POL - ILL. Gov. puts $ towards stem cell research

[Flasch186]

I dont know if this guy is right or Left, AND Im for stem cell research BUT I dont think I like a Governor just circumventing the legislature and making up his own mind on stuff. I didnt like it when Jeb did it with Schiavo and I dont like this guy doing it now.



Ill. Plans $10M for Stem Cell Research

By MAURA KELLY LANNAN, Associated Press Writer Wed Jul 13, 6:14 AM ET

CHICAGO - Illinois became the fourth state to support stem cell research after Gov. Rod Blagojevich circumvented the Legislature and ordered $10 million in tax dollars be used for the controversial research.
ADVERTISEMENT

Blagojevich's executive order earmarks grants to medical research facilities for research on adult, cord blood and embryonic stem cells and is not to be used for reproductive cloning.

"My sense of morality argues strongly to not simply sit back and do nothing when children are suffering from juvenile diabetes," said Blagojevich, a Democrat. "To simply be afraid to take a position or to act, I think would be immoral."

Lawmakers, who have questioned whether state funds should be used for research in such an ethically sensitive area, have debated related measures twice in the past year and either rejected state support outright or shelved the idea without a vote.

The Illinois program will use money from the state's general budget. California, Connecticut and New Jersey also provide state funding for stem cell research.

The Bush administration has withheld federal funding for the practice. The U.S. House passed and the Senate is now considering legislation that would loosen Bush's 2001 restrictions on federal money for new human embryonic stem cell studies.




Scientists say the study of stem cells, which can divide and become any kind of cell in the body, could lead to cures for diseases such as diabetes and Alzheimer's.

Opponents of stem cell research believe it is immoral because it destroys an embryo, which many consider to be human life.

Robert Gilligan, executive director of the Catholic Conference of Illinois — the public policy arm of the state's Catholic bishops — questioned Blagojevich's move.

"I think it's shameful. I think it's a disgrace that, on July 12, when the Legislature is not in session, he finds $10 million dollars to partially fund something that's morally objectionable to many people," Gilligan said.

Opponents also blasted the governor for ignoring lawmakers and hiding money in the budget. Senate Republican Leader Frank Watson said he did not know the budget contained money for stem cell research.

"If it includes embryonic, that's an end-run of the Legislature. I don't know if he has the authority to do it," Watson said.

Gretchen Livingston, legislative chairwoman for the Chicago chapter of the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, said the move might help find a cure for her daughter's diabetes.

"I'm not content to wait while politics cloud the science and interfere with real progress toward cures," she said.

[flere-imsaho]

That's kind of odd, really. Blagojevich is a left-leaning Democrat centrist and will be up for re-election next year. Illinois has had a string of Republican governors, but the enormous Democratic machine in the Chicago area is the biggest factor in elections.

Having said that, an enormous part of the electorate (even the Democratic electorate) are Catholics who are, in my experience, mostly against stem cell research (probably the reason why no such measure has made it through the legislature yet).

Blagojevich rarely does something without knowing how it will poll, but he's also made some rather dumb mistakes along these lines in the past.

[QuikSand]

It's an offense to the proper separation of powers.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

It's an offense to the proper separation of powers.

I agree!! And this guy is a Dem. apparently. I dont like it!!

[HomerJSimpson]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

It's an offense to the proper separation of powers.

Yup, but it is a tough one. He claims to be acting on a "moral" urging. He claims sitting back and doing nothing would cause more harm than doing something even without legislative approval. I can see where in history such a move would be applauded, but I wonder if this case is to that level.

And on a side note, I wonder if he legally had complete discretion over this funding. Legeslatures can give the Executive branch some discretion on exactly where money is spent can they not? If this money was earmarked for "Medical Research" without a caveat of "except for Stem-cell research", this really wouldn't be a seperation of powers issue, would it? It would be more a move against the political climate.

[Barkeep49]

While I might agree with the ends I agree with Quik that this is a terrible illegal action that subverts the democratic process. There is increasing talk that there will be a Democratic challenger for Rod and I think this is why he did this as stem cell research is a popular initative (even among Catholics at least according to this poll).

[HomerJSimpson]

I'll take my last question back because the article does say the money had another purpose.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

It's an offense to the proper separation of powers.

Based upon this news story, I'm not sure if that is the case. At the federal level, executive orders are regularly used for legislative type programs. If the legislature doesn't like them, they can pass a bill and override a veto or exercise oversight authority if an agency is involved. Some executive orders radically change the legislation and I believe those go too far.

If the legislature has passed a bill that stem cell funding is illegal, then this is clearly wrong.

If the legislature has repeatedly passed bills to ban funding, but had them vetoed, then this is probably wrong.

If the legislature has failed to pass a funding bill, then is a shady area, but not necessarily a separation of powers issue.

I have no love for the governor's actions, but I'm not sure this is a separation of powers issue, yet. But more information will obviously change that.

[TroyF]

First off, let me give Flasch some congrats, it's good to see consistency.

2 things I find interesting/disturbing here:

1) His "moral" obligation phrase. If a Rep used that phrase he'd be strung up by the left.

2) I'm bothered by the continued protrayal of those of us against the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research to be doing it because of moral objection to the practice.

That may be the loudest group of people, but there are other reasons for being against the funding. For one, more advances have been made with adult stem cells. There is very little evidence at this point to accept the claims of "some" scientists who think the embryonic research will cure every disease known to man and paralysis to boot.

Until some advances can be made in the private field, I don't especially want my federal tax dollars going to that research. There are many tests on embryonic stem cells being done throughout the world. And a handful of others in this country are being privately funded as well.

I'm just whining to the air. I understand that as far as the media is concerned, if I side with the religious right on an issue, it means I spend my weekend protesting abortion clinics, insulting gays and am a Dittohead.

EDIT: To be open book here, I have no issue with the research itself. There are moral issues I'm turning over, but if it means saving the lives of others. . . I'm game for just about anything.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Based upon this news story, I'm not sure if that is the case. At the federal level, executive orders are regularly used for legislative type programs. If the legislature doesn't like them, they can pass a bill and override a veto or exercise oversight authority if an agency is involved. Some executive orders radically change the legislation and I believe those go too far.

If the legislature has passed a bill that stem cell funding is illegal, then this is clearly wrong.

If the legislature has repeatedly passed bills to ban funding, but had them vetoed, then this is probably wrong.

If the legislature has failed to pass a funding bill, then is a shady area, but not necessarily a separation of powers issue.

I have no love for the governor's actions, but I'm not sure this is a separation of powers issue, yet. But more information will obviously change that.

I disagree. The power of the purse, the appropriations process, is an essential component of the legislative process. Unless there is some latitude in funds that were appropriated, where the Gov. is arguing that this use is within the legislative intended target of the funds (and I see nothing to suggest this) then this is not merely establishing policy by way of an executive order, it is expending public funds by doing so. I have a bigger problem, as a matter of political philosophy, with the latter than the former.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I disagree. The power of the purse, the appropriations process, is an essential component of the legislative process. Unless there is some latitude in funds that were appropriated, where the Gov. is arguing that this use is within the legislative intended target of the funds (and I see nothing to suggest this) then this is not merely establishing policy by way of an executive order, it is expending public funds by doing so. I have a bigger problem, as a matter of political philosophy, with the latter than the former.

I generally agree with what you are saying. However, I'm not sure this a case where the funds were misappropriated. If I read the news article (which seems wholly unreliable in its precision) correctly, the grants were previously designated as funds for medical research. The governor then earmarked the funding specifically to go to stem cell research. If the legislature gave the governor that discretion, it delegated its power of the purse for these funds. That is how normal executive agency funding is done. Now, I don't know if that is what happened in this case, but I'm still not convinced there is any separation of powers issue yet.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by John Galt

I generally agree with what you are saying. However, I'm not sure this a case where the funds were misappropriated. If I read the news article (which seems wholly unreliable in its precision) correctly, the grants were previously designated as funds for medical research. The governor then earmarked the funding specifically to go to stem cell research. If the legislature gave the governor that discretion, it delegated its power of the purse for these funds. That is how normal executive agency funding is done. Now, I don't know if that is what happened in this case, but I'm still not convinced there is any separation of powers issue yet.

You're right, the article isn't particularly clear on this... and I haven't done any outside research.

I agree with you -- if all the legislature did is approve generic funding for medical research, and the Gov has decided to apportion it to this particular kind of research, then it's not the breach that I first read this to be.

[finketr]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

And this guy is a Dem. apparently.

so true...

so very true...

[ShaqFu]

I'm with John Galt on this one. If the governor had the power to earmark the funds for medical research, than that is exactly what he did. I was skeptical on stem-cell research when it was first discussed, however I believe there is more than valid proof that there is medical benefit to such research. Imagine finding a cure for Parkinson's, cancer, AIDS, Alzheimer's, MD, ALS. I think all would be forgiven if a cure was found.

On the other hand, if the governor didn't really have this power, than shame on him.

In the end, I would hope that all Americans would see the benefits of stem-cell research and seek to fund it.

[QuikSand]

Most often, blanket appropriations like this (in any state budget) are apportioned according to some method -- sometimes by competitive grants, sometimes by formula, sometimes by standing departmental regulation. But the legislature essentialy adopts that framework as part of its appropriation process -- saying, in essence, "this money is to be spent according to the current process." In this sense, both the geography and the medical use of the funds is implicit in the legislative action.

Where I am speculating the Governor's action runs afoul of this is concept is that he may, in essence, be effecting his own distribution scheme by restricting the funding to certain types of research. Rather than it being open to a wide band of potential competitive aplications, or distributed based on some standing formula, it will instead essentially be handed to the (presumably) few facilities who do this particular kind of research, and only for that type of work.

However... this is admittedly speculation (fairly well informed, but still just speculation), as I don't claim to have done any digging into the Illinois state budget or its regulatory code to see how this usually works.

[Peregrine]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

However... this is admittedly speculation (fairly well informed, but still just speculation), as I don't claim to have done any digging into the Illinois state budget or its regulatory code to see how this usually works.

Come on Quik, get going on this, we rely on you for resolutions to all our state regulatory disputes!

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by finketr

so true...

so very true...

taken out of context, you couldve added....asshat.

[mhass]

Originally Posted by Barkeep49

There is increasing talk that there will be a Democratic challenger for Rod ...

Blago walks to re-election. There will be no mainstream challenger with any legs. He's got milions in a campaign warchest, he polls well for the most part and the Republican party in Illinois is a disaster. The Dems don't like him as much as they did, but they won't abandon him now.

That being said, this is more about Rod's larger aspirations than anything medical. He fancies himself Presidential material and this (like the Canadian drug issue) is entirely about name recognition in the national public.

[ice4277]

Originally Posted by TroyF

1) His "moral" obligation phrase. If a Rep used that phrase he'd be strung up by the left.

I thought exactly the same thing when I read that.

[ISiddiqui]

I think the main problem here is how the media is so vague and unclear on its "facts". More needs to be known here to see if the Gov did anything incorrectly.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by ice4277

I thought exactly the same thing when I read that.

interesting point. I too will string up either side on "morality" issues, BUT I dont think that he is being democratic and that I have a problem with. The earmarking of funds already targeted towards research is interesting but I still think it is slimy.