McCain On Spending Cuts: Cancer Research ?Is One Of The Last Things That I Would Go After?
Posted in Main Blog (All Posts) on January 24th, 2011 5:36 am by HL
McCain On Spending Cuts: Cancer Research ?Is One Of The Last Things That I Would Go After?
Today, on CBS’s Face the Nation, host Bob Schieffer pressed Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) on the spending cuts being pushed by House Republicans. Noting that both he and McCain are cancer survivors, Schieffer asked McCain if he was open to slashing cancer research funds — a proposal which is apparently “on the table” according to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA):
SCHIEFFER: Let’s get back to spending cuts. You’ve never been shy about spending cuts especially when it comes to earmarks and those pet projects that members have. But the House Republicans are talking about draconian cuts, that according to some liberal groups would mean a 40 percent cut this year in such things as the National Institutes of Health and the FBI and federal prosecutors.
Eric Cantor said this morning on Meet the Press that even cancer research is on the table. Now you and I are cancer survivors. Do you think that’s something where we can cut back?
MCCAIN: I think there may be efficiencies there. And frankly I — cancer research I think is one of the last things that I would go after. But we’ve got to take on some of the sacred cows, Bob.
Watch it:
However, cancer research is not on the bottom the GOP’s list of things to cut. The proposal introduced by the Republican Study Committee (RSC) last week includes a provision which would reduce non-defense discretionary spending to 2006 levels until 2021. Pat Garofalo of ThinkProgress points out that such a cut would cost the National Institutes of Health (NIH) — which includes the National Cancer Institute (NCI) — $5 billion. Back in November, when Cantor indicated that the House would roll back funding to agencies to fiscal 2008 levels, the NIH called the reduction “very devastating.” NIH-funded research has already led to the development of drugs that include the cancer therapies Avastin, sold by Roche Holding AG, and Novartis AG’s Gleevec.
Money has been tight at the Cancer Institute for years. “We are pulling the rug out from the world’s best infrastructure for cancer research and for all biomedical research. It doesn’t make any sense to me,” said one cancer researcher back when the Bush administration slashed NIH funds.
In late 2010, President Obama asked Congress for $32 billion for the National Institutes of Health. His request for the National Cancer Institute is reportedly up 10 percent from where it was in 2008.
Sen. Mike Lee Says That Dialing Down Violent Political Rhetoric Means ?The Shooter Wins?
In the wake of the Tucson tragedy, politicians from both sides of the aisle have called for a more civil discourse in our political debate. On CBS’s Face the Nation this morning, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said, “There is a lack of respect in our dialogue. … We shouldn’t mistake passion for advocacy. In other words, passion is necessary in this debate that we’re having, but we’ve got to make sure it doesn’t spill over into personal attacks and impugning people’s character or patriotism.”
On ABC’s This Week, new Tea Party-backed Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) struck a different tone. He argued that restraining violent rhetoric — such as invoking “job-killing” during the health care repeal effort — would be unwise because it means “the shooter wins”:
The shooter wins if we, who’ve been elected, change what we do just because of what he did.
Watch it:
Lee’s argument is disingenuous because it suggests that lawmakers shouldn’t reflect on whether the shooting incident highlights any real need for political change. In fact, lawmakers should consider whether to curtail the ability of gun owners to purchase high-capacity magazine clips.
The Washington Post reported this weekend that the expiration of the ban on high-capacity magazine clips since 2004 has led to a proliferation of those weapons being seized by police in the course of investigations. “Last year in Virginia, guns with high-capacity magazines amounted to 22 percent of the weapons recovered and reported by police. In 2004, when the ban expired, the rate had reached a low of 10 percent. In each year since then, the rate has gone up.”
Who “wins” when there’s more weapons of mass casualty on the streets?
