 |
 |
[log in to unmask] wrote: > Does anyone have any experience responding to a congressman who > would not cosponsor because of earmarking ? I am seeking as many > ideas as possible. I don't have any such experience, but may I offer a few thoughts? There have been debates in Congress for years on the subject of earmarking. There seem to me to be two issues involved in these debates. One is what is referred to as pork barrel projects, where members of Congress try to get large sums of federal funds allocated to their home districts, either to please their consitiuents or to get re-elected or both, outside the context of national needs and priorities. The other is the absence of an ideal process for determining how federal funds for certain purposes should be spent. (Are there any further issues about this?) The Udall Bill is not a pork barrel project. If members of Congress who oppose earmarking are thinking of earmarking in terms of pork, then it should be clear that the supporters of the bill are dealing with a national problem, and are not attempting to fund their own pet home-district projects. I hope that addresses issue number 1. Issue number 2, how ideally to allocate research funds, is an important, long-range, and difficult to solve question that should not be allowed to hold up the Udall Bill. There is an immediate and serious need to provide fair and adequate funding for Parkinson's Disease, coupled with the likelyhood of big paybacks. Let them address the priorities and allocations issue in another bill which deals with just that topic. As someone once said, "When you are up to your neck in alligators, it's not time to talk about draining the swamp." Phil Tompkins