Er, Tom...

On Mon, 04 May 2009 21:34:43 GMT, "Tom Littleton" wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
...has yer boy Arlen slipped a gear...? No, no shtick because of the
party
switcheroo, but because of comments like Kemp being alive if the GOP had
allowed
more funding of cancer research, and this lack of funding is one of the
reasons
he switched. I saw a report that said that gov't funding of cancer
research
went from 2 to 3 bil under Clinton and from 3 to almost 5 under Bush
(close
enough to about the same rate of increase, with Bush's tenture getting a
slight
nod), but IAC, certainly no lack of funding under Bush. Apparently, he's
making
this a (big?) part of his 2010 campaign, but ??? It's a worthy cause, but
is it
really all that big an issue _for his re-election?


Healthcare research has always been a big thing for him.
Both personal and practical politics.....Between the big University
Hospitals in Philly, Pittsburgh, State College and Hershey, a lot of pharma
R and D scattered statewide, it sells well. Sure, there WAS funding under
Bush, but with little thanks to the GOP, especially Senators, who ****ed old
Arlen off by obstruction tactics
(not all, BTW, there are a handful of GOP allies, but most such funding gets
sponsored and passed by Dems.
hth....................Tom

Are you sure about that, Dems vs. GOP on cancer funding? I've heard, and
did a _very_ quick check to verify and it seems to check out, that in 1999 there
was about 3 bil to NCI alone (up from about 2 bil in 1991) in funding and by
2007, it was up to around 4.8 - proposed by Bush. I didn't see specifics as to
who did what, but Bush did do a fair bit for such stuff. Yes, I realize that
many wanted more (when it comes to "government money," someone always thinks
their needs are the greatest and most deserving...the ACS was bitching because
he "only" proposed the paltry sum of 4.8 bil to NCI - they said about the same
of Clinton's 2-increasing-to-3 bil over the 8 years - with 29 bil to NIH and
almost 6 to CDC) and there was bitching that it wasn't more, but it's not like
Bush or the GOP didn't fund it about like Clinton and at the same or greater
rate of increase. Bottom line for me is that I don't see how he can say that
the GOP did substantially less than the Dems when it appears they did about the
same (or even marginally better).

I'm not defending Bush or bashing Clinton on this, simply pointing out that
there seems very little _Federal_ difference in either party on "cancer money."

TC,
R