pressconnects.com Weather Jobs Cars Homes Apartments Classifieds Shopping Dating
 search
Customer Service: Subscribe Now | Pay Bill | Place an Ad | Contact Us | Jobs With Us
Newssportsbusinessentertainmentlifestylenationobituariesopiniontravel

NEWS

Posted Saturday November 17, 2007
     
Text Size +   -

Bush vetoes funds for IBM cancer study

Hinchey still hopeful $3.2M will be approved in future bill

By Tom Wilber
Press & Sun-Bulletin
StoryChat Post CommentStoryChat

President Bush vetoed a spending bill this week that would have funded a $3.2 million cancer-rate study of IBM workers in Endicott.

The measure, championed by U.S. Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-Hurley, included language directing the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health to conduct the IBM study using funds in this year's budget. It was part of a $150.7 billion Labor Health and Education appropriation bill vetoed on Monday.

Congressional proponents of the bill will have to go back to the drawing board after failing to muster enough votes for an override.

Hinchey, a member of the Appropriations Committee, said the IBM study will remain a priority and any new spending measure should contain a similar clause ensuring its funding.

"We feel pretty comfortable this will be OK," Hinchey spokesman Jeff Lieberman said Friday.

NIOSH works on a $250 million budget to conduct studies that help researchers learn more about occupational hazards in the interest of preventing them.

Lieberman said it "remains to be seen" where and how much the spending plan will be trimmed, adding that it is possible NIOSH could lose funding along with other agencies.

The IBM-Endicott study would determine whether employees suffer from a disproportionately high cancer rate. It would be based on 28,000 personnel files dating to the early 1960s that document the IBM work force at the sprawling Endicott facility, now owned by Huron Real Estate Associates. They would be cross-referenced with cancer and death records kept by state and federal government agencies so researchers will be able to tell if a person who worked for the company for a given period developed cancer any time after that.

The study also would tap IBM's industrial hygiene records to track what chemicals were used, and where and when they were used, in an attempt to characterize likely exposure scenarios for workers in various departments.

Proponents have said the study would be a significant contribution to worldwide occupational safety, including in countries that use chemicals and processes being phased out in this country.

StoryChat Post a CommentPost a Comment   View all CommentsView All Comments

Anyone that thinks that Media matters is a credible news source needs to have their head examined. A minute portion of a huge spending bill, and the headlines are that Bush does not care. First you complain that spending needs to be cut, then when it is cut you complain???? You complain that good paying jobs are gone and now want to complain that the big businesses were here in the first place????? No wonder they left. The State and Country have made it impossible for many business to stay because of the high taxes and over regulation. Make up your minds! I think that you might want to be careful about what you wish for, sometimes you just might get it !!!!!!!!! But then again, I think that you would just complain some more. Bush is the only president in recent history that has had the guts to stick by his promise of not raising taxes and I for one am very grateful. If it were not for that I would still not be able to afford a house now but every non working low life welfare sucker would have a nice car and plenty to eat, state of the art cell phone, twenty pairs of sneakers, ipods for their kids (all 6 of them) and be living the good life on the money that I have worked for and am not allowed to keep.

Posted by: Azura on Sat Nov 17, 2007 1:02 pm

It's not that I dislike President Bush as a person. I dislike President Bush because he lacks a moral compass and sound governing principles based on Republicanism ... those principles that have been a major part of American political thought since the American Revolution. Principles that stress liberty and rights as central values, makes the people as a whole sovereign, rejects aristocracy and inherited political power, expects citizens to be independent and calls on them to perform civic duties, and is strongly opposed to corruption.

It's not that President Bush is a bad person. He's just an incompetent leader, lacking statesmanship, and an incapable manager of the Federal government. If he were the CEO of a major Fortune 500 company, he would have been fired, given a nice golden parachute, and made the commissioner of major league baseball.

Defending President Bush is like trying to defend incompetence, mismanagement, and un-principled leadership. How can one defend a leader when his actual results to date are deplorable.

For example, according to the Friday, October 26th Washington Post;

During an October 25 washingtonpost.com "Post Politics Hour" discussion, Washington Post White House reporter Michael Fletcher -- who will become the Post's national economics reporter beginning November 1 -- asserted: "I think President Bush does want us to pay for this war -- even if he didn't, we certainly are paying. But Bush is generally against tax increases as he believes they stifle economic growth. So his idea is to pay for the war by cutting back elsewhere in the budget."

In fact, according to the Office of Management and Budget's Historical Tables of the Fiscal Year 2008 Budget, inflation-adjusted non-defense discretionary outlays have risen each year since Bush took office, to $407.8 billion in fiscal year 2006, up from $335.0 billion in fiscal 2001 under the Clinton administration (FY 2000 dollars).

Thus, Bush has actually paid for the war, not by "cutting back elsewhere in the budget," but by deficit spending. As Media Matters for America has previously documented, Bush assumed office with a $125.3 billion surplus for fiscal 2001 (which began October 1, 2000). According to the standardized budget, which includes adjustments such as cyclical fluctuations, the government has run a deficit in every fiscal year of Bush's presidency, including $318 billion in 2005 and $248 billion in 2006.

Nevertheless, Bush did not veto a single spending bill during the first six years of his administration, a period in which the House was controlled by Republicans and during which the Senate was controlled by Republicans for all but 18 months.

An October 24 McClatchy Newspapers article reported that "George W. Bush, despite all his recent bravado about being an apostle of small government and budget-slashing, is the biggest spending president since Lyndon B. Johnson. In fact, he's arguably an even bigger spender than LBJ."

The article cited the budget analysis of Stephen Slivinski, the director of budget studies at the Cato Institute, who found that when adjusted for inflation, discretionary spending ... shot up at an average annual rate of 5.3 percent during Bush's first six year," higher than the 4.6 percent annual rate Johnson logged.

Posted by: GClarke on Sat Nov 17, 2007 10:38 am

I think it would have been helpful if the article had a little detail as to why the $ 150 Billion Bill was vetoed.

Posted by: brt46 on Sat Nov 17, 2007 10:33 am

Bush is an embarrassment to this country. Everyday we read about how Washington has turned its' back on America. From failing to support our Vets to allowing our boarders to remain wide open, why am I not surprised that Washington would not give funding to an area that has been used, abused and contaminated by the Military Industrial Complex. For years this valley has been dumped on while fulfilling government contracts. IBM, GE Westover, Link and many other companies filled contracts. Now after the region has not only been used as a dump and many of the jobs offshored we now suffer the long term consequences. The chemical contamination in the IBM area is just one example. Remember Hillcrest? How many other sites are out there and what will it take to clean them up. The people in Broome County have to face the reality that it has been used and abused by the Military Industrial Complex of years gone by. Now it's time for the government to fess up and help fix the wrongs of the contamination that plagues this area.

Posted by: Z Man on Sat Nov 17, 2007 10:25 am

I hope everyone in Endicott that voted for George Bush is embarrassed now! That is if you weren't already!! (Which you should be!)

Posted by: Endicott on Sat Nov 17, 2007 10:02 am

Post a CommentPost a Comment   View all CommentsView All Comments
Past Articles
Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat | Archive

Advertisement

Advertisement


Partners: Jobs: CareerBuilder.com | Cars: cars.com | Apartments: apartments.com | Shopping: ShopLocal.com


Customer Service | Subscribe Now | Pay Bill | Place an Ad | Contact Us | Jobs With Us


Copyright © 2007 Binghamton Press & Sun-Bulletin
All rights reserved. Users of this site agree to the Terms of Service
and Privacy Policy/Your California Privacy Rights, updated March 2007.
Problem with this site? Please contact the webmaster.
Gannett New York network: Binghamton | Buffalo | Elmira | Ithaca | Poughkeepsie | Rochester | Westchester
GannettUSA Today USA WeekendGannett Foundation