Now that this thread is in the place it belongs (one for information rather than debate) I think it's an excellent idea. I fear, though, that in a time of austerity that 'soft' targets will always get hit. It is far easier to spin a cut in research funding than it is a cut in, say, defence funding. Most people on don't really care about such matters.
The way that the NIH has contributed to the quality of life not just in the US but in the whole world makes this apathy shocking. Legislators know that it's easier to cut research funding than it is to close a base. The direct, present impact on jobs is far smaller. The long term impact only happens over the horizon of the next election cycle. One decently funded research group of 5-10 people can easily consume several million dollars a year. There is also an assumption bureaucracy of any kind is bad, and that civil servants are somehow living high on tax-payer's money when the hard-working Joe / Tommy is unemployed.
The way, to my mind at least, to inform people about the value of the NIH is not through letters from technocrats or words from people with an obviously vested interest. Then it becomes easy for the tawdry pushers of such pernicious cuts to say "Oh look at these rich, educated scientist types who've never done a decent day's work in their lives complaining when their pork is cut a bit".
The UK has 'had' to follow similar measures, slashing public funding for research in general, not just health-related issues. The politicians here presented it as a choice between jobs and blue-sky research, or that it will encourage market-useful inventions, create jobs and investment. This is, at least in the UK, part of an ideological attack on Big Government.