Lipstick Tree Pods, originally uploaded by twoblueday.
Yesterday I saw a bit on the news, CNN probably, about Lance Armstrong and others wanting to present their case for more cancer funding to the candidates running for president (that’s my shorthand version of what I perceived to be the story). I think Mr. Armstrong is an admirable fellow in many ways, and that his contributing his celebrity to efforts to improve the lot of others is a good thing. [I know, those who read my blog are waiting for the other shoe to drop!] What I thought about, while watching the bit, was about those wanting “federal dollars” (in quotes because it is actually taxpayer dollars) to be spent on X. X being a particular cause, purpose, or program.
The federal government operates at an immense deficit. At this point I’m not blaming that on any administration or program. So the federal government has no money to spend on anything new (or increased) without borrowing the money, raising taxes, or reducing the funding of something else. Let’s say these nice people wanting increased funding for cancer research want $100million. Let’s say in the next budget nothing changes but that this funding is passed by the Congress and signed by the President. That means the federal government will be paying out more money in interest, which, eventually, has to be extracted from the taxpayers (or from other programs, which were already funded by the taxpayers). Where am I headed with this? I think anyone who wants the federal government to spend money on their project should, in good conscience, say where they expect the money to come from. Say flat out that if raising taxes isn’t requested, that the requestor wants another program to be reduced, or for the government to borrow more money. It is quite common when politicians propose some expensive program (do they ever propose any other kind?) for those “across the aisle” to say, “Where’s the money coming from?” Citizens should work this out before asking for money.
Next thing that popped into my mind. Is cancer research suffering from too little funding? Phrased another way, are we, the taxpayers, being asked to “throw money” at a problem? Who says more funding will improve the lot of those suffering from cancer, or help keep anyone from getting it? I don’t mean this sarcastically, it is a genuine question. A question which, in my mind, should be answered by the proponents of more funding. Zillions have been spent on the “war” on cancer (including private as well as taxpayer money, I assume). Has it been well spent? Has there been any analysis of the effectiveness of the spending (both as to amount and projects funded)? In essence, Mr. Armstrong and his group are asking me for money–give me some facts, please.
As I said above, I admire Mr. Armstrong’s efforts to help others, and I have as much sadness about cancer suffering, and hopes for its amelioration, as anyone. My family has been touched by cancer (with both favorable and unfavorable outcomes). We have “given back” as we can. My questions about this issue could be raised about any issue where someone wants the government to fund something, or increase funding for something.
As a side note, I saw a news article this week where a couple of sisters ran a company which shipped things for the military, and billed (and got paid!) almost a million dollars for shipping two washers. Paid! This was not the only instance of them bilking us. Somebody whose salary we citizens are paying signed off on the payment, signed the check. This is how closely expenditures are being monitored. [BTW--one of the sisters has died, and the other is facing criminal charges; let's guess how much of the money is lying around to be recovered.]
Posted in Lance Armstrong, cancer, funding
