Question For Perry
Not that I am trying to put a damper on the aftermath of his re-election announcement, but I have a question for Governor Perry, and the Legislature as a whole. Why did you approve 3 billion (yes…billion) in new spending for cancer research when Texas ranks only 47th out of 50 states (page 26 in the whole document) in both estimated cancer deaths and new cancer cases per-capita?
Pushed by Perry, rubber-stamped by the Legislature and campaigned for by Lance Armstrong, the financing of the 3 billion dollar investment - with no guaranteed positive results - is the primary concern. Since the 3 billion is essentially borrowed money in the form of bonds, the state will spend an estimated 1 billion in interest before it buys that investment back. For a state that prides itself on Fiscal Conservatism, the practice of buy now and let future Legislatures figure out how to pay the tab later usually isn’t a play that gets called in the huddle. And all this, the increased spending and unorthodox method of doing so, to fight a problem that you could argue isn’t even a problem in Texas.
To be fair to Perry and the Legislature, voters did eventually put the final stamp of approval on the 3 billion as part of a 16 proposition election package. But voters have passed all but six of the last 84 constitutional amendments put before them, meaning that the strong precedence was set by the Legislature and Governor Perry when they passed the act first.
Now no one likes cancer, but given that Texas’ cancer situation is far from crippling, couldn’t that 3 billion dollars be better spent elsewhere? Or even not spent at all?
2 Responses to “Question For Perry”
By Roger on Apr 25, 2008
I am not too upset with the monies being allocated to cancer research because I heard that Lance Armstrong was able to get a small portion of the $3 billion to fund Matthew McConaughey’s groundbreaking pain relief research.
By LegeBoy on Apr 28, 2008
What do you expect from Gov. Good Hair 38 Percent Perry?
As far as I can tell, the Republicans have not been real conservatives since Teddy Roosevelt. And I’m never surprised when they want to allocate a few billion for anything, whether it be cancer research, corporate handouts or war… or give away massive swaths of privately-owned land for a massive highway, for that matter.
When Jane Nelson stole the Cancer Institute project from Kirk Watson (a cancer survivor) I couldn’t help but laugh. She decided a junior senator was not worthy of carrying such a significant piece of legislation, but instead decided a “conservative Republican” should lead the way to strapping tax payers with $3 billion in debt for research that is already largely privately funded. Then she and Florence Shapiro got their broaches in a bind when a private entity wanted to lead the way on building the 121 toll project.
So, let me get this straight: the government should not do work the private sector can do, unless it’s roads and cancer research? Allllrrighy then.
Having lost friends and family to cancer, I realize we need to do something and I voted for the con amend. I’m not knocking the goal of the legislation, I just think this is another example of Republican hypocrisy.
When your party supports “leaders” like Perry and Nelson, you reap what you sow.