Posted on 11/13/2005 8:38:20 AM PST by SmithL
NOW THAT California taxpayers know that the $3 billion ($6 billion with debt service) that they voted in 2004 to spend on stem-cell research may possibly be an outright grant of money for research rather than an investment, does it make a difference?
Does it matter that Robert Klein, the author and chief promoter of Proposition 71, knew while he was promising the voters a return on their investment that the state might be forbidden to collect royalties from the biomedical research it invests in because of an arcane federal tax law?
What was voters' intent in approving a plan to invest in a promising but financially risky new technology that may someday cure disease and save lives? Were they counting on a financial return, a new industry or promises of cures? And did they assume that they would be affordable to the majority of Californians?
It's important to know the answers to these, and other questions, before the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine, the agency created by the 2004 stem-cell initiative, begins awarding grants of taxpayer funds. Why? Because the answers ultimately will determine who holds the intellectual property rights to the work funded by the institute, which will determine who benefits financially, which will help maintain continued public support for the institute's work.
In November 2004, the state's voters entered into an unprecedented partnership of science and democracy when they approved an initiative placed on the ballot by Klein and bankrolled by venture capitalists. The measure clearly appealed to the entrepreneurial spirit and sense of compassion that defines Californians and, in the wake of the dot-com bust, tapped into the state's desire to be on the cutting-edge of the next big technological boom. The measure, which The Chronicle endorsed, passed with approval of 59 percent of voters.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
No, it doesn't. For most of the voters that signed off on this thing, I doubt return on investment was even on their mind.
What was voters' intent in approving a plan to invest in a promising but financially risky new technology that may someday cure disease and save lives? Were they counting on a financial return, a new industry or promises of cures? And did they assume that they would be affordable to the majority of Californians?
Again, no. The reason people voted for this was because Washington didn't. It was meant only to give the left-wingers an opportunity to stick their mythical opponent, the so-called Religious Right, in the eye. Obviously, anyone who does any research into the matter would discover that nothing has come of this research yet. Further, if the research is so promising, why aren't there more venture capitalists from the private sector investing in it? Surely if it is successful, the return would be high. However, so far it has not been very successful. This has never stopped its proponents from trying to market it as if it were Jesus in a petri dish, however. Look back to John Edwards and the Christopher Reeve walking bit. It's pathetic, but that won't stop them from bowling over half of the population on a good day.
Wait, is this the same California that voted down a proposition to cap spending in the most recent election? Are we talking about THAT California - the one that actually believes that money grows on trees? The one wher moonbats outnumber rational people by a margin of 10:0.5? Is THAT the California we are talking about? Because, if it is, this information won't make any difference to them. The ones who actually understand the story will merely shrug their shoulders and get back to their lattes.
"They" certainly did.
NOW THAT California taxpayers know...
California taxpayers still don't know squat!
Does it matter that Robert Klein, the author and chief promoter of Proposition 71, knew while he was promising the voters a return on their investment...
No, because Robert Klein had a personal motive to engage the state in his personal health care problems, to wit:
"Proposition 71, it turned out, had been largely written by a multi-millionaire Silicon Valley real-estate mogul, Robert Klein, who has a very personal and understandable stake in the outcome: His son has juvenile diabetes. Klein has a reputation as a fast operator who lets little stand in the way of something he wants to do. He was both the chair of the campaign in support of Proposition 71 and its largest single donor."
Prop 71 backers put some lipstick on this pig and the suckers in California voted for it. Democracy in the hands of the devious.
The moonbats in California come from the same place that the moonbats in Florida come from; New York City!
On October 14, 2004 California Healthline reported:
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) on Monday endorsed Proposition 71, a bond measure on the Nov. 2 statewide ballot to fund stem cell research, putting him "at odds with his party, statewide and nationally," the Los Angeles Times reports.
In the article Schwarzenegger explains his support:
The governor said that California "daringly led the way for the high-tech industry, and now voters can help ensure we lead the way for the biotech". Schwarzenegger said he decided to back the measure because its authors "have done something smart -- which is that there are no payments due in the next five years"
At least one California politican stood up against the crowd of supporters.
Sen. Tom McClintock (R-Thousand Oaks) said the governor's support "might be highly commendable, but it is wildly irresponsible"
Thank's for that. I get a lot of heat when I claim that Arnold governs from the middle with a left wind. His support of this proposition is indicative of the governors political compass. It tends to point "Republican by RINO-Democrat". Arnold needs to check his political advisors for magnets in their pants pockets (or purse).
The moonbats migrate here. Otherwise, they'd still be in YOUR town.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.