As I listen to politicians talk about how they are going to help Americans, I see a very distinct difference between philosophies. One group wants to help by providing services through the Federal Government, the other wants to help by keeping the Federal Government out of our business as much as possible. The latter understand the Constitution, the former either don’t, or choose to ignore it.
But the single issue which catches my attention more than others is health care. This takes the form of prescription drugs, hospitalization for those who can’t afford it, or research. Now, call me stupid if you want, but if funding for stem cell research is a big issue, and people like Kerry, Edwards, Kennedy, and a host of millionaire and billionaire luminaries want to see it funded at a level they feel comfortable with, why not fund it themselves? They could then reap the profits of any new drugs developed through their largesse.
How much would it cost to build and staff a hospital in some rundown area of Boston? Couldn’t the combined wealth of Kerry and Kennedy pay for that?
I’ve asked the question before about John Edwards–If he is such a tremendous friend of those who were injured, how much of his fee (40% by some accounts) did he donate for research into solving the problem so that others might be saved from injury?
I don’t expect any of this. But I have to ask, given the professed desire of these people to help others, why aren’t they already doing it? Why raise millions of dollars to try and get elected to an office? Why not simply campaign to raise money to help people instead? Why not build that hospital? Why not fund that research? Why force me to fund what you are unwilling to?
Let’s see them put their money where their mouths are. Let’s see all this group donate 25% of their wealth to an independent research firm for developing a cure for AIDS, or Alzheimer’s. What? 25% is too much? Then don’t insist I give 25% of my annual income to those causes. And my measley 25% is a whole lot less than yours.
Let’s focus just a bit on research, as this is the current straw-man. Any time you hear about research being done at some university, it is because some progress has been made. This applies to all research, not just medical. Added on to the announcement about the progress is always the caveat “More study (testing) is required before any solid conclusions can be drawn.” That tells you the research is being done with grant money, most of which comes from the government. Why is more testing required? Because that’s how the flow of dollars keeps coming in. As long as possible. Unless, of course, a Nobel Prize is near at hand.
Commercial research has a completely different motivation: Get it done and get a product on the market. If we see no progress, it stops. That’s the approach Bush has taken with embyonic stem cell research. Use what you have, then that’s it. Make something happen, and quit bleeding the Treasury to work on your personal science project. Mature stem cells have shown far greater progress and potential, and funding hasn’t been halted there. In my view, though, continued funding only continues research. It doesn’t solve problems.
How about taking that chunk of cash Kerry and Edwards are going to donate, and spread it out among ten university research labs. That is about $12 million per school. The administration of each school will take at least 10% off the top (you didn’t know they did that?), so each one has about $10 million to play with. Give them five years to come up with a solution, and they can keep the rest of all the money once a cure is found. Winner takes all. How long do you think it would take to get a cure for either AIDS or cancer?
Obviously, the drive to get elected isn’t about helping people. These folks have that within their personal power. Nor do they need a job. They could live out their lives in absolute luxury, even after donating all that money. What keeps someone like Robert Byrd going for so long? They have the power they want without ever again setting foot in Washington. What else could they want? What is the real, unspoken appeal of being in Congress?
And why are people willing to give it to them?