Prop 15

In the past couple of days I've seen signs springing up on Houston's roadways; "Stop Cancer! Vote Yes for Prop 15!" It turns out that Prop 15 is a amendment proposal to the Texas constitution that would allow the state to issue up to $300M of bonds per year, for 10 years, to fund cancer research. If Texans approve the proposition on November 6th, legislation already passed by the state legislature (normally a pathetic punch, I'll admit) would create a committee to dole out the funds. The proposition has some high powered proponents by way of Governor Perry, Lance Armstrong, and the president of MD Anderson Cancer Hospital. Backers contend that this money is needed due to reductions in federal funding, and that it will help to transform Texas, and particularly Houston's medical center, into the epicenter of cutting edge cancer research. There is no organized opposition to the proposition, and if the voter turnout is high, political hawks are predicting easy passage; only low turnout with a high showing by those opposing government spending could prevent passage.

Critics of this proposition contend that as the state will control the money, corruption and criteria other than research prowess could be used to distribute funding. On this, I can only agree; most states and their mechanisms are far from transparent. Also, critics content that this is a poor investment vehicle, as the state stands to make almost no gains off the bonds (they point to the unlikely chance of denting Texas cancer deaths in just ten years) and that the private sector is better organized for such funding.

So should Texans vote for this proposition? I am glad that the Houston Chronicle has given critics of this proposition a venue for dissent. It's hard to debate against passage as you could simply be labelled "The guy who likes cancer", but in truth, Texans should know they are being indebted for a sound reason. However, I don't find the arguments against passage to be compelling. While the issues with the proposition, and particularly the mechanics of it's management, are of concern, the argument that the private sector could do this themselves is silly. Money of this magnitude is the domain of Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and states rich enough to be (or have been, once upon a time) their own country. So with that, if we say this money can only come from our government, then what about the argument that the state is too inefficient to attempt such an undertaking.

On this, you have to look to the recent trend of what I call state leadership. California's "Governator" has made waves in state leadership by developing an energy policy while the talking heads in Washington DC have been unable to do so. Ultimately, I think we elect representatives for just such leadership. I give you the right to govern me, and in exchange, I expect you to provide a vision for your people. The state has weighed it's options regarding public policy, identified an area where only their leadership and accompanying money can fill a noticeable void, and acted in a manner that has potential for positive results. Finally, remember my comment about people arguing against this being labelled "The guy who likes cancer". For that very reason, the commission that handles this money will be unlikely to screw up its allocation. To do so, on such a hot button topic, would be nothing short of political (and maybe social) suicide.

The only argument that makes some sense to me is whether or not Texas' research infrastructure could actually use this much money. While the basis for this is a "federal shortcoming in funding", you wonder if $300M per year might be a bit too much. On this, I trust that the language saying the state can issue "up to $300M per year" will be taken to heart, and that the money won't be spent on frivolous projects if no obvious usage exists.

Yes it's a trip to the polls, and yes there are very few big name elections, but I think this amendment is worthy of the trip and deserving of your support.