004-2011 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.