Another slush fund?

[ugonow]

The military budget seems like a nice place to get your earmarks from.No one scrutinizes it like other budgets.www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-house-armed-services-panel-earmarks-are-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder/2011/05/27/AGWoKyEH_story.html

[ugonow]

As I posted in another thread,I sometimes do some work for a lung cancer advocate group.They have been trying to help to raise lung cancer awareness, research,and support funding up to par with the other cancers.I was suprised when they put it into a military program and granted it. They are very thankful and appreciative, but I was suprised where the money came from.

[Deleted]

Interesting. I don't really know about this stuff to comment, but it said the monies could go where people want it. In your case it went to lung cancer. Very good. So-- maybe people that protest money for military don't know all this stuff? I sure didn't, but I support money for military any way, so this is a nice surprise to me. (Hope I read the article right..)

[ugonow]

I am thankful for the funds, but question if the pentagon budget that republicans want to increase more than was requested will be used for funding things under the radar. The old smoke and mirrors. I don't know much about it, but after seeing where the cancer group ended up getting the funding from,then reading this article,it just made me wonder. Seems to me it should have been from another budget....

[Deleted]

Like I said,I don't know enough to comment. Nor can I be unbiased because I am 100% pro military at all times. Guess I should shut up. Maybe someone will chime in that knows what in the heck this is about, cuz I sure don't. I'm just glad the cancer money went from military to your cause. Makes sense, though, because soldiers breathe God only knows what, so the research for the military could end up being for the good of all in this case.

[ugonow]

I guess it is me thinking up conspiricies now.I went back and read the email I recieved a while back on it-----"The $12.8 million in research funding is in addition to $35 million secured to date by LCA since it first established the DOD lung cancer research pipeline in 2009 which targets research for early detection with special emphasis on high risk military.


"We are proud to share that to date we have secured $47.8 million for lung cancer research funding via this investigative pipeline", said Laurie Fenton-Ambrose, President and CEO of LCA. This has been the focus of our core mission from day one and we will continue these efforts for patients and survivors as well as our research community. I thank our congressional leadership for understanding the need and electing to continue support for this program. "

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death among men and women and every ethnic group and among our military who are at an increased risk in comparison to their civilian counterparts. Lung cancer has a 15% 5-year survival rate with the vast majority of cases found late stage. In addition, 80% of those diagnosed with lung cancer today are former or non-smokers.

Military personnel have a higher exposure to lung cancer carcinogens and thus are more susceptible than the general public. The FY2011 language calls for continued research focus on screening and early disease management, especially among high risk military. For more information go to www.lungcanceralliance.org. .

[Deleted]

PLEASE don't get me going on conspiracies!!!! I'm a believer, and military has done some wicked things over the years to the troops, AND to civilians, to test things. But that is not the guys and gals serving, it is the big dog gov't people. I support the troops... some other stuff can get weird....

[Deleted]

When you think military, and money-- it is such a huge, diverse group, I guess just about anything could be funded by military funds. Let's just hope the good guys are the good guys. Someone has to be the good guys... I hope...

[henryclay]

It's really n othing new. It's just been further institutionalized.

It should be no secret that when a bill has no chance of passage on it's own merits, it can be piggy-backed as an amandment to bill that is sure of passage and "viola!!!" the deed is done.

As to anyone having an objection to cancer research as a stand alone appropriation, I amd struck dumb. I would need to know more about the entire cancer research being contemplated.

[Deleted]

I agree, Henry. Why the hell cancer would need to piggy-back on a military bill is beyond me. Part of the New World where cancer will be quietly disposed of by death.. What?? I have no idea..

[ugonow]

I agree, Henry. Why the hell cancer would need to piggy-back on a military bill is beyond me

Lung Cancer Alliance has been lobbying Washington for these funds for a while. One of their people said some reps won't give them the time of day. There was even a hearing where patients and families gave their touching stories.We had an email campaign to Washington going and very few even responded.It is very politicaly incorrect to sponser a spending bill .It would sound like political partisan spewing if I even bothered to tell you who was the least receptive. Like I sad,I AM grateful for the funding,no matter how it came about.I was just a little suprised by the source.

[henryclay]

ugonow, I sure don't have an answer, but I do have a curiosity. If the American Cancer Society is not doing the research the Lung Cancer Alliance feels it should be doing, then rather than "lobbying Washington" for more money, maybe they should be making noises about that instead.

And I am not being flippant. If anybody ever had a life style that would invite cancer, I am one, and I wonder every day when I will be diagnosed with it. It just seems everybody with an alphabet mix behind their name has their own ideas and turf to protect, which takes up so much of their time that they loose sight of what is good for the people they are supposed to be helping, , , or, hint, hint, , , , trying to help. For all I know the American Cancer Society has grown into just such a monster.

Good luck with your funding. Keep me in mind, please.

[ugonow]

Henry,there is only so much money to go around. Breast, Colon,prostrate, etc get the lions share of the funding,both from Washington and private despite the fact it kills far more and has not made the prevention and treatment strides others have..ACS does not focus on any one type of cancer. Breast cancer has done a fantastic job in awareness and lobbying. Lung cancer,not so much.There is a stigma behind lung cancer. But nowdays,it is not only ones with the life style you refer to that are being diagnosed with it. I really did not mean this to be a soap box oportunity. I read the article, added 2+2 and came up with 5.

[henryclay]

"......did not mean this to be a soap box.." And I didn't mean to imply that it was taken that way.

Good luck with your efforts.

[Deleted]

Hey, no problem, ugo. I'm also in a high risk for lung cancer group, and others, and would love to see more $$$$$$$ there. Possible it IS judged by lifestyle people like me that smoke, whatever, but it is also FACT that lots of people that never smoke or anything die from lung cancer. Or maybe because it is so deadly, and they want to slant success rates to more curable cancers like breast. Lung, liver, pancreas all scare the crap out of me, and I don't hear much about them...except for people dying. Seems due to toxins military could get lots of funding for all these, so I'm all for it.

[Deleted]

Hey, ugo-- if you ever want to talk, please PM me, or use the chit-chat thread. I feel terrible for you for what you are going through with your wife. I'm SURE people here would love to be supportive of you as you go through this. I'll shut up now.

[ugonow]

Krickitt, that is truly nice.I apreciate it but we are fine. We are either blessed or really lucky compared to others.I broke my rule about not getting personal on message boards.

[Deleted]

Hey, ugo. Real life breaks through. It also causes us to form opinions, etc. But when in a thing like you are, in real life, that is the most important thing. Use board people as you need to help you. God knows I have.

[handyman2]

My question was the ear mark part of the military budget or just an earmark attached to the budget but not actually part of the military budget? Just an attachment was the way I understood it. That way it is an earmark that has a better way of getting passed since it is part of the whole bill but the military funding is totally seperate.