 |
 |
Quote: In response to Camilla's remarks(see below my post:) I really do a slow burn when staff or appropriations committee or any official government staff person says like the fellow on C-SPAN you mention below that NIH doesn't think the congress should earmark funds for any specific disease. Why can't our elected officials speak on our behalf, pass laws specifically earmarking funds for pd research? We elect rep/sen to speak in our behalf to spend the tax dollars we all contribute. Certainly $40 annually per pd diagnosed person in the USA/Canada that has previously been spent can be raised as per Udall bill lang. What are lobbies for if not to insure that tax dollars are spent the way taxpayers want? Most of the supporting sen/rep of Udall bill are more informed about costs/problems/devistation of pd than the fellow on C-SPAN probably ever might be and can speak for the pd community when they say "Keep the $$$ in Udall bill committed to pd research." Unquote. I see that there are some people who are favoring Earmarking for research. I am a physicist and as such I hear of issues relating to funding of research projects. While the notion of supporting worthwhile projects is laudable, unfortunately earmarking has led to the most egregious abuses by our representatives and senators. How, you might ask. Well, if the research is done in MY state or district then I want the grants even if the research is "Golden Fleece". Millions of dollars have been wasted with Earmarking. So, in general it is dangerous to give the individuals (Senators or Representatives) such power to influence decisions in their favor and rather force the process to be more equitable. K-F Etzold