Print

---

Hello, All.

Several members of this list have posted accounts of how their
Congressional Representatives have opposed  supporting the Udall
Parkinson's Research Bill on the alleged ground that "earmarking funds"
in this way is wrong and that the choice of funding-allocation is best
left to the "experts" at NIH.

I wonder: Were these Congresspersons speaking with honesty, from their
hearts, or were they perhaps instead filtering their words through "the
politics of convenience"?

My response -- in addition to seeking to strenously emphasize to these
Congresspersons the critical need to support this Udall Bill -- would be
to first do some serious background-research on whether (and to what
extent) these individuals may have thrown their political weight
behind any OTHER legislation (such as Defense Appropriations?) which DID
specifically "earmark funds" for similarly-focused purposes. Then I'd make
the case to them directly: If they supported "earmarking" so assiduously
regarding those other pieces of legislation, how can they expect to be
viewed (by the electorate?) as "consistent" if they now oppose "earmarking"
regarding the Udall Bill -- especially when the Udall Bill is so clearly
humanitarian in its goals?

That argument aside, I think that this "we oppose earmarking" assertion
may, in some cases, be disingenuous, off the point, a "red herring": It
seems to me that the VERY NATURE of the legislative-process is one of
"earmarking" on a massive scale, in that EVERY VOTE FOR A GIVEN PIECE OF
LEGISLATION is a means of "earmarking" (of funding and whatever else) for
a given goal. (Or what do our national, state, and local legislators do
when they vote for and pass legislation, if not "earmark" funds & support
for the goals named in all those bills that they enact into law?).

Perhaps making this case to these individuals will have a salutory effect
on their stances regarding "earmarking" as in the Udall Bill.

-- SJS