• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

“When somebody takes the time to draw up a playbook, they’re gonna use it.”

Rupert, come get your orange boy, you petrified old dinosaur turd.

Many life forms that would benefit from greater intelligence, sadly, do not have it.

Whoever he was, that guy was nuts.

Is it irresponsible to speculate? It is irresponsible not to.

If you voted for Trump, you don’t get to speak about ethics, morals, or rule of law.

Anyone who bans teaching American history has no right to shape America’s future.

The worst democrat is better than the best republican.

We are builders in a constant struggle with destroyers. keep building.

Within six months Twitter will be fully self-driving.

… gradually, and then suddenly.

JFC, are there no editors left at that goddamn rag?

Whatever happens next week, the fight doesn’t end.

The truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand.

Also, are you sure you want people to rate your comments?

Speaker Mike Johnson is a vile traitor to the House and the Constitution.

The lights are all blinking red.

75% of people clapping liked the show!

Second rate reporter says what?

Disappointing to see gov. newsom with his finger to the wind.

Tide comes in. Tide goes out. You can’t explain that.

When I was faster i was always behind.

Never give a known liar the benefit of the doubt.

There are consequences to being an arrogant, sullen prick.

Mobile Menu

  • Seattle Meet-up Post
  • 2025 Activism
  • Targeted Political Fundraising
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / Glibertarianism / Good question

Good question

by DougJ|  March 6, 201110:54 am| 64 Comments

This post is in: Glibertarianism, Going Galt

FacebookTweetEmail

Shalimar asks a good question about David Koch:

Why would he donate $200 million for cancer research when he knows he can give $100k to the Republican National Committee and get Republican congresspersons to increase funding by the same amount?

While I can can see why the Kochs might also want to spend their own money funding cancer research, I can’t see why, if they’re concerned about funding for cancer research, they wouldn’t just call John Boehner from the VOID, on the Snype, and tell him not to cut the federal science budget.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Manning Update
Next Post: Open Thread »

Reader Interactions

64Comments

  1. 1.

    JAHILL10

    March 6, 2011 at 10:57 am

    Because we are supposed to worship them for their generous largess, not peek behind the curtain and notice who is really running things. Because if the government’s cancer research funding is decimated, that makes his gift look even bigger!

  2. 2.

    Jordan

    March 6, 2011 at 10:58 am

    It’s fun to beat up on the Kochs, but given their decades-long ultralibertarian crusade, it isn’t even a little hard to figure out why they might prefer private charity to public spending.

  3. 3.

    Zifnab

    March 6, 2011 at 11:00 am

    I can’t see why, if they’re concerned about funding for cancer research, they wouldn’t just call John Boehner from the VOID, on the Snype, and tell him not to cut the federal science budget.

    Because they don’t give a shit about cancer research. They give a shit about PR.

    And because when you hand someone $200 million, that’s not a grant, its a purchase. David Koch said it himself. He made a lavish contribution and got institutional blowjobs for his entire staff. Now he should be beloved by the people again, just like the King of Jordan and the Colonel of Quadafi.

  4. 4.

    Omnes Omnibus

    March 6, 2011 at 11:01 am

    Because things like scientific research and culture are not something from which the ordinary person should have a benefit by right, rather that benefit should be conferred by the largess of their betters.

  5. 5.

    fasteddie9318

    March 6, 2011 at 11:01 am

    First principles, I would think. Private charity good, taxes bad.

    Also too, a one time donation to make yourself look good isn’t very Galtian, but getting the federal budget cut by that amount annually is not a bad tradeoff.

  6. 6.

    SP

    March 6, 2011 at 11:10 am

    Substantively, I agree with 2 & 5. Snarkily, it’s clearly the fault of those Wisconsin liberals- maybe in the past he could do it, but every time he tries to call Boehner they hang up on him, thinking he’s a prank caller. The Buffalo Beast causes cancer!

  7. 7.

    Karen

    March 6, 2011 at 11:12 am

    Why would he donate $200 million for cancer research when he knows he can give $100k to the Republican National Committee and get Republican congresspersons to increase funding by the same amount?

    Maybe because he wants to double his chances just in case.

  8. 8.

    NonyNony

    March 6, 2011 at 11:15 am

    @fasteddie9318:

    Also too, a one time donation to make yourself look good isn’t very Galtian

    Only because Ayn Rand was a sociopath who couldn’t care fuck-all what anyone thought about her and didn’t think that what the proles thought about a Galtian Hero meant a tinker’s damn.

    In the real world, if you want to be a Galtian Hero you have to act the Hero part. Which is where these big Carnegie-style donations come into play. If you are currently being considered as “History’s Greatest Monster” as Andrew Carnegie was in his day and as David Koch has been recently becoming, the pushback is to do something “good” with your money to show you aren’t a monster.

    However, Koch hasn’t done enough to really whitewash his image. Carnegie setup a foundation that really has done some awesome work over the years. When Bill Gates was “History’s Greatest Monster”[*] back in the 90s he ramped up the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to do pushback and it has become a charity powerhouse. Taking a small portion of the money you’re saving in taxes this year and turning it over for cancer research is small potatoes. So even when he’s trying to be charitable to shore up his name he’s still managing to look like a miser doing it.

    [*] I long for the old days when Bill Gates could be considered in the list of “most evil capitalists on the planet”. That innocent naivete is something I will never be able to regain…

  9. 9.

    Lori

    March 6, 2011 at 11:20 am

    He gets a tax break for a donation. No tax break for getting Congress to keep funding cancer research.

  10. 10.

    lee4713

    March 6, 2011 at 11:22 am

    Because he gets his name on a building if he donates directly, and his socialite wife gets to buy more clothes and host more benefits.

    I am never going to NYC Opera or any other event that has benefited in any way from the Kochs. I would love to to to NYCO, but some things are more important.

  11. 11.

    Zifnab

    March 6, 2011 at 11:22 am

    I long for the old days when Bill Gates could be considered in the list of “most evil capitalists on the planet”.

    If Win 95 put off thousands of tons of CO2 and poisoned river water and required the clear cutting of thousands of old growth forests, Gates would have lobbied to make sure all those activities stayed cheap and legal.

    On the flip side, the Koch Brothers probably wouldn’t look like such rampant flaming assholes if they’d gotten into the Telecommunications industry rather than the “making toxic disposable shit” industry.

  12. 12.

    Monkeyfister

    March 6, 2011 at 11:23 am

    Koch’s donation to cancer research is Tax Deductible, while a political donation is not.

    –mf

  13. 13.

    dr. bloor

    March 6, 2011 at 11:24 am

    It’s remarkable that he’s interested in cancer funding in any form. Cancer never had a chance versus this guy.

  14. 14.

    ksmiami

    March 6, 2011 at 11:26 am

    Because he wants his NAME ON THE DOOR. It always comes down to ego for these guys and some anonymous congressional direction is not the same as a more concrete tombstone. But meh, 200 mill is not that much

  15. 15.

    Felanius Kootea (formerly Salt and freshly ground black people)

    March 6, 2011 at 11:27 am

    As a friend of mine put it, NCI grants don’t get to have the Koch name on them.

    ETA: @ksmiami: pretty much what he said.

  16. 16.

    Tom Levenson

    March 6, 2011 at 11:29 am

    @NonyNony: This.

    $200 million is not chump change to a university. But it is to a multi billionaire. The Forbes 400 list has David Koch’s personal wealth at 21.5 billion. Using the conventionally conservative financial planner’s draw figure of 4% per annum if you want to preserve principal in a retirement fund or endowment, 21.5 billion yields a very low-risk payout of $860 million per year, if I’m doing my mental arithmetic right.

    200 million before-tax dollars is thus pretty damn close to a rounding error in Koch-wealth terms; it’s my personal belief that even someone used to the Koch lifestyle can make it from Jan. to Dec. on 660 million.

    Not that I think MIT should reject the cash — but I don’t think anyone should be or is fooled that this is anything but a side project for the Koch family.

  17. 17.

    tofubo

    March 6, 2011 at 11:32 am

    almost related (koch, wisc, pensions….)

    then (1990)
    …executive director of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., or PBGC, told a House Ways and Means subcommittee that the looming business failures of a handful of big corporations, each with large numbers of pensioners, could so severely drain the fund that it would create a deficit of nearly $8 billion. The fund currently has a $1 billion deficit…
    http://alb.merlinone.net/mweb/wmsql.wm.request?oneimage&imageid=5564938

    now (2010)
    …As of September 30, 2010, the single-employer and multiemployer programs reported deficits of $21.6 billion and $1.4 billion, respectively. Notwithstanding…
    http://www.pbgc.gov/Documents/2010_annual_report.pdf#page=8

    don’t worry, it’s all good

  18. 18.

    PurpleGirl

    March 6, 2011 at 11:36 am

    The new building was paid for by $100 million Koch gave MIT in 2007, specifically for the building. So this isn’t new money. And that $200 million is a so-far total of pledges and gifts for cancer research at a number of places, not just MIT. In the past he’s given the RNC the money to get the policy actions he wants; this money is to make him look good. In another time, we’d say he was buying his way into God’s good graces, and maybe that’s still true. He still wants his tax bills to go down and he donates to take deductions which will reduce the taxes even more.

    ETA: Wily old coot with expensive tax lawyers.

  19. 19.

    sandy

    March 6, 2011 at 11:37 am

    david is 200 million times more concerned about his own cancer than anyone else’s. the donation insures the research will be heavily tilted in the direction of david’s cancer. his republicanism is evidence he doesn’t care fuckall about anyone who isn’t david koch, cancer-wise. it’s a simple formula.

  20. 20.

    hitchhiker

    March 6, 2011 at 11:40 am

    Let’s see.

    Boy inherits wealth.
    Boy leverages inheritance through work, luck, and pull.
    Boy believes he has right to set public policy.
    Boy builds humongous network of paid opinion-makers.
    Boy appoints himself best-equipped to set direction of country.
    Boy can fund research he approves of for disease he cares about. All others working on all other diseases can pound sand. Or inherit wealth and follow in boy’s glorious footsteps.

    The end.

  21. 21.

    Omnes Omnibus

    March 6, 2011 at 11:41 am

    @PurpleGirl:

    In another time, we’d say he was buying his way into God’s good graces, and maybe that’s still true.

    Perfect analogy. In 1410, he would have endowed a chapel for the new cathedral and paid for monks to pray for him. Today, it is money for a university and research. Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.

  22. 22.

    gnomedad

    March 6, 2011 at 11:45 am

    OT: What’s the reading assignment for Nixonland today?

  23. 23.

    Joel

    March 6, 2011 at 12:03 pm

    Congress doesn’t have that kind of influence over the NIH.

  24. 24.

    Joel

    March 6, 2011 at 12:06 pm

    By influence, I mean the ability to direct research. They can induce initiatives (like the translational research initiatives under Bush II) but basically the NIH itself determines how the money is spent.

  25. 25.

    Sly

    March 6, 2011 at 12:09 pm

    This question relies heavily on the assumption that the ultra-rich are incredibly smart when it comes to deploying their financial assets, especially when compared the unwashed masses. Underlying this assumption is the belief that intelligence leads inexorably to wealth, and therefor wealthy people are, by the very fact that they are wealthy, highly intelligent. This is a poor assumption to make.

    I think the most reasonable answer to this question is that David Koch either does not know how to spend his money wisely in order to efficiently achieve his goals, or that finding more effective treatments for cancer is not one of his goals. Or both.

    Oh, and one of Ayn Rand’s goals was to rid society of the notion that charity was both virtuous and a duty to others, especially when it entailed any kind of self-sacrifice. I believe this was the argument Rand made to Nathaniel Branden’s wife to convince her that it was virtuous for Branden to fuck other women, especially if “other women” meant Ayn Rand.

  26. 26.

    John Emerson

    March 6, 2011 at 12:11 pm

    Libertarian types are philosophically opposed to government spending outside very narrow limits, but they are in favor of voluntary philanthropy. This means that anyone who wants to can give to charity, medical research, etc. It does not mean that they believe that anyone has any obligation to “give back to the community”; few or none of them do. They just think that it’s permissible and perhaps even praiseworthy.

    They have no particular interest in overall health outcomes or public health; for them there really no such thing as the public or the community, but only a mass of unique individuals, and there’s no public interest, but only a large number of individual interests.

    Out of the goodness of his heart Koch has donated money to help a certain unknown number of individuals, especially individuals like himself with prostates. It’s all good, and there’s nothing else to say.

  27. 27.

    Dan

    March 6, 2011 at 12:20 pm

    Emerson: I think you’ve got it exactly right.

    The libertarian ideal is for scientific research to be done all by the private sector (and in their view, more efficiently and more effective).

    It is a pipe dream, but that’s their view.

  28. 28.

    sdhays

    March 6, 2011 at 12:20 pm

    While I can can see why the Kochs might also want to spend their own money funding cancer research, I can’t see why, if they’re concerned about funding for cancer research, they wouldn’t just call John Boehner from the VOID, on the Snype, and tell him not to cut the federal science budget.

    You really can’t see? Rich and powerful men should be the only ones controlling what science gets research. If the government is funding something, democracy is involved, so something that rich and powerful men don’t care about might get funding (their tax dollars misspent!! Oh, my!). It’s much better for the government to get out of the business of science and let our betters (rich and powerful men) decide where the crumbs from their tables will go.

    I’m sure Mr. Koch sort of cares about curing cancer in an abstract sort of way that makes him feel better about himself, but making sure that the maximum number of people are dependent on HIS money for whatever they’re trying to do is a vastly higher priority.

  29. 29.

    Fucen Pneumatic Fuck Wrench Tarmal

    March 6, 2011 at 12:30 pm

    its about power.

    hell i am cynical enough to believe the kochs might or might not be only lukewarm about the issues they front, except they see them as an opportunity to wield power.

    the issues could be entirely different, or the side they take could be completely opposite, they choose the side that will dance the most for their money, the one who appreciates it the most, and makes it do the most stuff.

    if us liberals weren’t so messy with all our conflcting and complementary opinions, and one could buy impact from giving to liberal causes, i am sure they would consider it.

    they don’t care what the game is, they want to be team leader.

    paying taxes is the least empowering thing you can do, so they want to avoid that at all costs, including finding the cures to diseases they have had, have or might have again, in the quickest way possible.

  30. 30.

    David Koch

    March 6, 2011 at 12:30 pm

    Charitable contributions are tax deductible. Campaign donations are not.

    Plus, it makes me look like a big shot in front of Maria.

  31. 31.

    emal

    March 6, 2011 at 12:35 pm

    I’ll add my two cents here and agree with most of the other comments in this thread. But this also allows him a chance to “control” the scientific research funding he prefers and use it toward his benefit. For instance he’s also active in advancing “research” stating as there is no such thing as man made climate change. In essence he’s controlling science/research one donation at a time.

  32. 32.

    owlbear1

    March 6, 2011 at 12:40 pm

    Why would he donate $200 million for cancer research when he knows he can give $100k to the Republican National Committee and get Republican congresspersons to increase funding by the same amount?

    Because now he gets to influence which cancers get
    researched and which pharmaceutical companies get to profit?

  33. 33.

    Uloborus

    March 6, 2011 at 12:41 pm

    @Dan:
    I would go with this – it’s simplest to assume that if it matches their stated values, that’s why they’re doing it – except he actually said publicly something along the lines of ‘Whew! I’ve been feeling bad because everyone hates me, but now I gave this big amount to charity and you will all love me again!’

    At that point cynicism becomes unnecessary.

  34. 34.

    trollhattan

    March 6, 2011 at 12:43 pm

    @Tom Levenson:

    Is this where I point out that if Koch had McMegan’s calculator, the gift might have been $2 billion?

    Thought so.

  35. 35.

    burnspbesq

    March 6, 2011 at 12:47 pm

    @Joel:

    Congress doesn’t have that kind of influence over the NIH.

    At least for now, this is the correct answer.

    There are other competing priorities at NIH, and cancer research doesn’t necessarily always win out. In contrast, when a donor drops a large amount of money on a college or university, there is a high likelihood that it will be spent in accordance with the donor’s wishes.

    Or, as in many other cases, the institution will identify a need and canvass the rich alumni to see who is willing to step up with a big donation to get the fundraising ball rolling. The quid pro quo in that situation is the donor’s name on the building. Which is why, for example, the basketball arena at my undergrad school has the CFO of Goldman’s name on it.

  36. 36.

    Pangloss

    March 6, 2011 at 12:48 pm

    It would be interesting to see his tax return. I’ll bet his team of lawyers and accountants have managed his tax deductions and investment income so he manages to pay a lower percentage in taxes than his pool boy.

  37. 37.

    mikefromArlington

    March 6, 2011 at 12:49 pm

    It’s a public relations campaign. Right now they are being viewed as evil villains. Evil villains give to the RNC, not to cancer research.

  38. 38.

    Omnes Omnibus

    March 6, 2011 at 12:56 pm

    @mikefromArlington: Ernst Stavro Blofeld loved his cat. Just saying.

  39. 39.

    joe from Lowell

    March 6, 2011 at 1:03 pm

    This is sort of a lame line of attack.

    The Kochs don’t want the government to fund scientific research because the Kochs don’t want the government to fund anything, even the things they like. They live in libertoid la-la land, where everything you want can be funded through private-sector donations.

  40. 40.

    Omnes Omnibus

    March 6, 2011 at 1:09 pm

    @joe from Lowell: if it is valuable and/or necessary the market will provide it. Like schools and roads and police and fire fighting and ….

    I have actually had people explain to me (in a condescending tone) that support for the arts and museums is simply a subsidy to the liberal elites because they(we?) are the only ones who go to them anyway. If those things were valuable, they would make money. You know, like wrassling.

  41. 41.

    JPL

    March 6, 2011 at 1:15 pm

    Did anyone have to kiss his ring when he gave his donation?

  42. 42.

    Ellie

    March 6, 2011 at 1:18 pm

    OT, but I don’t think I’ve seen this mentioned. I’ve been wondering why Milbank seems to have had a change in attitude lately. Appears that Dana and Mrs. Dana have been screwed by their bank.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/04/AR2011030404615.html

  43. 43.

    Jackie

    March 6, 2011 at 1:20 pm

    Not all of the money would go to research the only cancer he is concerned about (HIS) If he could restrict the results to help only him I’m sure he would. At least he can sleep easy knowing it will never help a woman.

    If he tried to only restore the funding for prostate cancer even his bought and paid for political friends understand that breast cancer advocates are paying attention, are organized and loud.

    Plus they kissed his ring and he gets a tax deduction. Paying less taxes is always better than getting a better outcome by paying them.

  44. 44.

    Southern Beale

    March 6, 2011 at 1:21 pm

    Jesus F. Christ on a saltine are you serious? You don’t know why? Because if the Kochs just called their friends in the GOP on the Snype and told them not to cut federal cancer research funds how the fuck are they supposed to get the David H. Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research at MIT??!! It would just be MIT’s cancer research center.

    IT’S THE EGO, STOOOOPID!!!! No name rights with federal funds!

    Duh!

  45. 45.

    Ellie

    March 6, 2011 at 1:22 pm

    Sorry for this, but I couldn’t edit my comment above. This is the blockquote I intended.

    Last fall, my wife and I refinanced our mortgage with Citibank. Sixty days later, we received a “cancellation notice” from our homeowners insurance company “for non-payment of premium.”

  46. 46.

    jeffreyw

    March 6, 2011 at 1:43 pm

    I have been researching breakfasts.

  47. 47.

    NonyNony

    March 6, 2011 at 1:44 pm

    @Ellie:

    You mean that Dana Milbank couldn’t actually put himself into someone else’s shoes until the bank forcibly removed his shoes from his feet and stuffed them into someone else’s? Shocking that someone who likes to position himself as a “moderate liberal” shares the same fundamental disability that most conservatives have (i.e. the inability to place yourself into someone else’s situation and think about how you would react to similar circumstances).

    I realize that the above sounds like the typical Internet sarcastic “I’m shocked to find that there is gambling at this establishment” reply, but I’m serious. Is this actually what separates the so-called “moderate liberals” in the journalism practice – like Dana Milbank among others – from actual moderate liberals I know in real life? Perhaps Milbank-like liberals really are just conservatives who have had enough life experiences to forcibly put them into other people’s shoes that they can’t quite identify with other conservatives anymore (i.e. “a liberal is a conservative with a gay friend” sort of liberal).

  48. 48.

    not a "liberal"

    March 6, 2011 at 1:56 pm

    “Because we are supposed to worship them for their generous largess”

    Ignore the redundancy, and the first comment gives the obvious answer: the desire not just for power but prestige.

    But then liberals love Soros who’s no less a lover of his own image than the Koch brothers. All men who would be Kings, benign or not.

  49. 49.

    PurpleGirl

    March 6, 2011 at 2:02 pm

    @burnspbesq: …there is a high likelihood that it will be spent in accordance with the donor’s wishes.

    Having worked in fundraising, I can confidently say that the gift papers, especially when it’s large like this, spell out exactly what they are giving the money for. If the grantee wants to makes changes to the use, they have to get permission from the grantor. There are examples of times when the grantor has sued to get a gift back or pledge broken when the grantee went to use the gift for something else.

    Yes, the job of development professionals is to search out rich people who might be interested in specific projects or non-profits missions and to ask them to make major gifts (as they are called).

  50. 50.

    Lurking Canadian

    March 6, 2011 at 2:04 pm

    In addition to all the other proposed reasons, I offer this: it is necessary to preserve the fiction that “government doesn’t work”. It would certainly be cheaper for Koch to use his congressional errand boys to pony up the $200M, but then the proles might get the idea that the government sometimes performs worthwhile actions. As Chomsky is fond of saying, it is essential for that notion to be driven out of people’s minds.

  51. 51.

    Ellie

    March 6, 2011 at 2:14 pm

    @NonyNony: Yeah, the Village “moderates” aren’t quite as bad, empathy-wise, as conservatives, but I think they think that bad things happen to others mostly because they are stupid rubes. Until those things happen to them. Here’s a comment from WaPo site:

    Milbank has spent much of the past few years as a road company Maureen Dowd, making juvenile videos about Hilary Clinton, otherwise proving how out of touch he is. then reality enters his world and he recognizes a story that has failed to get much traction from him or his WaPo colleagues. If something that devastates a great many people’s lives everyday only matters if it happens to you, then you’re not much of a journalist. But I knew that about Milbank already.

    I think that has him pegged pretty well.

  52. 52.

    Mike Kay (True Grit)

    March 6, 2011 at 2:19 pm

    @joe from Lowell:

    The Kochs don’t want the government to fund scientific research because the Kochs don’t want the government to fund anything, even the things they like. They live in libertoid la-la land, where everything you want can be funded through private-sector donations.

    To build off this, they don’t want the government getting credit for any advancement, because their standing M.O. is to demonize and discredit government.

    If the government research actually found the cure for cancer, it would devastate their 45 year narrative that government is the problem.

  53. 53.

    b-psycho

    March 6, 2011 at 2:45 pm

    @Mike Kay (True Grit): Despite a huge chunk of their ongoing wealth coming purely from rent-seeking. Clever.

    Government is discredited already. Problem for the Kochs & their ilk is that it’s discredited because all it does is prop them up.

  54. 54.

    BC

    March 6, 2011 at 3:30 pm

    Didn’t read all the comments – but they want their name on it. If federal govt does it, it can’t be called the “Koch Cancer Research” fscility and that gives them a sad. They are the anti-Christ, so remember that Jesus said you were to do these things in secret. They want the neon lights around their name so they will live eternally.

  55. 55.

    a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)

    March 6, 2011 at 4:07 pm

    Government is inconvenient for 21st century industrialists like the Kochs, particularly during a recent stretch where government had all manner of regulations that increased their cost of business and cut profits. So those regulations made for cleaner air, and water, and better general living conditions for the hoi polloi; well that didn’t make them any less bothersome. So the Kochs have no interest in calling the AOS* for anything, except reducing inconvenient regulations.

    *Actual Orange Satan, my pet name for Boehner

  56. 56.

    John

    March 6, 2011 at 4:54 pm

    @Joel:

    They can induce initiatives (like the translational research initiatives under Bush II) but basically the NIH itself determines how the money is spent.

    Baloney. The institutes (always plural) are almost all disease-driven.

    Of course, the major one that isn’t, NIGMS, has funded far more Nobel Laureates in Physiology or Medicine per dollar than any of the disease-driven ones.

  57. 57.

    Mike Kay (True Grit)

    March 6, 2011 at 7:17 pm

    @b-psycho: That’s why I oppose single payer because as you said, government is discredited.

  58. 58.

    liberal

    March 6, 2011 at 9:07 pm

    @John:

    The institutes (always plural) are almost all disease-driven.

    Not necessarily true. For example, my dad (now retired) claims he had the longest running extramural grant at NINDS. Not sure if that’s true, but he had that grant (meaning, with periodic renewals) for a long, long time. Decades.

    He’s an enzymologist, and while one of the enzymes he studied is in the brain, it’d be laughable to claim any of his reseach is “disease driven.”

  59. 59.

    dustbunny44

    March 6, 2011 at 9:25 pm

    Because with a grant to research cancer, the Kochs are funding their geneology, not a cure for the masses.

  60. 60.

    John

    March 6, 2011 at 11:26 pm

    @liberal:

    Not necessarily true. For example, my dad (now retired) claims he had the longest running extramural grant at NINDS…He’s an enzymologist, and while one of the enzymes he studied is in the brain, it’d be laughable to claim any of his reseach is “disease driven.”

    I didn’t claim that every grantee’s research is disease-driven, I pointed out that the funding, separately appropriated to each Institute by Congress, is. To get the grant, your dad had to make some connection with neurological disease.

    And you might want to tell your dad that the forms have changed and there’s a lot more emphasis on what they call “impact,” which means we have to tout disease connections even harder, even for NIGMS grants.

    You try explaining to a Republican how studying the development of a hermaphroditic roundworm’s vulva is highly relevant to Alzheirmer’s disease…

  61. 61.

    John

    March 6, 2011 at 11:28 pm

    @dustbunny44:

    Because with a grant to research cancer, the Kochs are funding their geneology, not a cure for the masses.

    It’s much more ironic than that. Their donation will likely be used for startup packages for new scientists. The financial model is that investing the Koch donation will help their people get a larger share of the NIH pie than competing institutions.

  62. 62.

    John

    March 6, 2011 at 11:29 pm

    That should be Alzheimer’s, not Alzheirmer’s.

  63. 63.

    eric

    March 7, 2011 at 1:59 am

    Don’t forget that Al Capone wanted to protect his public image and portray himself as a beneficent:
    “Despite his illegitimate occupation, Capone became a highly visible public figure. He made various charitable endeavors using the money he made from his activities, and was viewed by many to be a “modern-day Robin Hood”.[2]”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Capone#Capone.27s_wealth_and_power_grows_in_Cicero

  64. 64.

    eric

    March 7, 2011 at 2:01 am

    portray himself as beneficent:
    It should read.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

On The Road - Christopher Mathews - Iceland: Season's Fleeting 3
Image by Christopher Mathews (6/13/25)

PA Supreme Court At Risk

We did it!

We raised the 25,000 for The Civics Center, and with the external matches, that gives them $60,000 for this Spring effort!

You guys rock!

Recent Comments

  • lowtechcyclist on Open Thread: Tracking the Protests (Jun 14, 2025 @ 3:25am)
  • EireIAm on Friday Night Open Thread (Jun 14, 2025 @ 3:24am)
  • prostratedragon on Late Night Open Threads (Jun 14, 2025 @ 3:21am)
  • cain on Open Thread: Tracking the Protests (Jun 14, 2025 @ 3:19am)
  • NotMax on Late Night Open Threads (Jun 14, 2025 @ 3:18am)

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
War in Ukraine
Donate to Razom for Ukraine

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!