ItIsNotFunny
12-30 11:18 AM
1. I will send atleast 25 mails to Senators.
2. I will follow all IV Action Items and actively participate in them.
3. I will attend DC rally.
4. I will not allow GC get over my personal life.
Additions?
2. I will follow all IV Action Items and actively participate in them.
3. I will attend DC rally.
4. I will not allow GC get over my personal life.
Additions?
wallpaper Emma Watson for US Vogue July
Legal
07-24 04:30 PM
I see lot of excitement about asking USCIS about filing for I-485
even when visa numbers are unavailable. I am afraid this may
not work.
The ombudsman report 2005 was very critical about temporary EADs being issued to "potential terrorists" without proper background check. Filing for I-485 and getting EAD is like a limbo state btween GC and H1B. This approach may not gain much support.
(1) How about proposing that they should do FBI name check with I-140?
This is the petition for immigrant visa.
(2) Those who have approved I-140 but haven't filed for I485 due to
retrogression can apply for FBI name check separately.
(3) These added "security measures" will boost our chances of getting them OK to file for I-485 even when PD is not current.
p.s
the argument that FBI name check is valid only for a breif period is stupid, but it may be forthcoming. The response is what if some one commits terrorism 6 months after getting GC:D
even when visa numbers are unavailable. I am afraid this may
not work.
The ombudsman report 2005 was very critical about temporary EADs being issued to "potential terrorists" without proper background check. Filing for I-485 and getting EAD is like a limbo state btween GC and H1B. This approach may not gain much support.
(1) How about proposing that they should do FBI name check with I-140?
This is the petition for immigrant visa.
(2) Those who have approved I-140 but haven't filed for I485 due to
retrogression can apply for FBI name check separately.
(3) These added "security measures" will boost our chances of getting them OK to file for I-485 even when PD is not current.
p.s
the argument that FBI name check is valid only for a breif period is stupid, but it may be forthcoming. The response is what if some one commits terrorism 6 months after getting GC:D
Macaca
08-05 08:12 AM
A Bad Deal Gets Worse (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/opinion/05sun2.html) August 5, 2007
President Bush is understandably desperate for some kind of foreign policy success. But that cannot justify sacrificing his principled stand against weapons proliferation to seal a nuclear cooperation deal with India. The agreement could end up benefiting New Delhi�s weapons program as much as its pursuit of nuclear power.
The deal was deeply flawed from the start. And it has been made even worse by a newly negotiated companion agreement that lays out the technical details for nuclear commerce. Congress should reject the agreement and demand that the administration, or its successor, negotiate a new one that does not undermine efforts to restrain the spread of nuclear weapons.
Any agreement needs to honor the principle Mr. Bush set forth in 2004: that countries do not need to make their own nuclear fuel, or reprocess their spent fuel, to operate effective nuclear energy programs. The technology can be all too easily diverted to make fuel for a nuclear weapon.
Unfortunately, Mr. Bush�s accord with India jettisoned that essential principle. Washington capitulated to India�s nuclear establishment and endorsed continued reprocessing. And while United States law calls for nuclear cooperation to end if India detonates another weapon, the agreement makes no explicit mention of that requirement � while it promises that Washington will acquiesce, if not assist, in India�s efforts to find other fuel suppliers.
Bringing India � which never signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty � in from the cold is not a bad idea. It is the world�s most populous democracy, with a dynamic economy. And its record on nonproliferation � aside from its own diversion of civilian technology to its once-secret weapons program � is pretty good. The problem is that the United States got very little back. No promise to stop producing bomb-making material. No promise not to expand its arsenal. And no promise not to resume nuclear testing.
The message of all this is unmistakable: When it comes to nuclear proliferation, Washington�s only real policy is to reward its friends and punish its enemies. Suspicion of America�s motives around the world are high enough. America cannot afford another such blow to its credibility, especially when it is trying to rally international pressure against nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea.
The administration will argue that altering this agreement now would be a slap at India. But there is no good in compounding a bad deal. And there are better ways to deepen political and economic ties.
Congress accepted the administration�s arguments far too uncritically when it approved the first India-related nuclear legislation last December. It must now take a stand against the even more damaging companion agreement. At a time when far too many governments are re-examining their decision to forswear nuclear weapons, the United States should be shoring up the nuclear rules, not shredding them.
President Bush is understandably desperate for some kind of foreign policy success. But that cannot justify sacrificing his principled stand against weapons proliferation to seal a nuclear cooperation deal with India. The agreement could end up benefiting New Delhi�s weapons program as much as its pursuit of nuclear power.
The deal was deeply flawed from the start. And it has been made even worse by a newly negotiated companion agreement that lays out the technical details for nuclear commerce. Congress should reject the agreement and demand that the administration, or its successor, negotiate a new one that does not undermine efforts to restrain the spread of nuclear weapons.
Any agreement needs to honor the principle Mr. Bush set forth in 2004: that countries do not need to make their own nuclear fuel, or reprocess their spent fuel, to operate effective nuclear energy programs. The technology can be all too easily diverted to make fuel for a nuclear weapon.
Unfortunately, Mr. Bush�s accord with India jettisoned that essential principle. Washington capitulated to India�s nuclear establishment and endorsed continued reprocessing. And while United States law calls for nuclear cooperation to end if India detonates another weapon, the agreement makes no explicit mention of that requirement � while it promises that Washington will acquiesce, if not assist, in India�s efforts to find other fuel suppliers.
Bringing India � which never signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty � in from the cold is not a bad idea. It is the world�s most populous democracy, with a dynamic economy. And its record on nonproliferation � aside from its own diversion of civilian technology to its once-secret weapons program � is pretty good. The problem is that the United States got very little back. No promise to stop producing bomb-making material. No promise not to expand its arsenal. And no promise not to resume nuclear testing.
The message of all this is unmistakable: When it comes to nuclear proliferation, Washington�s only real policy is to reward its friends and punish its enemies. Suspicion of America�s motives around the world are high enough. America cannot afford another such blow to its credibility, especially when it is trying to rally international pressure against nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea.
The administration will argue that altering this agreement now would be a slap at India. But there is no good in compounding a bad deal. And there are better ways to deepen political and economic ties.
Congress accepted the administration�s arguments far too uncritically when it approved the first India-related nuclear legislation last December. It must now take a stand against the even more damaging companion agreement. At a time when far too many governments are re-examining their decision to forswear nuclear weapons, the United States should be shoring up the nuclear rules, not shredding them.
2011 (Emma Watson for Vogue US
hbjobseeker1
01-03 10:02 PM
I was laid off in Dec 2009, but severance will stop till early Feb. Now I found two potential jobs. Company A is a corporation in same state, but company B is a university in some other State.
1. How long will take them to transfer my H1B? does the different States matter on this transfer time? I want to make sure which one can submit the H1B transfer before my paycheck stops in Feb.
2. In order to apply for Green Card later, which job is better for Green Card application? I heard university will not help the staff (accountant) for Green Card application. Is that true?
Thank you so much!
1. How long will take them to transfer my H1B? does the different States matter on this transfer time? I want to make sure which one can submit the H1B transfer before my paycheck stops in Feb.
2. In order to apply for Green Card later, which job is better for Green Card application? I heard university will not help the staff (accountant) for Green Card application. Is that true?
Thank you so much!
more...
alok97
02-26 08:46 PM
Hi, I have a H1B from company A stamped in my passport and it has been expired in sep 2005. I joined company B in march 2004 and I have their I-797 valis till Jan 2008. I am going to India to stamp it on the passport. Is their any issue with this ? I heard that if one is changing the comany, he/she has to stamp the H1B of the new company on the passport within 6 months or so. Please help.
Viz2007
12-09 02:40 AM
Hi everybody,
I am in pretty awkward situation. i have got my H1b Stamped in august 2008. Did not go to US because of the bad market situation and opted for woking in India. Now my current indian comapny wants me to travel to US on business visa( i have got B1 stamped in 2004 for 10 years) for 1-2 weeks.
Now i want to know , if i have both the visa stamped( H1b & B1), can i travel to US on business visa without affetcing my H1B visa because i am planning to go US whenever i hear that market is improving.
[/B]
I am in pretty awkward situation. i have got my H1b Stamped in august 2008. Did not go to US because of the bad market situation and opted for woking in India. Now my current indian comapny wants me to travel to US on business visa( i have got B1 stamped in 2004 for 10 years) for 1-2 weeks.
Now i want to know , if i have both the visa stamped( H1b & B1), can i travel to US on business visa without affetcing my H1B visa because i am planning to go US whenever i hear that market is improving.
[/B]
more...
Macaca
12-11 08:31 PM
Congress Has Been Stymied By Bush, Republicans (http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-usa-congress.html) By REUTERS, December 11, 2007
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush wants it known the U.S. Congress has been asleep at the switch since Democrats took over in January. The only problem is that he and his fellow Republicans have flipped off the switch at nearly every turn, Democrats say.
"The end of 2007 is approaching fast and the new Congress has little to show for it," Bush told reporters in the White House Rose Garden last week.
Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader in the House of Representatives, was even less generous. "Nothing has been accomplished all year," he said.
As they excoriate political opponents, Bush and his fellow Republicans in Congress have successfully stopped most major Democratic initiatives this year.
They have staged an unprecedented number of "filibusters" in the Senate, where Democrats do not have a big enough majority to end debate. The few times that wasn't the case, Bush used his veto pen to kill Democrats' top priorities, like ending the Iraq war, expanding health care to children from low-income families and expanding stem cell research.
"Sadly, Republicans in Washington are determined to make this a 'no-can-do' Congress," Assistant Senate Majority Leader Richard Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, said in his party's weekly radio address on Saturday.
With only a week or two remaining in the first half of 110th Congress that convened in January, there's a deflated feeling on Capitol Hill.
Democrats and Republicans complain not enough has been accomplished. The public seems to agree, with just one in five Americans approving of the job Congress is doing, even worse than the unpopular Bush's ratings.
The legislative deadlock might get even worse next year, as election campaigns for Congress and the presidency get into full swing.
Ethan Siegal of the Washington Exchange, a private group that tracks Congress, said of Republicans' opposition tactics: "The template for trying to get into power is to make sure the party in charge doesn't have many legislative successes."
But even many Republicans think accusations of a "do-nothing" Democratic Congress won't be enough for their party to win back their majority status in the November 2008 elections.
PROMISES KEPT?
Democrats quickly fulfilled many of their 2006 campaign promises, raising the minimum wage for the first time in a decade, implementing stalled recommendations of the commission that investigated the September 11 attacks and trying to stop ethics abuses that plagued Congress during years of Republican leadership.
Republicans blocked many other measures.
A top domestic priority -- reforming U.S. immigration law -- was buried by conservative Republicans in the House. On foreign affairs, Republicans killed repeated moves to bring combat in Iraq to an end, despite Americans' disenchantment with a war now in its fifth year. Anti-war feeling was a driving factor behind the Democrats' success in last year's elections.
Popular legislation to expand stem cell research to help cure diseases such as Parkinson's was vetoed by Bush, as was a bill to deliver health care to more children from low-income families.
More recently, the House passed an energy bill that would improve automobile fuel efficiency for the first time in 32 years but Senate Republicans, heeding a White House veto threat, stopped it.
And Bush has veto threats on the remaining bills to fund the government through next September.
He recently told Arkansas business leaders: "You're fixing to see what they call a fiscal showdown in Washington."
But despite the bluster, Bush and congressional Democrats are at odds over a relatively tiny slice, about $11 billion, of the nearly $3 trillion budget.
Negotiations between the two finally have begun, but a compromise -- some war funding coupled with some of the additional domestic spending Democrats want -- was showing signs of souring this week, again amid accusations of Republican sabotage. There's plenty of incentive for a deal though as neither side wants government shutdowns to begin if agencies run out of money this month.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush wants it known the U.S. Congress has been asleep at the switch since Democrats took over in January. The only problem is that he and his fellow Republicans have flipped off the switch at nearly every turn, Democrats say.
"The end of 2007 is approaching fast and the new Congress has little to show for it," Bush told reporters in the White House Rose Garden last week.
Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader in the House of Representatives, was even less generous. "Nothing has been accomplished all year," he said.
As they excoriate political opponents, Bush and his fellow Republicans in Congress have successfully stopped most major Democratic initiatives this year.
They have staged an unprecedented number of "filibusters" in the Senate, where Democrats do not have a big enough majority to end debate. The few times that wasn't the case, Bush used his veto pen to kill Democrats' top priorities, like ending the Iraq war, expanding health care to children from low-income families and expanding stem cell research.
"Sadly, Republicans in Washington are determined to make this a 'no-can-do' Congress," Assistant Senate Majority Leader Richard Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, said in his party's weekly radio address on Saturday.
With only a week or two remaining in the first half of 110th Congress that convened in January, there's a deflated feeling on Capitol Hill.
Democrats and Republicans complain not enough has been accomplished. The public seems to agree, with just one in five Americans approving of the job Congress is doing, even worse than the unpopular Bush's ratings.
The legislative deadlock might get even worse next year, as election campaigns for Congress and the presidency get into full swing.
Ethan Siegal of the Washington Exchange, a private group that tracks Congress, said of Republicans' opposition tactics: "The template for trying to get into power is to make sure the party in charge doesn't have many legislative successes."
But even many Republicans think accusations of a "do-nothing" Democratic Congress won't be enough for their party to win back their majority status in the November 2008 elections.
PROMISES KEPT?
Democrats quickly fulfilled many of their 2006 campaign promises, raising the minimum wage for the first time in a decade, implementing stalled recommendations of the commission that investigated the September 11 attacks and trying to stop ethics abuses that plagued Congress during years of Republican leadership.
Republicans blocked many other measures.
A top domestic priority -- reforming U.S. immigration law -- was buried by conservative Republicans in the House. On foreign affairs, Republicans killed repeated moves to bring combat in Iraq to an end, despite Americans' disenchantment with a war now in its fifth year. Anti-war feeling was a driving factor behind the Democrats' success in last year's elections.
Popular legislation to expand stem cell research to help cure diseases such as Parkinson's was vetoed by Bush, as was a bill to deliver health care to more children from low-income families.
More recently, the House passed an energy bill that would improve automobile fuel efficiency for the first time in 32 years but Senate Republicans, heeding a White House veto threat, stopped it.
And Bush has veto threats on the remaining bills to fund the government through next September.
He recently told Arkansas business leaders: "You're fixing to see what they call a fiscal showdown in Washington."
But despite the bluster, Bush and congressional Democrats are at odds over a relatively tiny slice, about $11 billion, of the nearly $3 trillion budget.
Negotiations between the two finally have begun, but a compromise -- some war funding coupled with some of the additional domestic spending Democrats want -- was showing signs of souring this week, again amid accusations of Republican sabotage. There's plenty of incentive for a deal though as neither side wants government shutdowns to begin if agencies run out of money this month.
2010 Emma Watson Vogue US
Blog Feeds
09-24 03:20 AM
South Korean-born Dr. Jim Yong Kim today assumes the presidency of Dartmouth College and becomes the first Asian American to lead an Ivy League university. The physician, teacher and infectious disease expert told the Dartmouth community: It is �deeply humbling for me � the child of Korean immigrants from a small town in Iowa� to follow in the footsteps of his predecessors and lead Dartmouth College. Here is a clip from today's inauguration:
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/09/immigrant-of-the-day-jim-yong-kim-university-president.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/09/immigrant-of-the-day-jim-yong-kim-university-president.html)
more...
gotoindia
04-21 06:17 PM
Hi All
I am here on L2 and then Joined a Company in 2006. When I joined, that time the H1 Cap 2007 was already over so my company said that they will do my H1 this year. Unfortunatly I got the H1 Rejected as my case couldnt get in the lottery.
In the Mean time my company have filed my Green card under EB3 and we have I-140 Approved (1 st stage) in August 07.
Now, is there any way that anyone can Help me?
Thanks
I am here on L2 and then Joined a Company in 2006. When I joined, that time the H1 Cap 2007 was already over so my company said that they will do my H1 this year. Unfortunatly I got the H1 Rejected as my case couldnt get in the lottery.
In the Mean time my company have filed my Green card under EB3 and we have I-140 Approved (1 st stage) in August 07.
Now, is there any way that anyone can Help me?
Thanks
hair Emma Watson#39;s Vogue July
uma001
06-25 12:41 PM
5 more Representatives co-sponsor for CIR ASAP of 2009 bringing it to 102 sponsors.
However, unless the Senate moves on Immigration .. nothing will happen in the House.
What happened to STEM bill? When is it coming to senate?
However, unless the Senate moves on Immigration .. nothing will happen in the House.
What happened to STEM bill? When is it coming to senate?
more...
gc_perm2k6
09-27 10:47 AM
Hi, Thanks for the reply, but she did not even know at that point about this provision. This was a kind of typo error, (05 to 04) .
Is there a possibility to rectify this problem?
Rgds
Is there a possibility to rectify this problem?
Rgds
hot Vogue,July 2011
asali
05-21 02:37 PM
Hi Friends,
I have approved I-140 (PD Sep,2007) but recently my H1 extension was denied so had to come on H4, so now what will happen to my GC, do I have to start from scratch OR my I-140 is still valid once I come back on H1 (with different employer).
Please respond
I have approved I-140 (PD Sep,2007) but recently my H1 extension was denied so had to come on H4, so now what will happen to my GC, do I have to start from scratch OR my I-140 is still valid once I come back on H1 (with different employer).
Please respond
more...
house Emma Watson is Vogue July 2011
Blog Feeds
12-18 09:40 AM
We like to share that the H1B cap is extremely close to being reached. The count as of December 15, 2009 is 64,200. This is 1300 cases more than the count from December 11th. This count is very close to the total cap of 65,000 which is actually somewhat reduced by numbers allocated under trade agreements. We continue to watch this very closely, and will provide updates until the FY 2010 cap is reached.
We suggest to act quickly to avoid last minute embarrassment as H-1B Cap may soon be cease to exist.
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/12/h1b_cap_updates_64200_as_of_de.html)
We suggest to act quickly to avoid last minute embarrassment as H-1B Cap may soon be cease to exist.
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/12/h1b_cap_updates_64200_as_of_de.html)
tattoo Emma Watson. Vogue US July
klixerklox
12-11 01:20 AM
Hi,
My details:
- Bsc Computers (3 yrs) + MBA (2 yrs)
- GC - EB3, Oct 2003.
- Applied for 9th Year H1B in October. (H1B Visa expired in Oct)
- EAD and AP approved.
- Just got CRIS email of I140 & 485 denial notices (waiting for the USCIS letter for reasons).
- Previous company closed down and I had given Experience letter from a colleague, who is now on H4.
Questions?
1. Am I out of status already due to denial notices?
2. Will I get an H1B Extension?
3. If my lawyer decides to file an MTR, will I be allowed to work until my EAD/H1B is valid.
My details:
- Bsc Computers (3 yrs) + MBA (2 yrs)
- GC - EB3, Oct 2003.
- Applied for 9th Year H1B in October. (H1B Visa expired in Oct)
- EAD and AP approved.
- Just got CRIS email of I140 & 485 denial notices (waiting for the USCIS letter for reasons).
- Previous company closed down and I had given Experience letter from a colleague, who is now on H4.
Questions?
1. Am I out of status already due to denial notices?
2. Will I get an H1B Extension?
3. If my lawyer decides to file an MTR, will I be allowed to work until my EAD/H1B is valid.
more...
pictures wallpaper Vogue US July 2011 emma watson vogue us july 2011.
Macaca
12-13 06:23 PM
Intraparty Feuds Dog Democrats, Stall Congress (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119750838630225395.html) By David Rogers | Wall Street Journal, Dec 13, 2007
WASHINGTON -- Democrats took control of Congress last January promising a "new direction." A year later, the image that haunts them most is one symbolizing no direction at all: gridlock.
Unfinished work is piling up -- legislation to aid borrowers affected by the housing mess, rescue millions of middle-class families from a big tax increase and put stricter gas-mileage limits on the auto industry. Two months into the new fiscal year, Democrats are still scrambling just to keep the government open.
President Bush and Republicans are contributing to the impasse, but there's another factor: Intraparty squabbling between House Democrats and Senate Democrats is sometimes almost as fierce as the partisan battling.
A fracas between Democrats this week over a proposed $522 billion spending package is the latest example. The spending would keep the government running through the current fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, 2008, but it has opened party divisions over funding the Iraq war and lawmakers' home-state projects.
After enjoying an early rise, Congress's approval ratings have fallen since the spring amid the rancor. In the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, just 19% of respondents said they approved of the job Congress is doing, while 68% disapproved.
Democrats are hoping to get a boost by enacting the tougher auto- mileage standards before Christmas, but other matters, such as a farm bill to continue government price supports, are likely to wait for the new year.
Republicans suffered from the same House-Senate tensions in their 12 years of rule in Congress. But the situation is more acute now for Democrats, who must cope with both Mr. Bush's vetoes and the narrowest of margins in the Senate, leaving them vulnerable to Republican filibusters.
Democrats in the House interpret the 2006 elections as a mandate for change. They are more antiwar and more willing to shed old ways -- such as "earmarks" for legislators' pet projects -- to confront the White House. Senate Democrats, by comparison, remain more tied to tradition and institutional rules that demand consensus before taking action.
"The Senate and House are out of phase with one another," says Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. "There was a big change last year, a big change that affected the whole House and one-third of the Senate. That's the fundamental disconnect."
Rather than move to the center after 2006, President Bush has moved right to shore up his conservative base. He has also adopted a confrontational veto strategy calculated to disrupt the new Congress and reduce its effectiveness in challenging him on Iraq.
Just yesterday, the president issued his second veto of Democrat- backed legislation to expand government-provided health insurance for the children of working-class families. In his first six years as president, Mr. Bush issued only one veto. Since Democrats took over Congress, he has issued six vetoes, and threats of more hang over the budget talks now.
For Democrats, teamwork is vital to challenging the president, and it's not always forthcoming. A comment by Charles Rangel, a New York Democrat who is chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, suggests the distant relationship between the two houses. "We have a constitutional responsibility to send legislation over there," said Rep. Rangel. "Quite frankly I don't give a damn what they feel."
Adds Wisconsin Rep. David Obey, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee: "I can tell you when bills will move and you can tell me when the Senate will sell us out."
With 2008 an election year overseen by a lame-duck president, it's unlikely that Congress will be able to break out of its slump.
Sometimes the disputes resemble play-acting. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) has quietly invited House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Cal.) to blame the Senate if it suits her purpose to explain the slow pace of legislation, according to a person close to Sen. Reid.
At the same time, he can use her as his foil to fend off Republican demands in the Senate: "I can't control Speaker Pelosi," he said last week in debate on an energy bill. "She is a strong independent woman. She runs the House with an iron hand."
Still, the interchamber differences have real consequences, as seen in the fight over the budget.
Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Byrd of West Virginia long argued against creating a big package that would combine all the main spending bills. He preferred to confront Mr. Bush with a series of targeted individual bills where he could gain some Republican support and maintain leverage over the president. But Mr. Byrd was undercut by his leadership's failure to allow more time for debate on the Senate floor. After Labor Day, the House began pressing for a single large package.
The $522 billion proposed bill ultimately emerged from weeks of talks that included moderate Republicans. The bill cut $10.6 billion from earlier spending proposals, moving closer to Mr. Bush, while giving him new money he wanted for the State Department as well as a border-security initiative.
No new money was provided specifically for Iraq but the bill gives the Pentagon an additional $31 billion for the war in Afghanistan and body armor for troops in the field. The goal was to provide enough money for Army accounts so its funding would be adequate into April, when a fuller debate could be held on the U.S.'s plans in Iraq.
For Senate Democrats and Mr. Byrd, the effort was a gamble that a moderate center could be found to stand up to Mr. Bush. The more combative Mr. Obey, the House appropriations chairman, was never persuaded this could happen.
After the White House announced its opposition over the weekend, Mr. Obey said Monday that the budget proposal was dead unless changes were made. The effect was to divide Democrats again, instead of putting up a united front against the White House's resistance.
Mr. Obey suggested that lawmakers should be willing to strip out home-state projects, acceding to Mr. Bush's tight line on spending, if that's what it took to make a tough stand on Iraq.
"I am perfectly willing to lose every dollar on the domestic side of the ledger in order to avoid giving them money for the war without conditions," Mr. Obey said. His suggestion met strong resistance from Senate Democrats. At a party luncheon, senators were almost comic in their anger, said one colleague who was present, loudly complaining of being reduced to being "puppets" or "slaves."
On the Senate floor yesterday, Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn said Democrats were showing signs of "attention deficit disorder." Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, accused the new majority of being more interested in "finger pointing" and "headlines" than legislation. "It won't get bills signed into law," he said.
While Ms. Pelosi had personally supported Mr. Obey's approach, she instructed the House committee to preserve the projects as it began a second round of spending reductions yesterday, cutting an additional $6.9 billion from the $522 billion package.
The Senate committee's Democratic staff joined in the discussions by evening, but the White House denied reports that a deal had been reached at a spending ceiling above the president's initial request.
If agreement is not reached by the end of next week, lawmakers may have to resort again to a yearlong funding resolution that effectively freezes most agencies at their current levels. This would be a repeat of the collapse of the budget process last year under Republican rule -- not the "new direction" Democrats had hoped for.
Tied in Knots
The House and Senate are struggling to complete several matters before they head home this month.
Appropriations: Only the Pentagon budget is in place for the new fiscal year that began Oct. 1. The House and Senate are struggling to finish a bill covering the rest of the government.
Farm bill: The Senate still hopes to complete its version of a farm bill but negotiations with the House will wait until next year.
AMT relief: The House and Senate have passed legislation limiting the alternative minimum tax's hit on millions of middle-class taxpayers. But they differ about whether to offset the lost revenue.
Medicare: Doctors are set to see a cut in Medicare payments in 2008, which lawmakers want to prevent. The House acted, but Senate hasn't yet.
Housing: Several bills addressing the housing crisis have passed the House but are languishing in the Senate.
WASHINGTON -- Democrats took control of Congress last January promising a "new direction." A year later, the image that haunts them most is one symbolizing no direction at all: gridlock.
Unfinished work is piling up -- legislation to aid borrowers affected by the housing mess, rescue millions of middle-class families from a big tax increase and put stricter gas-mileage limits on the auto industry. Two months into the new fiscal year, Democrats are still scrambling just to keep the government open.
President Bush and Republicans are contributing to the impasse, but there's another factor: Intraparty squabbling between House Democrats and Senate Democrats is sometimes almost as fierce as the partisan battling.
A fracas between Democrats this week over a proposed $522 billion spending package is the latest example. The spending would keep the government running through the current fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, 2008, but it has opened party divisions over funding the Iraq war and lawmakers' home-state projects.
After enjoying an early rise, Congress's approval ratings have fallen since the spring amid the rancor. In the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, just 19% of respondents said they approved of the job Congress is doing, while 68% disapproved.
Democrats are hoping to get a boost by enacting the tougher auto- mileage standards before Christmas, but other matters, such as a farm bill to continue government price supports, are likely to wait for the new year.
Republicans suffered from the same House-Senate tensions in their 12 years of rule in Congress. But the situation is more acute now for Democrats, who must cope with both Mr. Bush's vetoes and the narrowest of margins in the Senate, leaving them vulnerable to Republican filibusters.
Democrats in the House interpret the 2006 elections as a mandate for change. They are more antiwar and more willing to shed old ways -- such as "earmarks" for legislators' pet projects -- to confront the White House. Senate Democrats, by comparison, remain more tied to tradition and institutional rules that demand consensus before taking action.
"The Senate and House are out of phase with one another," says Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. "There was a big change last year, a big change that affected the whole House and one-third of the Senate. That's the fundamental disconnect."
Rather than move to the center after 2006, President Bush has moved right to shore up his conservative base. He has also adopted a confrontational veto strategy calculated to disrupt the new Congress and reduce its effectiveness in challenging him on Iraq.
Just yesterday, the president issued his second veto of Democrat- backed legislation to expand government-provided health insurance for the children of working-class families. In his first six years as president, Mr. Bush issued only one veto. Since Democrats took over Congress, he has issued six vetoes, and threats of more hang over the budget talks now.
For Democrats, teamwork is vital to challenging the president, and it's not always forthcoming. A comment by Charles Rangel, a New York Democrat who is chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, suggests the distant relationship between the two houses. "We have a constitutional responsibility to send legislation over there," said Rep. Rangel. "Quite frankly I don't give a damn what they feel."
Adds Wisconsin Rep. David Obey, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee: "I can tell you when bills will move and you can tell me when the Senate will sell us out."
With 2008 an election year overseen by a lame-duck president, it's unlikely that Congress will be able to break out of its slump.
Sometimes the disputes resemble play-acting. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) has quietly invited House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Cal.) to blame the Senate if it suits her purpose to explain the slow pace of legislation, according to a person close to Sen. Reid.
At the same time, he can use her as his foil to fend off Republican demands in the Senate: "I can't control Speaker Pelosi," he said last week in debate on an energy bill. "She is a strong independent woman. She runs the House with an iron hand."
Still, the interchamber differences have real consequences, as seen in the fight over the budget.
Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Byrd of West Virginia long argued against creating a big package that would combine all the main spending bills. He preferred to confront Mr. Bush with a series of targeted individual bills where he could gain some Republican support and maintain leverage over the president. But Mr. Byrd was undercut by his leadership's failure to allow more time for debate on the Senate floor. After Labor Day, the House began pressing for a single large package.
The $522 billion proposed bill ultimately emerged from weeks of talks that included moderate Republicans. The bill cut $10.6 billion from earlier spending proposals, moving closer to Mr. Bush, while giving him new money he wanted for the State Department as well as a border-security initiative.
No new money was provided specifically for Iraq but the bill gives the Pentagon an additional $31 billion for the war in Afghanistan and body armor for troops in the field. The goal was to provide enough money for Army accounts so its funding would be adequate into April, when a fuller debate could be held on the U.S.'s plans in Iraq.
For Senate Democrats and Mr. Byrd, the effort was a gamble that a moderate center could be found to stand up to Mr. Bush. The more combative Mr. Obey, the House appropriations chairman, was never persuaded this could happen.
After the White House announced its opposition over the weekend, Mr. Obey said Monday that the budget proposal was dead unless changes were made. The effect was to divide Democrats again, instead of putting up a united front against the White House's resistance.
Mr. Obey suggested that lawmakers should be willing to strip out home-state projects, acceding to Mr. Bush's tight line on spending, if that's what it took to make a tough stand on Iraq.
"I am perfectly willing to lose every dollar on the domestic side of the ledger in order to avoid giving them money for the war without conditions," Mr. Obey said. His suggestion met strong resistance from Senate Democrats. At a party luncheon, senators were almost comic in their anger, said one colleague who was present, loudly complaining of being reduced to being "puppets" or "slaves."
On the Senate floor yesterday, Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn said Democrats were showing signs of "attention deficit disorder." Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, accused the new majority of being more interested in "finger pointing" and "headlines" than legislation. "It won't get bills signed into law," he said.
While Ms. Pelosi had personally supported Mr. Obey's approach, she instructed the House committee to preserve the projects as it began a second round of spending reductions yesterday, cutting an additional $6.9 billion from the $522 billion package.
The Senate committee's Democratic staff joined in the discussions by evening, but the White House denied reports that a deal had been reached at a spending ceiling above the president's initial request.
If agreement is not reached by the end of next week, lawmakers may have to resort again to a yearlong funding resolution that effectively freezes most agencies at their current levels. This would be a repeat of the collapse of the budget process last year under Republican rule -- not the "new direction" Democrats had hoped for.
Tied in Knots
The House and Senate are struggling to complete several matters before they head home this month.
Appropriations: Only the Pentagon budget is in place for the new fiscal year that began Oct. 1. The House and Senate are struggling to finish a bill covering the rest of the government.
Farm bill: The Senate still hopes to complete its version of a farm bill but negotiations with the House will wait until next year.
AMT relief: The House and Senate have passed legislation limiting the alternative minimum tax's hit on millions of middle-class taxpayers. But they differ about whether to offset the lost revenue.
Medicare: Doctors are set to see a cut in Medicare payments in 2008, which lawmakers want to prevent. The House acted, but Senate hasn't yet.
Housing: Several bills addressing the housing crisis have passed the House but are languishing in the Senate.
dresses Emma Watson for Vogue US July
Blog Feeds
06-23 03:30 PM
Effective July 6, 2009, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued an interim rule amending the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulations with the intention to:
· end confusion by removing certain obsolete references to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS);
· help the public determine the correct place to file USCIS forms; and
· create a more efficient and streamlined process for any future changes to filing processes.
For more information, please visit: www.uscis.gov (http://www.uscis.gov).
More... (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Immigration-law-answers-blog/~3/cwNsB_NO46U/)
· end confusion by removing certain obsolete references to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS);
· help the public determine the correct place to file USCIS forms; and
· create a more efficient and streamlined process for any future changes to filing processes.
For more information, please visit: www.uscis.gov (http://www.uscis.gov).
More... (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Immigration-law-answers-blog/~3/cwNsB_NO46U/)
more...
makeup 2011 Emma Watson - Vogue July
India_USA
07-28 08:18 AM
did the court rule on the AZ law yesterday? can't find it in the news........
I am hoping there will be some sort of action that will force federal govt to take up immigration reform.
I am hoping there will be some sort of action that will force federal govt to take up immigration reform.
girlfriend Emma Watson Covers Vogue July
AlxGofOC
12-19 06:04 PM
Hello all
Does any trail blazer of data patterns care to hint at the next generation pattern? or is MVVM going to be the popular one for a while. Thanks =D
~Alex
Does any trail blazer of data patterns care to hint at the next generation pattern? or is MVVM going to be the popular one for a while. Thanks =D
~Alex
hairstyles Emma with a sweetest look,
gc28262
03-25 11:41 PM
LCA:
LCA has to be for the location where you work -- Los-Angeles CA
Taxes:
You have to pay taxes where you live -- Los-Angeles CA
If your employer deducts taxes for NJ, there is nothing illegal about it.
You have to correct that from your side.
1. File a tax return for NJ and claim back all the taxes your employer deducted for NJ.
2. File a tax return for Los-Angeles, CA and pay all the taxes due for CA state.
LCA has to be for the location where you work -- Los-Angeles CA
Taxes:
You have to pay taxes where you live -- Los-Angeles CA
If your employer deducts taxes for NJ, there is nothing illegal about it.
You have to correct that from your side.
1. File a tax return for NJ and claim back all the taxes your employer deducted for NJ.
2. File a tax return for Los-Angeles, CA and pay all the taxes due for CA state.
sa_murali
02-25 01:18 PM
Hi Everyone,
I have completed my 6yrs H1-B and currently have 1yr h1-B extension until Jan, 2010. However, my PERM application for Green card was filed on Jan 2008 and is still on hold.
Given the above case can I still transfer my H1-B to a new employer with 3yr extension? I have heard that after the 6yr period H1-B is over sometimes there are cases where 3-yr or new 6yr period H1-B are issued. Can someone advice me whats the best scenario for me?
Thanks.
I have completed my 6yrs H1-B and currently have 1yr h1-B extension until Jan, 2010. However, my PERM application for Green card was filed on Jan 2008 and is still on hold.
Given the above case can I still transfer my H1-B to a new employer with 3yr extension? I have heard that after the 6yr period H1-B is over sometimes there are cases where 3-yr or new 6yr period H1-B are issued. Can someone advice me whats the best scenario for me?
Thanks.
seekerofpeace
09-17 09:20 AM
Guys,
I am thinking of sending those letters again....what better things to do in life awaiting GCs....at least it will help USPS get some revenues.
I know many in the forum have sent letters. Can anyone send a consolidated list of addresses for
No drama Obama, all drama Biden, Napolitano, TSC headquarters or the links to them
Thanks in advance,
SoP
I am thinking of sending those letters again....what better things to do in life awaiting GCs....at least it will help USPS get some revenues.
I know many in the forum have sent letters. Can anyone send a consolidated list of addresses for
No drama Obama, all drama Biden, Napolitano, TSC headquarters or the links to them
Thanks in advance,
SoP
No comments:
Post a Comment