“Boehner’s Sequester” or “Cantor’s Sequester”

Posted in the Minneapolis Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#1 Apr 2, 2013
The latest semantic spin is to call the looming $1.2 trillion in cuts, which could throw the whole economy back into recession,“Obama’s Sequester.” House Speaker John Boehner indulged this approach half a dozen times in a floor speech before he went on break, establishing its place in the talking-points firmament.

There are a couple problems with this tactic, as my colleague Michael Tomasky pointed out Tuesday. Congress passed sequestration before the president signed it, and the whole self-defeating exercise was carried out in response to Tea Party Republicans’ insistence that we play chicken with the debt ceiling, which ultimately cost America its AAA credit rating.

But here’s the thing. I happened to come across an old email that throws cold water on House Republicans’ attempts to call this “Obama’s Sequester.”

It’s a PowerPoint presentation that Boehner’s office developed with the Republican Policy Committee and sent out to the Capitol Hill GOP on July 31, 2011. Intended to explain the outline of the proposed debt deal, the presentation is titled:“Two Step Approach to Hold President Obama Accountable.”

It’s essentially an internal sales document from the old dealmaker Boehner to his unruly and often unreasonable Tea Party cohort. But it’s clear as day in the presentation that “sequestration” was considered a cudgel to guarantee a reduction in federal spending—the conservatives’ necessary condition for not having America default on its obligations.

The presentation lays out the deal in clear terms, describing the spending backstop as “automatic across-the-board cuts (‘sequestration’). Same mechanism used in 1997 Balanced Budget Agreement.”

The Joint Committee, ultimately misled by Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) into enacting the sequester, is explained in detail under a page titled “Entitlement Reforms and Savings”:
130215-Avlon-Boehner-Sequester -embed

A slide from the final page of Speaker John Boehner's Powerpoint to House Republicans on July 31st, 2011, obtained by The Daily Beast. Click to download full pdf.

Sets up a new sequestration process to cut spending across-the-board—and ensure that any debt limit increase is met with greater spending cuts—IF Joint Committee fails to achieve at least $1.2T in deficit reduction.

If this happens, POTUS may request up to $1.2T for a debt limit increase, and if granted, then across-the-board spending cuts would result that would equal the difference between $1.2T and the deficit reduction enacted as a result of Joint Committee.

Across-the-board spending cuts would apply to FYs 2013-2021, and apply to both mandatory & discretionary programs.

Total reductions would be equally split between defense and non-defense programs. Across-the-board cuts would also apply to Medicare. Other programs, including Social Security, Medicaid, veterans, and civil & military pay, would be exempt.

Sequestration process is designed to guarantee that Congress acts on the Joint Committee’s legislation to cut spending.

And that’s pretty much exactly what’s scheduled to start happening on March 1. Democrats could just as easily spin this as “Boehner’s Sequester” or “Cantor’s Sequester” and offer indelible digital evidence to back up their claim.
non-starter

Saint Paul, MN

#2 Apr 2, 2013
Obama's sequester, Boehner's sequester, Cantor's sequester, whatever, no effect.

Slew's plagiarism.
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#3 Apr 2, 2013
REWRITING REALITY, again !!???

non-starter wrote: I found it, you just won't publish that you got it off Yahoo or Wiki answers ....

THEN the lies began, LMAOROTFU~!

non-starter wrote: No, I guessed, because you weren't forthcoming with your source

OR MY NEW FAVORITE-

non-starter wrote: I found similar postings on Yahoo answers and Wiki answers

You posted to the urban dictionary to support your position...It's called tampering and you're clearly a duplicitous/dishonest POS... Have a nice lie... Oh sorry, I surely meant life.
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#4 Apr 2, 2013
The latest semantic spin is to call the looming $1.2 trillion in cuts, which could throw the whole economy back into recession,“Obama’s Sequester.” House Speaker John Boehner indulged this approach half a dozen times in a floor speech before he went on break, establishing its place in the talking-points firmament.

There are a couple problems with this tactic, as my colleague Michael Tomasky pointed out Tuesday. Congress passed sequestration before the president signed it, and the whole self-defeating exercise was carried out in response to Tea Party Republicans’ insistence that we play chicken with the debt ceiling, which ultimately cost America its AAA credit rating.

But here’s the thing. I happened to come across an old email that throws cold water on House Republicans’ attempts to call this “Obama’s Sequester.”

It’s a PowerPoint presentation that Boehner’s office developed with the Republican Policy Committee and sent out to the Capitol Hill GOP on July 31, 2011. Intended to explain the outline of the proposed debt deal, the presentation is titled:“Two Step Approach to Hold President Obama Accountable.”

It’s essentially an internal sales document from the old dealmaker Boehner to his unruly and often unreasonable Tea Party cohort. But it’s clear as day in the presentation that “sequestration” was considered a cudgel to guarantee a reduction in federal spending—the conservatives’ necessary condition for not having America default on its obligations.

The presentation lays out the deal in clear terms, describing the spending backstop as “automatic across-the-board cuts (‘sequestration’). Same mechanism used in 1997 Balanced Budget Agreement.”

The Joint Committee, ultimately misled by Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) into enacting the sequester, is explained in detail under a page titled “Entitlement Reforms and Savings”:
130215-Avlon-Boehner-Sequester -embed

A slide from the final page of Speaker John Boehner's Powerpoint to House Republicans on July 31st, 2011, obtained by The Daily Beast. Click to download full pdf.

Sets up a new sequestration process to cut spending across-the-board—and ensure that any debt limit increase is met with greater spending cuts—IF Joint Committee fails to achieve at least $1.2T in deficit reduction.

If this happens, POTUS may request up to $1.2T for a debt limit increase, and if granted, then across-the-board spending cuts would result that would equal the difference between $1.2T and the deficit reduction enacted as a result of Joint Committee.

Across-the-board spending cuts would apply to FYs 2013-2021, and apply to both mandatory & discretionary programs.

Total reductions would be equally split between defense and non-defense programs. Across-the-board cuts would also apply to Medicare. Other programs, including Social Security, Medicaid, veterans, and civil & military pay, would be exempt.

Sequestration process is designed to guarantee that Congress acts on the Joint Committee’s legislation to cut spending.

And that’s pretty much exactly what’s scheduled to start happening on March 1. Democrats could just as easily spin this as “Boehner’s Sequester” or “Cantor’s Sequester” and offer indelible digital evidence to back up their claim.

Since: Sep 11

Rogers, MN

#5 Apr 2, 2013
non-starter wrote:
Obama's sequester, Boehner's sequester, Cantor's sequester, whatever, no effect.
Slew's plagiarism.
What "effects" there have been seem to all be superficial news items chosen for their media impact.
non-starter

Saint Paul, MN

#6 Apr 2, 2013
Bushwhacker wrote:
The latest semantic spin is to call the looming $1.2 trillion in cuts, which could throw the whole economy back into recession,“Obama’s Sequester.” House Speaker John Boehner indulged this approach half a dozen times in a floor speech before he went on break, establishing its place in the talking-points firmament.
There are a couple problems with this tactic, as my colleague Michael Tomasky pointed out Tuesday. Congress passed sequestration before the president signed it, and the whole self-defeating exercise was carried out in response to Tea Party Republicans’ insistence that we play chicken with the debt ceiling, which ultimately cost America its AAA credit rating.
But here’s the thing. I happened to come across an old email that throws cold water on House Republicans’ attempts to call this “Obama’s Sequester.”
It’s a PowerPoint presentation that Boehner’s office developed with the Republican Policy Committee and sent out to the Capitol Hill GOP on July 31, 2011. Intended to explain the outline of the proposed debt deal, the presentation is titled:“Two Step Approach to Hold President Obama Accountable.”
It’s essentially an internal sales document from the old dealmaker Boehner to his unruly and often unreasonable Tea Party cohort. But it’s clear as day in the presentation that “sequestration” was considered a cudgel to guarantee a reduction in federal spending—the conservatives’ necessary condition for not having America default on its obligations.
The presentation lays out the deal in clear terms, describing the spending backstop as “automatic across-the-board cuts (‘sequestration’). Same mechanism used in 1997 Balanced Budget Agreement.”
The Joint Committee, ultimately misled by Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) into enacting the sequester, is explained in detail under a page titled “Entitlement Reforms and Savings”:
130215-Avlon-Boehner-Sequester -embed
A slide from the final page of Speaker John Boehner's Powerpoint to House Republicans on July 31st, 2011, obtained by The Daily Beast. Click to download full pdf.
Sets up a new sequestration process to cut spending across-the-board—and ensure that any debt limit increase is met with greater spending cuts—IF Joint Committee fails to achieve at least $1.2T in deficit reduction.
If this happens, POTUS may request up to $1.2T for a debt limit increase, and if granted, then across-the-board spending cuts would result that would equal the difference between $1.2T and the deficit reduction enacted as a result of Joint Committee.
Across-the-board spending cuts would apply to FYs 2013-2021, and apply to both mandatory & discretionary programs.
Total reductions would be equally split between defense and non-defense programs. Across-the-board cuts would also apply to Medicare. Other programs, including Social Security, Medicaid, veterans, and civil & military pay, would be exempt.
Sequestration process is designed to guarantee that Congress acts on the Joint Committee’s legislation to cut spending.
And that’s pretty much exactly what’s scheduled to start happening on March 1. Democrats could just as easily spin this as “Boehner’s Sequester” or “Cantor’s Sequester” and offer indelible digital evidence to back up their claim.
Obama's sequester, Boehner's sequester, Cantor's sequester, whatever, no effect.

Slew's plagiarism.
non-starter

Saint Paul, MN

#7 Apr 2, 2013
cantmakeitup wrote:
<quoted text>
What "effects" there have been seem to all be superficial news items chosen for their media impact.
Or cuts manufactured for their effect.
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#8 Apr 2, 2013
The latest semantic spin is to call the looming $1.2 trillion in cuts, which could throw the whole economy back into recession,“Obama’s Sequester.” House Speaker John Boehner indulged this approach half a dozen times in a floor speech before he went on break, establishing its place in the talking-points firmament.

There are a couple problems with this tactic, as my colleague Michael Tomasky pointed out Tuesday. Congress passed sequestration before the president signed it, and the whole self-defeating exercise was carried out in response to Tea Party Republicans’ insistence that we play chicken with the debt ceiling, which ultimately cost America its AAA credit rating.

But here’s the thing. I happened to come across an old email that throws cold water on House Republicans’ attempts to call this “Obama’s Sequester.”

It’s a PowerPoint presentation that Boehner’s office developed with the Republican Policy Committee and sent out to the Capitol Hill GOP on July 31, 2011. Intended to explain the outline of the proposed debt deal, the presentation is titled:“Two Step Approach to Hold President Obama Accountable.”

It’s essentially an internal sales document from the old dealmaker Boehner to his unruly and often unreasonable Tea Party cohort. But it’s clear as day in the presentation that “sequestration” was considered a cudgel to guarantee a reduction in federal spending—the conservatives’ necessary condition for not having America default on its obligations.

The presentation lays out the deal in clear terms, describing the spending backstop as “automatic across-the-board cuts (‘sequestration’). Same mechanism used in 1997 Balanced Budget Agreement.”

The Joint Committee, ultimately misled by Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) into enacting the sequester, is explained in detail under a page titled “Entitlement Reforms and Savings”:
130215-Avlon-Boehner-Sequester -embed

A slide from the final page of Speaker John Boehner's Powerpoint to House Republicans on July 31st, 2011, obtained by The Daily Beast. Click to download full pdf.

Sets up a new sequestration process to cut spending across-the-board—and ensure that any debt limit increase is met with greater spending cuts—IF Joint Committee fails to achieve at least $1.2T in deficit reduction.

If this happens, POTUS may request up to $1.2T for a debt limit increase, and if granted, then across-the-board spending cuts would result that would equal the difference between $1.2T and the deficit reduction enacted as a result of Joint Committee.

Across-the-board spending cuts would apply to FYs 2013-2021, and apply to both mandatory & discretionary programs.

Total reductions would be equally split between defense and non-defense programs. Across-the-board cuts would also apply to Medicare. Other programs, including Social Security, Medicaid, veterans, and civil & military pay, would be exempt.

Sequestration process is designed to guarantee that Congress acts on the Joint Committee’s legislation to cut spending.

And that’s pretty much exactly what’s scheduled to start happening on March 1. Democrats could just as easily spin this as “Boehner’s Sequester” or “Cantor’s Sequester” and offer indelible digital evidence to back up their claim.
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#9 Apr 2, 2013
Nice you identify plagerism, for ONLY me.. Hypocritical, but you're a hypocrite, right wing nut ???

The latest semantic spin is to call the looming $1.2 trillion in cuts, which could throw the whole economy back into recession,“Obama’s Sequester.” House Speaker John Boehner indulged this approach half a dozen times in a floor speech before he went on break, establishing its place in the talking-points firmament.
There are a couple problems with this tactic, as my colleague Michael Tomasky pointed out Tuesday. Congress passed sequestration before the president signed it, and the whole self-defeating exercise was carried out in response to Tea Party Republicans’ insistence that we play chicken with the debt ceiling, which ultimately cost America its AAA credit rating.
But here’s the thing. I happened to come across an old email that throws cold water on House Republicans’ attempts to call this “Obama’s Sequester.”
It’s a PowerPoint presentation that Boehner’s office developed with the Republican Policy Committee and sent out to the Capitol Hill GOP on July 31, 2011. Intended to explain the outline of the proposed debt deal, the presentation is titled:“Two Step Approach to Hold President Obama Accountable.”
It’s essentially an internal sales document from the old dealmaker Boehner to his unruly and often unreasonable Tea Party cohort. But it’s clear as day in the presentation that “sequestration” was considered a cudgel to guarantee a reduction in federal spending—the conservatives’ necessary condition for not having America default on its obligations.
The presentation lays out the deal in clear terms, describing the spending backstop as “automatic across-the-board cuts (‘sequestration’). Same mechanism used in 1997 Balanced Budget Agreement.”
The Joint Committee, ultimately misled by Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) into enacting the sequester, is explained in detail under a page titled “Entitlement Reforms and Savings”:
130215-Avlon-Boehner-Sequester -embed
A slide from the final page of Speaker John Boehner's Powerpoint to House Republicans on July 31st, 2011, obtained by The Daily Beast. Click to download full pdf.
Sets up a new sequestration process to cut spending across-the-board—and ensure that any debt limit increase is met with greater spending cuts—IF Joint Committee fails to achieve at least $1.2T in deficit reduction.
If this happens, POTUS may request up to $1.2T for a debt limit increase, and if granted, then across-the-board spending cuts would result that would equal the difference between $1.2T and the deficit reduction enacted as a result of Joint Committee.
Across-the-board spending cuts would apply to FYs 2013-2021, and apply to both mandatory & discretionary programs.
Total reductions would be equally split between defense and non-defense programs. Across-the-board cuts would also apply to Medicare. Other programs, including Social Security, Medicaid, veterans, and civil & military pay, would be exempt.
Sequestration process is designed to guarantee that Congress acts on the Joint Committee’s legislation to cut spending.
And that’s pretty much exactly what’s scheduled to start happening on March 1. Democrats could just as easily spin this as “Boehner’s Sequester” or “Cantor’s Sequester” and offer indelible digital evidence to back up their claim.
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#10 Apr 2, 2013
non-starter wrote:
<quoted text>Or cuts manufactured for their effect.
You didn't read the cuts start this month ? Why comment, if you're uninformed ? Oh right, same reason you comment and misquote, lie, and make it up....
non-starter

Saint Paul, MN

#11 Apr 2, 2013
Bushwhacker wrote:
Nice you identify plagerism, for ONLY me.. Hypocritical, but you're a hypocrite, right wing nut ???
The latest semantic spin is to call the looming $1.2 trillion in cuts, which could throw the whole economy back into recession,“Obama’s Sequester.” House Speaker John Boehner indulged this approach half a dozen times in a floor speech before he went on break, establishing its place in the talking-points firmament.
There are a couple problems with this tactic, as my colleague Michael Tomasky pointed out Tuesday. Congress passed sequestration before the president signed it, and the whole self-defeating exercise was carried out in response to Tea Party Republicans’ insistence that we play chicken with the debt ceiling, which ultimately cost America its AAA credit rating.
But here’s the thing. I happened to come across an old email that throws cold water on House Republicans’ attempts to call this “Obama’s Sequester.”
It’s a PowerPoint presentation that Boehner’s office developed with the Republican Policy Committee and sent out to the Capitol Hill GOP on July 31, 2011. Intended to explain the outline of the proposed debt deal, the presentation is titled:“Two Step Approach to Hold President Obama Accountable.”
It’s essentially an internal sales document from the old dealmaker Boehner to his unruly and often unreasonable Tea Party cohort. But it’s clear as day in the presentation that “sequestration” was considered a cudgel to guarantee a reduction in federal spending—the conservatives’ necessary condition for not having America default on its obligations.
The presentation lays out the deal in clear terms, describing the spending backstop as “automatic across-the-board cuts (‘sequestration’). Same mechanism used in 1997 Balanced Budget Agreement.”
The Joint Committee, ultimately misled by Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) into enacting the sequester, is explained in detail under a page titled “Entitlement Reforms and Savings”:
130215-Avlon-Boehner-Sequester -embed
A slide from the final page of Speaker John Boehner's Powerpoint to House Republicans on July 31st, 2011, obtained by The Daily Beast. Click to download full pdf.
Sets up a new sequestration process to cut spending across-the-board—and ensure that any debt limit increase is met with greater spending cuts—IF Joint Committee fails to achieve at least $1.2T in deficit reduction.
If this happens, POTUS may request up to $1.2T for a debt limit increase, and if granted, then across-the-board spending cuts would result that would equal the difference between $1.2T and the deficit reduction enacted as a result of Joint Committee.
Across-the-board spending cuts would apply to FYs 2013-2021, and apply to both mandatory & discretionary programs.
Total reductions would be equally split between defense and non-defense programs. Across-the-board cuts would also apply to Medicare. Other programs, including Social Security, Medicaid, veterans, and civil & military pay, would be exempt.
Sequestration process is designed to guarantee that Congress acts on the Joint Committee’s legislation to cut spending.
And that’s pretty much exactly what’s scheduled to start happening on March 1. Democrats could just as easily spin this as “Boehner’s Sequester” or “Cantor’s Sequester” and offer indelible digital evidence to back up their claim.
Obama's sequester, Boehner's sequester, Cantor's sequester, whatever, no effect.

Slew's plagiarism.
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#12 Apr 2, 2013
The sequester changes CANCER.

non-sense spams while Americans worry-

Beginning April 1, providers of community-based cancer care, where more than 80 percent of patients receive their care, will begin experiencing cuts of extreme proportions. Already on financially unstable ground because of funding shortfalls for drug therapies, the federal sequester will reduce reimbursement for Medicare Part B cancer therapies from the current payment rate of the average sales price plus 6 percent to just ASP plus 4.3 percent, resulting in severe financial losses for practices that treat cancer patients in the community. The current drug reimbursement rate does not adequately pay for the acquisition and related costs (such as storage, inventory, waste disposal, pharmacy and admixture facilities and staff) of life-sustaining cancer drugs; as a result, many critical cancer drugs are currently reimbursed below cost. After April 1, our cancer doctors will be asked to personally help fund a portion of each Medicare patient’s treatments.

Since 2003, community cancer care has experienced a waterfall of funding reductions all while fending off an additional double digit percentage cuts to the Sustainable Growth Rate, which is the formula used in setting Medicare physician payments. The sequester and its disproportionate impact on cancer is just the latest in a series of damaging cuts that threaten patient access to cancer care through facility closures, exorbitant patient out-of-pocket copays and drug acquisition costs, or doctors’ inability to accept Medicare patients.

The question we must ask ourselves is: Who can survive a 28 percent funding cut while continuing to provide high-quality care?
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#14 Apr 2, 2013


“Is preserving tax cuts to the ultra-rich and corporations with record profits really worth thousands of lives?”

The growing chorus of pols and pundits who dismiss President Obama’s warnings about the sequestration cuts as fearmongering should talk to cancer researchers. Leaders at several esteemed cancer organizations interviewed for this story all say virtually the same thing: the cuts will have a profoundly negative and long-lasting impact on cancer research and cancer patients.
Par7467701

A nurse works in a room where patients undergo chemotherapy treatment last month.(Phillipe Huguen/AFP/Getty )

Why? Because the proposed reductions in nondefense discretionary funding will result in deep slices at the National Cancer Institute (NCI)—whose main responsibility is conducting and funding cancer research. While no one knows just how deep the cuts will be at NCI, which is part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), several sources say they’ll be at least 5 percent. NCI currently is allotted $5 billion of the NIH’s $30.9 billion budget.

“Funding for cancer research is already down, but these cuts at NCI will be devastating,” says Geoff Wahl, a professor in the gene-expression lab at the Salk Institute Cancer Center in San Diego and former president of the American Association for Cancer Research.

Wahl says the expected $250 million cut at NCI, whose budget has already been shrinking for the last several years, will “dramatically reduce the number of cancer-research grants, and as a result, fewer cancer treatments will be discovered and developed for patients.”

According to Rick Borchelt, a spokesman for NCI, the agency gives out about 1,100 grants a year. Says Wahl:“As cancer researchers we need to keep challenging boundaries and thinking out of the box. With pancreatic cancer, for example, we’ve had the same five-year survival rate for 40 years. We need to continue pursuing adventuresome research. But with these cuts, we’ll be even less able to do that.”

Want to sound smart when talking about the sequester? Here's your guide.

In a letter submitted Wednesday to the leaders of both houses of Congress, Louis J. DeGennaro, chief mission officer at the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, expressed grave concern over the cuts, saying that “continuing a steady flow of resources to support cancer research and the development of innovative therapies—as well as access to those therapies—is essential, as we are on the threshold of bringing new and more effective treatments to patients.”

Scott Lippman, the director of Moores Cancer Center at the University of California, San Diego, says the cuts come at the “worst possible time” because of recent historic advances in cancer research.

“In this era of personalized therapy and the Human Genome Project, we are getting a very good understanding of what drives tumors,” he says.“We know we can have a huge impact, but these cuts will slow this process. They will translate immediately to cancer patients not having access to lifesaving kinds of approaches. It’s demoralizing for those of us in the field. It all comes back to patients. These cuts will have a very real impact on cancer patients.”

One of those patients, Amberley Kowalski, is alive because of the NCI. Kowalski, a young adult cancer survivor from the Chicago area who relapsed twice in short order from her aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, was maxed out on her insurance and facing a $300,000 donor transplant as her last option. Then one of her doctors told her about an NIH/NCI trial that had both a new way to treat her cancer and what appears to be a significant improvement in donor-transplant survival.

Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#15 Apr 2, 2013
“Is preserving tax cuts to the ultra-rich and corporations with record profits really worth thousands of lives?”

The growing chorus of pols and pundits who dismiss President Obama’s warnings about the sequestration cuts as fearmongering should talk to cancer researchers. Leaders at several esteemed cancer organizations interviewed for this story all say virtually the same thing: the cuts will have a profoundly negative and long-lasting impact on cancer research and cancer patients.
Par7467701

A nurse works in a room where patients undergo chemotherapy treatment last month.(Phillipe Huguen/AFP/Getty )

Why? Because the proposed reductions in nondefense discretionary funding will result in deep slices at the National Cancer Institute (NCI)—whose main responsibility is conducting and funding cancer research. While no one knows just how deep the cuts will be at NCI, which is part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), several sources say they’ll be at least 5 percent. NCI currently is allotted $5 billion of the NIH’s $30.9 billion budget.

“Funding for cancer research is already down, but these cuts at NCI will be devastating,” says Geoff Wahl, a professor in the gene-expression lab at the Salk Institute Cancer Center in San Diego and former president of the American Association for Cancer Research.

Wahl says the expected $250 million cut at NCI, whose budget has already been shrinking for the last several years, will “dramatically reduce the number of cancer-research grants, and as a result, fewer cancer treatments will be discovered and developed for patients.”

According to Rick Borchelt, a spokesman for NCI, the agency gives out about 1,100 grants a year. Says Wahl:“As cancer researchers we need to keep challenging boundaries and thinking out of the box. With pancreatic cancer, for example, we’ve had the same five-year survival rate for 40 years. We need to continue pursuing adventuresome research. But with these cuts, we’ll be even less able to do that.”

Want to sound smart when talking about the sequester? Here's your guide.

In a letter submitted Wednesday to the leaders of both houses of Congress, Louis J. DeGennaro, chief mission officer at the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, expressed grave concern over the cuts, saying that “continuing a steady flow of resources to support cancer research and the development of innovative therapies—as well as access to those therapies—is essential, as we are on the threshold of bringing new and more effective treatments to patients.”

Scott Lippman, the director of Moores Cancer Center at the University of California, San Diego, says the cuts come at the “worst possible time” because of recent historic advances in cancer research.

“In this era of personalized therapy and the Human Genome Project, we are getting a very good understanding of what drives tumors,” he says.“We know we can have a huge impact, but these cuts will slow this process. They will translate immediately to cancer patients not having access to lifesaving kinds of approaches. It’s demoralizing for those of us in the field. It all comes back to patients. These cuts will have a very real impact on cancer patients.”

One of those patients, Amberley Kowalski, is alive because of the NCI. Kowalski, a young adult cancer survivor from the Chicago area who relapsed twice in short order from her aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, was maxed out on her insurance and facing a $300,000 donor transplant as her last option. Then one of her doctors told her about an NIH/NCI trial that had both a new way to treat her cancer and what appears to be a significant improvement in donor-transplant survival.

“Is preserving tax cuts to the ultra-rich and corporations with record profits really worth thousands of lives?”
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#16 Apr 2, 2013
“Is preserving tax cuts to the ultra-rich and corporations with record profits really worth thousands of lives?”
non-starter

Saint Paul, MN

#17 Apr 2, 2013
Bushwhacker wrote:
“Is preserving tax cuts to the ultra-rich and corporations with record profits really worth thousands of lives?”
The growing chorus of pols and pundits who dismiss President Obama’s warnings about the sequestration cuts as fearmongering should talk to cancer researchers. Leaders at several esteemed cancer organizations interviewed for this story all say virtually the same thing: the cuts will have a profoundly negative and long-lasting impact on cancer research and cancer patients.
Par7467701
A nurse works in a room where patients undergo chemotherapy treatment last month.(Phillipe Huguen/AFP/Getty )
Why? Because the proposed reductions in nondefense discretionary funding will result in deep slices at the National Cancer Institute (NCI)—whose main responsibility is conducting and funding cancer research. While no one knows just how deep the cuts will be at NCI, which is part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), several sources say they’ll be at least 5 percent. NCI currently is allotted $5 billion of the NIH’s $30.9 billion budget.
“Funding for cancer research is already down, but these cuts at NCI will be devastating,” says Geoff Wahl, a professor in the gene-expression lab at the Salk Institute Cancer Center in San Diego and former president of the American Association for Cancer Research.
Wahl says the expected $250 million cut at NCI, whose budget has already been shrinking for the last several years, will “dramatically reduce the number of cancer-research grants, and as a result, fewer cancer treatments will be discovered and developed for patients.”
According to Rick Borchelt, a spokesman for NCI, the agency gives out about 1,100 grants a year. Says Wahl:“As cancer researchers we need to keep challenging boundaries and thinking out of the box. With pancreatic cancer, for example, we’ve had the same five-year survival rate for 40 years. We need to continue pursuing adventuresome research. But with these cuts, we’ll be even less able to do that.”
Want to sound smart when talking about the sequester? Here's your guide.
In a letter submitted Wednesday to the leaders of both houses of Congress, Louis J. DeGennaro, chief mission officer at the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, expressed grave concern over the cuts, saying that “continuing a steady flow of resources to support cancer research and the development of innovative therapies—as well as access to those therapies—is essential, as we are on the threshold of bringing new and more effective treatments to patients.”
Scott Lippman, the director of Moores Cancer Center at the University of California, San Diego, says the cuts come at the “worst possible time” because of recent historic advances in cancer research.
“In this era of personalized therapy and the Human Genome Project, we are getting a very good understanding of what drives tumors,” he says.“We know we can have a huge impact, but these cuts will slow this process. They will translate immediately to cancer patients not having access to lifesaving kinds of approaches. It’s demoralizing for those of us in the field. It all comes back to patients. These cuts will have a very real impact on cancer patients.”
One of those patients, Amberley Kowalski, is alive because of the NCI. Kowalski, a young adult cancer survivor from the Chicago area who relapsed twice in short order from her aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, was maxed out on her insurance and facing a $300,000 donor transplant as her last option. Then one of her doctors told her about an NIH/NCI trial that had both a new way to treat her cancer and what appears to be a significant improvement in donor-transplant survival.
“Is preserving tax cuts to the ultra-rich and corporations with record profits really worth thousands of lives?”
Obama's sequester, Boehner's sequester, Cantor's sequester, whatever, no effect.

Slew's plagiarism.
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#18 Apr 2, 2013
non-starter-P.S., the engineers don't call it a "battery rework",

Really ??

"Boeing Co said on Monday that the first flight test of its reworked battery system for the 787 Dreamliner ..."

Does it SUCK, being so STOOPID !!!??

Since: Sep 11

Rogers, MN

#19 Apr 2, 2013
non-starter wrote:
<quoted text>Or cuts manufactured for their effect.
Precisely. He who wields the bigger PR sword wins the match. And this is nothing more than a huge PR campaign to try and discredit the opposition. D's are trying to discredit the R's and the R's are trying to discredit the D's. Our system of government has degraded in to one massive pissing match. Probably to distract us from all of the dirty deals going on in the background and under the table.
Consistent

Grantsburg, WI

#20 Apr 2, 2013
Bushwhacker wrote:
non-starter-P.S., the engineers don't call it a "battery rework",
Really ??
"Boeing Co said on Monday that the first flight test of its reworked battery system for the 787 Dreamliner ..."
Does it SUCK, being so STOOPID !!!??
Gawd! It must hurt inside your head!

NOBODY can be so fauched up as you are by choice.

Damn! your Uncle Daddy!
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#21 Apr 2, 2013
non-starter wrote:
<quoted text>Obama's sequester, Boehner's sequester, Cantor's sequester, whatever, no effect.
Slew's plagiarism.
Have you forgotten the Hostess thread already, you POS hypocrite ??
Troll, stealing another author's work ?? Isn't that against your rules ?? So sad, you're a hypocrite POS !!! Of course, I knew... LMAOROTFU~!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Minneapolis Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
NFL Team: The Minnesota Child Beaters 7 min slackerville 7
Republicans Simply Don’t Want Minorities To Vote 10 min speak english 42
Franken REFUSES to debate at the State Fair 16 min pulling out of mn 79
Government FAILURE MnSURE Sure is phocked up 25 min LIbEralS 7
Woman's head stepped on by Rand Paul supporters (Oct '10) 1 hr LIbEralS 26,262
Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 1 hr LessHypeMoreFact 32,638
Can't manage the gov & NOT honest or trustworthy (Nov '13) 1 hr cantmakeitup 253
•••
•••
•••

Minneapolis Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••
•••

Minneapolis People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Minneapolis News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Minneapolis
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••