Latest news with #TammyBaldwin
Politico
30-07-2025
- Business
- Politico
Coming soon: Fewer cancer research grants
FOLLOW THE MONEY The National Cancer Institute has informed researchers that it's limiting the number of awards it gives out for the remainder of the fiscal year. The agency updated its funding policy, citing the White House's budget cut proposal for next year and a new National Institutes of Health policy, which requires the agency to provide at least half of the remaining funding for research project grants up front. That change 'reduces the number of competing awards NCI can fund in this fiscal year,' NCI said, adding, 'With these considerations, we expect to fund through the 4th percentile.' Before the announcement, the NCI had been funding around the top 7th percentile of new grants, which is already a conservative funding rate. Key context: Typically, NIH research grants are awarded for multiple years and funded incrementally. The change to forward-funding grants, also included in the White House budget proposal, would give grant recipients that money up front. For example, instead of spreading a $1 million award over four annual payments of $250,000, the full amount would now be paid in the first year. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) has emerged as the most prominent critic of forward funding in Congress, which she says would result in even deeper cuts to the NIH than the 40 percent cut proposed by the White House. 'It means billions will effectively be put in escrow and won't actually be spent on research for a number of years to come,' Baldwin said during an NIH budget hearing last month. NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya defended the White House proposal. 'In the long run, what it does is allow you to spend more money and have more flexibility for new research projects,' he said. What's next: Unless Congress acts, the same policy is expected to continue when the new fiscal year starts on Oct. 1. 'What we're seeing now at NCI is a preview of what could happen next year if NIH continues this policy in FY26, but on an even larger scale,' Erik Fatemi, a principal at lobbying firm Cornerstone Government Affairs and former Democratic staffer on the Senate Appropriations subcommittee with authority over health care spending, told Erin. 'Even if overall funding remains flat, NIH would fund significantly fewer new grants than this year. That means fewer shots on goal, and fewer chances to uncover the next breakthrough for patients.' WELCOME TO FUTURE PULSE This is where we explore the ideas and innovators shaping health care. Authorities are investigating the cases of two women who became critically ill after receiving peptide injections, an alternative therapy promoted by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., at an anti-aging festival, ProPublica reports. Share any thoughts, news, tips and feedback with Carmen Paun at cpaun@ Ruth Reader at rreader@ or Erin Schumaker at eschumaker@ Want to share a tip securely? Message us on Signal: Dannyn516.70, CarmenP.82, RuthReader.02 or ErinSchumaker.01. THE NEXT CURES The psychedelic drug ibogaine could be a promising treatment for veterans who develop mental health problems following a traumatic brain injury, the findings of a new, small study suggest. The Drug Enforcement Administration classifies ibogaine, a psychedelic drug derived from an African shrub, as a Schedule I drug with no currently acceptable medical use and a high risk of abuse. It can pose heart risks and has been linked to about two dozen deaths in recent decades. Inside the study: Stanford Medicine researchers analyzed brain scans of 30 male veterans who experienced traumatic brain injuries after exposure to blasts or combat, and who had post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety disorder or alcohol-use disorder. — Study participants received a combination of ibogaine and magnesium, which has heart-protective properties. — Participants had brain scans before treatment, three and a half days afterward and again one month after treatment. — Unlike some trials of psychedelic therapies being studied as mental health treatments, such as MDMA, participants didn't engage in talk therapy during treatment. Results: Participants who saw improvements in executive functioning also tended to show an increase in a brain wave pattern known as theta rhythms on their brain scans. Those with improved PTSD symptoms after treatment tended to have reduced complexity of activity in the brain's cortex. The improvements lasted a month after treatment, which is when the study ended. Researchers suggest that stronger brain waves in the theta region might encourage cognitive flexibility and neuroplasticity, or the brain's ability to make new connections. Less complex brain activity might lower the heightened stress response associated with PTSD. If they better understand those patterns, researchers think they might be able identify patients best suited for ibogaine treatment. Even so: The study, published last week in Nature Mental Health, had limitations. In addition to being small, it was observational, meaning it can't determine cause and effect, and open-label without a control group, so participants knew they were getting the treatment. More research, such as a randomized control trial, is needed to confirm the study's results. Big picture: Last month, Texas' Republican governor, Greg Abbott, signed a law to put $50 million into clinical trials of ibogaine as a mental health treatment. Other states are looking to Texas as an example, including Arizona, Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri and West Virginia, according to W. Bryan Hubbard, who spearheaded the Texas bill and is executive director of the American Ibogaine Initiative.
Fox News
15-07-2025
- Health
- Fox News
'Better access': Bipartisan Senate push to fund farmers suicide prevention fund gains steam
A bipartisan Senate duo want to ensure that a suicide prevention and mental health resource for farmers stays funded. Sens. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., and Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, have joined forces to introduce legislation that would see millions in new funding for the Farm and Ranch Assistance Network, a program the pair first collaborated on in the 2018 Farm Bill. The program is designed to help create a network for farmers, ranchers and other agriculture workers to have access to stress assistance and mental health programs. There are four regional hubs in Washington, New York, Illinois and Tennessee that act as conduits to aid farmers through the grant-funded program. "Too often, the stress, isolation, and physical demands of this job leave them with nowhere to turn when it all gets to be too much," Baldwin said of the stress and mental health struggles faced by farmers and agriculture workers. Indeed, Farmers are about three and half times more likely to die by suicide than the average U.S. population, according to a study from the National Rural Health Association. Their bill, called the Farmers First Act of 2025, would boost funding for the program by $75 million over the next five years, of which $15 million will be made available each fiscal year starting in 2026 through 2030. The money would go toward hiring more behavioral health specialists, establish crisis lines, and build referral relationships with health care providers, health centers and critical access hospitals. "Iowa farmers work tirelessly from sunrise to sundown – rain or shine – to feed and fuel the world," Ernst said. "Their work isn't easy, and mental health issues, including suicide, are too common in our agriculture community, which is why I'm working to ensure farmers have better access to mental health resources." The program got a reup in funding in 2020, when a three-year tranche of over $28 million was made available to the regional hubs. That funding was again boosted during the COVID-19 pandemic, when Congress injected an additional $28 million to allow states to maintain their own stress assistance programs. The latter funding was made available through grants of up to $500,000 to the state programs. The bill is a bicameral effort, too. Reps. Randy Feenstra, R-Iowa, and Angie Craig, D-Minn., are pushing the bill in the House to bolster the program's funding. Feenstra argued that refilling the program's cash coffers would provide "farmers with real support in times of crisis." "Agriculture is the economic engine of Iowa, and our farmers and producers work long hours and make unseen sacrifices to feed and fuel our country and the world," he said. "Those sacrifices can take a toll on our farm producers, especially when commodity prices tumble or severe weather destroys crops."
Yahoo
13-07-2025
- Yahoo
Door County Community Emergency Response Team K-9 assists Sheriff to find missing woman
DOOR COUNTY, Wis. (WFRV) – A missing woman with Alzheimer's was found through the help of the Door County Community Emergency Response Team's K-9 Unit. The Door County Sheriff's Office posted on Facebook Saturday night, thanking the K-9 unit for its help, as K-9 Hannah and her handler helped find the missing woman. Senator Tammy Baldwin warns of cuts to Wisconsin Medicaid expansion plan during visit to Green Bay 'Thanks to the incredible work of Hannah and her handler, she was found safe,' the post said. The post continued, citing gratitude to K-9 Hannah and the people who dedicated their time to working as a team in finding the missing woman safely. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Fox News
28-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Fox News
DAVID MARCUS: Dems' Kennedy Center gay ‘Guerrilla Theater' stunt is why their act wears thin
I'm sorry to report that the theater kids in the Democrat Party are at it again, this time quite literally and in Washington's jewel of the performing arts, the Kennedy Center. On Monday night, Sen. John Hickenlooper, D-Colo., put on the "Love is Love" concert co-hosted by Democrat Sens. Tammy Baldwin , of Wisconsin; Jacky Rosen, of Nevada; Brian Schatz, of Hawaii; and Elizabeth Warren, of Massachusetts, as an affair to protest what they claim is anti-LGBT bias at the arts center. The show, featuring Broadway stars and a gay men's chorus in the 144-seat Justice Forum was invitation only, and no, you were not invited. It turns out Hickenlooper had reached out to Broadway producer Jeffrey Seller, to co-produce the show, the same Seller behind the hit musical "Hamilton," and who recently canceled a production at the Kennedy Center, along with the show's creator Lin Manuel-Miranda, also in protest against alleged anti-gay bias. The senators used a little-known provision that allows them to rent space at the Kennedy Center as a perk of the job. Who knew? Setting aside the fact that the merits of the claim that the Kennedy Center has somehow become anti-gay fall somewhere between wet tissue paper flimsy and non-existent, the form of this protest by powerful Democrats warrants some scrutiny, and can tell us a lot. According to The New York Times, Hickenlooper reached out to Seller and asked if he wanted to make some "guerrilla theater," which, for anyone who knows anything about theater, is absolutely hilarious. Guerrilla theater, often associated with the Living Theater founded in 1947, is when a company just takes over a space and starts putting on a show. In the 1980s, they used to have stage lights they could plug into municipal light poles, for example. What guerrilla theater is definitively and unquestionably not, is 5 of the most powerful human beings on earth asking a super-rich Broadway producer to put on a concert in one of the most venerated performance spaces in America that they can rent by Congressional prerogative. That is, in fact, the perfect polar opposite of guerrilla theater. This confusion by Hickenlooper and Seller is an incredibly illuminating window into the current mindset of the far-left elites in the Democrat Party and their cultural wingmen. They think they are being raw and edgy, when actually, they just look ridiculous. We see this performative nonsense everywhere from Democrats, whether in Corey Booker's farcical filibuster, Rep. Eric Swalwell's cringeworthy TikTok skits, or elected officials getting themselves arrested on purpose for eager cameras. They think all of these things, like their "guerilla theater," are provocative and brave, a counter-culture that stands up to Trump and all his alleged crimes. What these prancing Democrats fail to understand is just how inauthentic their antics are to the everyday Americans who can see through them like Superman checking what's in the fridge without opening the door. Democrats and their advisers have lost sight of the difference between symbolism and reality, Booker wasn't filibustering any real bill, members of Congress aren't really being arrested in any meaningful way, and 5 senators sure as hell did not really "occupy" the Kennedy Center. Everybody knows it's all for show, because they have seen the show before. Hickenlooper and Seller thought they were speaking their truth to the power of Kennedy Center President Richard Grenell, a gay man who they absurdly accuse of anti-gay bias because he wants the institution he leads to focus on artistic excellence instead of identity grievance. In fact, it is Grennell and the new board of directors at the Kennedy Center who are pushing back against decades of hegemonic left-wing power in arts and culture, and at the slightest threat to its power, the political and artistic left has thrown a hissy fit. Americans don't need guerrilla theater from our elected officials, especially those who have no idea what guerrilla theater actually is. Democrats need to wake up to the fact that just doing one more performative stunt isn't going to convince Americans they are living in a fascist dictatorship and should come running back to their party. While Republicans are tackling the budget and the border, the Democrats are making sure that gay people aren't underrepresented in theater, which is like making sure that guys named "Cheech" aren't underrepresented in the mafia. The American people have no idea who leads the Democrats, what they stand for, or what policies they would enact, it is my job to know these things and I don't even know, because they won't tell us. For now at least, the theater kids are gonna be theater kids, so keep your Playbills handy, you never know what mind numbingly awful show these Democrats may put on next.
Yahoo
26-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Gilbert: Should Gov. Tony Evers run for a third term? Here are his political pluses and minuses
How well is Democrat Tony Evers positioned to win a third term as governor should he decide to run again next year? In a new statewide poll by Marquette Law School, a majority of voters say he shouldn't run again. But in the same survey, Evers is the only major political figure with a positive rating in Wisconsin. Uncertainties about Evers' political future abound. We don't know if he'll run again in 2026. We don't know who his Republican opponent would be. We don't know exactly what issues will dominate. And we don't know what political surprises are in store. But without knowing those things, we can take stock of the 'fundamentals' of an Evers re-election race — the basic political circumstances — and whether they appear at this moment to be favorable to a third term. I will start with the political pluses for Evers, because I think they are more concrete and convincing right now than the minuses. One is the governor's public standing, as captured in the polls. In the latest statewide survey released Wednesday by the Marquette Law School, 48% of registered voters approved of Evers' performance and 46% disapproved. These are hardly spectacular numbers in and of themselves. But they are good numbers relative to those of other political figures in Wisconsin. More: Marquette poll takeaways: Marijuana, tax cuts, veto power, special education and more In the same poll, taken June 13-19, Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin and Republican Sen. Ron Johnson both have negative favorability ratings. And Republican President Donald Trump has a negative job rating, with 47% approving and 52% disapproving. In fact, Evers has consistently polled better in this state than any other well-known politician. Since he took office in 2019, his average job rating has been 50% approval and 41% disapproval in 35 surveys by Marquette, much better long-term numbers than those of Baldwin or Johnson, and especially those of Trump and his predecessor in the White House, Democrat Joe Biden. Trump has never had a positive job rating in Wisconsin in any poll Marquette has taken during his two terms, even though he narrowly won two of his three Wisconsin elections (he has come close a few times). By contrast, Evers' job rating has been consistently positive or 'above water,' slipping into negative territory only four times in Marquette's 35 polls during his tenure. You wouldn't conclude from the polling that Evers is unbeatable or even 'safe.' But you wouldn't conclude that he's especially vulnerable either. Just to be above water is something of an accomplishment these days in this 50/50 state. A more clear-cut advantage for Evers — and probably the biggest argument in his favor — is the nature of the 2026 election cycle. As a Democrat, Evers would have the good fortune of running with a Republican in the White House. History shows that it's very helpful in big statewide elections to belong to the party out of power nationally. That's because voters in the 'out party' are often more motivated to turn out, and because swing voters frequently vote for change. In Wisconsin, no incumbent governor or senator in the 'out party' (the party that doesn't occupy the White House) has lost an election since 1986. And it has happened only once since the 1960s. Eight of the last nine contests for governor have been won by the 'out party.' The only exception was in 2022, when Evers won re-election despite the political drag of having an unpopular Democrat (Biden) in the White House. With Trump now in the White House, Evers should be better positioned in the 2026 midterms than he was in the 2022 midterms. There is no guarantee that 2026 will be a good year for Democrats, of course. But it's a pretty good bet. Now let's turn to some potential political weaknesses, and these are a little more speculative. One could be age. Evers is 73. Age has not been an issue for Evers the way it was for Biden, who is nine years older and came across to voters as a person in decline before he finally withdrew from the 2024 election. But it's certainly possible that the combination of being in his 70s and seeking a third term could work against Evers politically among voters hungry for new faces and new leadership. It's also possible that simply seeking a third term could come with its own hurdles. Since a governor's term in Wisconsin was lengthened from two years to four in 1970, only one person has won more than two terms in a row: Republican Tommy Thompson. Only one other person has tried, Republican Scott Walker, who lost to Evers in 2018 while seeking a third term. Although the dynamics of Senate elections are different, both Wisconsin senators struggled mightily in their recent quests for a third term. Johnson won by 1 point in 2022, his closest race. Baldwin won by less than a point in 2024, her closest race. Asked in the new Marquette poll, 'would you personally like to see Tony Evers seek a third term as governor in 2026?' 42% of registered voters said yes and 55% said no. Pollsters generally view this question as a less reliable measure of an incumbent's support than job approval. And Evers does better on this question than Walker did before seeking a third term, when only 36% said he should run again. But these numbers still suggest that the burden would be on Evers to make the case for such an extended stay in office. Finally, let's consider one other factor that could work either for or against Evers, and that is the state's recent history of divided government. Evers has served his entire time with a Legislature controlled by Republicans. That means Evers hasn't been able to do a lot of things to excite people and thrill his supporters. But it also means he hasn't been able to do a lot of things to anger people and mobilize his opponents. In fact, 2026 would represent his first real chance to govern with a friendly legislature, since the redrawing of districts in 2024 gives Democrats a plausible shot at legislative power next year after a decade and a half of GOP control. Sixteen months ahead of the next election, there is room for debating what Evers' odds would be of winning a third term in a state he carried by 1 point in 2018 and 3 points in 2022, a state in which the last two Senate elections and the last three presidential races were all decided by a percentage point or less. I think history is a little bit more on Evers' side than not. But history also tells us that in Wisconsin, there are few safe bets anymore in big November elections. This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Should Tony Evers seek a third term? Here are pluses and minuses
