Blog Feeds
06-17 09:10 AM
With all of the publicity recently received in the cases of the abortion clinic and Holocaust museum slayings, I'm surprised that this crime has not been getting a lot of publicity: An outspoken anti-immigration activist who was at the center of a series of violent crimes in Everett earlier this year now stands accused of the home-invasion killings of an Arizona man and his 9-year-old daughter. Shawna Forde, 41, and two associates in her Minuteman American Defense group are charged with two counts of first-degree murder, one count of first-degree burglary and one count of aggravated assault, according to the...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/06/latest-hate-killer-allegedly-connected-to-fair.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/06/latest-hate-killer-allegedly-connected-to-fair.html)
wallpaper Volkswagen Golf GTI W12 650
chidurala
07-28 08:13 AM
hi
my husband's GC has been approved.
so how long will it take me to get the green card ??
thank u in advance
my husband's GC has been approved.
so how long will it take me to get the green card ??
thank u in advance
fromnaija
06-23 12:49 PM
Yes you should furnish this info. One of the forms asks for details of previous marriages which you should provide. I think you will also need to provide your divorce decree. Providing the information does not impact your application one way or the other.
i am filling my 485 form, i was a divorcee back in india and later came here and got married here.do i have to furnish all the details in the form and give the documents?
what will be the impact of this info?
please help?
i am filling my 485 form, i was a divorcee back in india and later came here and got married here.do i have to furnish all the details in the form and give the documents?
what will be the impact of this info?
please help?
2011 Volkswagen Golf GTI W12 650
GCJinx
03-20 03:59 PM
I have got an offer from 2 companies for H1 . One is from INFOREEM (NJ based) and other is AFFUEL SYSTEMS (TAMPA/Atlanta based). Can anybody please has any reviews?
more...
Ajaykumar
11-12 11:57 PM
Hi All,
Case:EB3
Priority Date: Sep 2004
Status: Labor & I-140 approved
EB2: Labor got approved November 2009.
I'm trying to file 1-140 amendment with EB3 priority date. Currently i'm thinking of going with Sheela Murthy/Rajiv Khanna,
could you please suggest some good attorney who can handle my case very well in a limited time? Thanks a lot and really
appreciate your help.
Regards,
Ajay
Case:EB3
Priority Date: Sep 2004
Status: Labor & I-140 approved
EB2: Labor got approved November 2009.
I'm trying to file 1-140 amendment with EB3 priority date. Currently i'm thinking of going with Sheela Murthy/Rajiv Khanna,
could you please suggest some good attorney who can handle my case very well in a limited time? Thanks a lot and really
appreciate your help.
Regards,
Ajay
neverbefore
04-13 01:56 AM
Folks
Would anyone of you know whether someone on H1B can go ahead and hire a US citizen and be their employer? I know some people do hire nannies. How about for other everyday occupations?
Thanks and best regards.
Would anyone of you know whether someone on H1B can go ahead and hire a US citizen and be their employer? I know some people do hire nannies. How about for other everyday occupations?
Thanks and best regards.
more...
chanduv23
09-17 06:55 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^
2010 玩物喪智VW Golf GTI W12 650
green_pot
01-04 02:40 PM
Hi !
My husband is on H1 and i am on H4. We recently got our EADs. What I want to know is, can i start working right away with my EAD while my husband works on H1 or are there any rules like my husband also needs should change his status from H1 to EAD so that I may use my EAD card?
Thanks in advance.
My husband is on H1 and i am on H4. We recently got our EADs. What I want to know is, can i start working right away with my EAD while my husband works on H1 or are there any rules like my husband also needs should change his status from H1 to EAD so that I may use my EAD card?
Thanks in advance.
more...
Macaca
09-28 05:27 PM
With Legacy in Mind, Bush Reassesses His Agenda (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/27/AR2007092702039_2.html?sid=ST2007092801089) By Peter Baker | Washington Post Staff Writer, September 28, 2007
As he addresses a conference on climate change this morning, President Bush will face not only a crowd of skeptics but the press of time. For nearly seven years, he invested little personal energy in the challenge of global warming. Now, with the end in sight, he has called the biggest nations of the world together to press for a plan by the end of next year.
This has been a week when Bush seems to be checking boxes on the legacy list. He opened the week at the United Nations in New York, where he tried to rally support for his Middle East peace initiative and insisted his vision of a new Palestinian state is still "achievable" before the end of his presidency. And he pressed for more U.N. action against Iran, acutely aware he has less than 16 months left to stop Tehran's nuclear program.
Success in any of these areas would amount to a singular achievement and, in the view of advisers, could help rewrite Bush's place in history. No president wants to be remembered as the author of an ill-fated war and, while Iraq certainly will be at the core of the Bush administration's record, advisers hope to broaden the picture. Yet analysts said the hour is late to resolve the longstanding Israeli-Palestinian conflict on his watch, critics doubt his sincerity on climate change, and Iran remains as intransigent as ever.
"The clock is ticking, and there are certain things you want to accomplish before you go out the door," said Ron Kaufman, who was White House political director for President George H.W. Bush. "While most of these things are not new to his agenda, there may be a bit of a new urgency given the time. . . . No president wants to leave something on the table if they can get it done."
Even on Iraq, Bush clearly has an eye on the clock. While he no longer harbors hope of winning the war by Jan. 20, 2009, he wants to use his remaining time in office to stabilize the country, draw down some forces and leave his successor with a less volatile situation that would dampen domestic demands to pull out completely. If he can do that, he told television anchors during an off-the-record lunch this month, he thinks even Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), the Democratic front-runner, would continue his policy.
The goal, as national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley told the Council on Foreign Relations recently, is that "a new president who comes in in January of '09, whoever he or she may be, will look at it and say, 'I'm persuaded that we have long-term interests here. It's important we get it right. This strategy is beginning to work. I think I'll leave Iraq alone.' And so that a new president coming in doesn't have a first crisis about 'let's pull the troops out of Iraq.' "
Bush has even quietly sent advice through intermediaries to Clinton and other Democratic candidates, urging them to be careful in their campaign rhetoric so they do not limit their options should they win, according to a new book, "The Evangelical President," by Bill Sammon of the Washington Examiner. Bush has "been urging candidates, 'Don't get yourself too locked in where you stand right now. If you end up sitting where I sit, things could change dramatically,' " White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten told Sammon.
Bush is also rushing to institutionalize some of the controversial tactics he has employed in the battle with terrorists so that they will outlast his presidency. That was a major reason he agreed to put his National Security Agency warrantless surveillance program under the jurisdiction of a secret intelligence court, aides said. And that is why he has pushed to find a way to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and find other ways of handling suspected terrorists, although officials increasingly doubt they will be able to do so.
White House counselor Ed Gillespie said the president's team is not panicked about dwindling time but hopes to push steadily toward some goals that will bear fruit before the end of the administration. "On some of these things we've made a lot of progress," he said. "We may not be in the red zone, but we're at a point where you don't need to throw the long ball. We can get there with three yards and a cloud of dust if we keep moving."
The focus on passing time and the coming judgment of history is common at this point in a two-term presidency, of course. In his final months in office, Bill Clinton also launched an intense effort to solve the Middle East conflict only to have Camp David talks collapse. Joel P. Johnson, who was Clinton's senior adviser in the last part of his presidency, remembers his boss holding "a whip and a chair" trying to force as much change before surrendering the Oval Office.
"It's on your mind every day because you know how long it takes to create a policy and build a campaign around it and enact it or in some way force change before your administration is over," Johnson said. "Literally on your wall and in your mind there is a calendar, and every day you see a red X and you wake up in the morning and you realize 'we only have so much time.' And what focuses your mind is you know on that last day, the story's over and you can't change it anymore."
Bolten has been trying to focus the minds of his colleagues in the Bush White House ever since taking over as chief of staff last year. He gave other top aides clocks set to show how many days and hours remain in this administration and told them to think about big things that could be accomplished in that time. Yet the most ambitious items on Bush's second-term domestic agenda have died, most notably his ideas for restructuring Social Security and immigration laws.
"They're off the table. They're done. Didn't work," said a senior official who insisted on anonymity to speak more candidly about Bush's strategy. "So he's turning to some other things."
One of the other things is climate change. Bush once expressed doubt that human activity has anything to do with warming and renounced the Kyoto treaty imposing mandatory limits on greenhouse emissions. Now he has summoned representatives from the 15 nations that produce the most greenhouse gases to this week's conference in Washington in hopes of producing a plan by the end of 2008.
While the White House points to initiatives and research Bush has sponsored over the years, he has never taken on a high-profile role in confronting the issue until now. Senior European officials said they appreciate the newfound interest. "Some months ago there was no discussion of climate. The words 'Kyoto regime' [did not come] over the lips of a government official here," German Environmental Minister Siegmar Gabriel told reporters yesterday. Alluding to Neil Armstrong's famous walk on the moon, he added, "These are big steps for us and the United States, and small steps for mankind in the international negotiations."
But Bush remains opposed to mandatory emissions caps that environmentalists and many foreign leaders such as Gabriel believe are needed. "I don't think the leopard has changed its spots," said David D. Doniger, a climate analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "Or maybe the better analogy is that the only thing the leopard has changed is his spots."
One conference delegate said negotiators realize the talks will not yield a dramatic change in U.S. policy. "With this administration, we will not reach any result because the time is too short," the delegate said. "But they have the problem, not we. . . . They have the problem [of explaining] to their own people what they're going to do."
As he addresses a conference on climate change this morning, President Bush will face not only a crowd of skeptics but the press of time. For nearly seven years, he invested little personal energy in the challenge of global warming. Now, with the end in sight, he has called the biggest nations of the world together to press for a plan by the end of next year.
This has been a week when Bush seems to be checking boxes on the legacy list. He opened the week at the United Nations in New York, where he tried to rally support for his Middle East peace initiative and insisted his vision of a new Palestinian state is still "achievable" before the end of his presidency. And he pressed for more U.N. action against Iran, acutely aware he has less than 16 months left to stop Tehran's nuclear program.
Success in any of these areas would amount to a singular achievement and, in the view of advisers, could help rewrite Bush's place in history. No president wants to be remembered as the author of an ill-fated war and, while Iraq certainly will be at the core of the Bush administration's record, advisers hope to broaden the picture. Yet analysts said the hour is late to resolve the longstanding Israeli-Palestinian conflict on his watch, critics doubt his sincerity on climate change, and Iran remains as intransigent as ever.
"The clock is ticking, and there are certain things you want to accomplish before you go out the door," said Ron Kaufman, who was White House political director for President George H.W. Bush. "While most of these things are not new to his agenda, there may be a bit of a new urgency given the time. . . . No president wants to leave something on the table if they can get it done."
Even on Iraq, Bush clearly has an eye on the clock. While he no longer harbors hope of winning the war by Jan. 20, 2009, he wants to use his remaining time in office to stabilize the country, draw down some forces and leave his successor with a less volatile situation that would dampen domestic demands to pull out completely. If he can do that, he told television anchors during an off-the-record lunch this month, he thinks even Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), the Democratic front-runner, would continue his policy.
The goal, as national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley told the Council on Foreign Relations recently, is that "a new president who comes in in January of '09, whoever he or she may be, will look at it and say, 'I'm persuaded that we have long-term interests here. It's important we get it right. This strategy is beginning to work. I think I'll leave Iraq alone.' And so that a new president coming in doesn't have a first crisis about 'let's pull the troops out of Iraq.' "
Bush has even quietly sent advice through intermediaries to Clinton and other Democratic candidates, urging them to be careful in their campaign rhetoric so they do not limit their options should they win, according to a new book, "The Evangelical President," by Bill Sammon of the Washington Examiner. Bush has "been urging candidates, 'Don't get yourself too locked in where you stand right now. If you end up sitting where I sit, things could change dramatically,' " White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten told Sammon.
Bush is also rushing to institutionalize some of the controversial tactics he has employed in the battle with terrorists so that they will outlast his presidency. That was a major reason he agreed to put his National Security Agency warrantless surveillance program under the jurisdiction of a secret intelligence court, aides said. And that is why he has pushed to find a way to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and find other ways of handling suspected terrorists, although officials increasingly doubt they will be able to do so.
White House counselor Ed Gillespie said the president's team is not panicked about dwindling time but hopes to push steadily toward some goals that will bear fruit before the end of the administration. "On some of these things we've made a lot of progress," he said. "We may not be in the red zone, but we're at a point where you don't need to throw the long ball. We can get there with three yards and a cloud of dust if we keep moving."
The focus on passing time and the coming judgment of history is common at this point in a two-term presidency, of course. In his final months in office, Bill Clinton also launched an intense effort to solve the Middle East conflict only to have Camp David talks collapse. Joel P. Johnson, who was Clinton's senior adviser in the last part of his presidency, remembers his boss holding "a whip and a chair" trying to force as much change before surrendering the Oval Office.
"It's on your mind every day because you know how long it takes to create a policy and build a campaign around it and enact it or in some way force change before your administration is over," Johnson said. "Literally on your wall and in your mind there is a calendar, and every day you see a red X and you wake up in the morning and you realize 'we only have so much time.' And what focuses your mind is you know on that last day, the story's over and you can't change it anymore."
Bolten has been trying to focus the minds of his colleagues in the Bush White House ever since taking over as chief of staff last year. He gave other top aides clocks set to show how many days and hours remain in this administration and told them to think about big things that could be accomplished in that time. Yet the most ambitious items on Bush's second-term domestic agenda have died, most notably his ideas for restructuring Social Security and immigration laws.
"They're off the table. They're done. Didn't work," said a senior official who insisted on anonymity to speak more candidly about Bush's strategy. "So he's turning to some other things."
One of the other things is climate change. Bush once expressed doubt that human activity has anything to do with warming and renounced the Kyoto treaty imposing mandatory limits on greenhouse emissions. Now he has summoned representatives from the 15 nations that produce the most greenhouse gases to this week's conference in Washington in hopes of producing a plan by the end of 2008.
While the White House points to initiatives and research Bush has sponsored over the years, he has never taken on a high-profile role in confronting the issue until now. Senior European officials said they appreciate the newfound interest. "Some months ago there was no discussion of climate. The words 'Kyoto regime' [did not come] over the lips of a government official here," German Environmental Minister Siegmar Gabriel told reporters yesterday. Alluding to Neil Armstrong's famous walk on the moon, he added, "These are big steps for us and the United States, and small steps for mankind in the international negotiations."
But Bush remains opposed to mandatory emissions caps that environmentalists and many foreign leaders such as Gabriel believe are needed. "I don't think the leopard has changed its spots," said David D. Doniger, a climate analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "Or maybe the better analogy is that the only thing the leopard has changed is his spots."
One conference delegate said negotiators realize the talks will not yield a dramatic change in U.S. policy. "With this administration, we will not reach any result because the time is too short," the delegate said. "But they have the problem, not we. . . . They have the problem [of explaining] to their own people what they're going to do."
hair 2011 Volkswagen Golf Gti W12
Jagadish1978
07-19 07:52 PM
I have these below queries on Green card processing
My Green card processing background
My labor and I140 are approved and have priority date of May 2006 under EB3 category.
The reason for these questions is that I am planning to change the company that I am working with.
Questions.
1. Can I port the priority date (March 2006) when applying for new green card with new employer.
2. If possible to port the priority date can I apply under EB2 category assuming all other criteria satisfy for EB2 category and use the same (May 2006) priority date.
My Green card processing background
My labor and I140 are approved and have priority date of May 2006 under EB3 category.
The reason for these questions is that I am planning to change the company that I am working with.
Questions.
1. Can I port the priority date (March 2006) when applying for new green card with new employer.
2. If possible to port the priority date can I apply under EB2 category assuming all other criteria satisfy for EB2 category and use the same (May 2006) priority date.
more...
nat23
06-14 02:54 PM
I dont know if people would be interested in discussing the implications of all EB categories turning current. Some of the points to discuss would be:
1) Processing times for I-485
2) Effects on future GC applications.
etc
3) Whats if the CIR is passed in its current form ? How does that affect these categories is at all
1) Processing times for I-485
2) Effects on future GC applications.
etc
3) Whats if the CIR is passed in its current form ? How does that affect these categories is at all
hot 2009 Volkswagen Golf GTI
morchu
06-01 12:30 PM
New/amended 140, if the LC states correct job requirements (assuming the mistake was made on 140 application).
New LC if old LC states incorrect job requirements.
I have a Masters Degree in the US and the 5 yr experience required for the EB2 also the position requires it; however my lawyer made a mistake and asked for an EB3.
I already received my I-140 and my I-485 was filed at the same time.
What can I do to change to EB2?
Thanks a lot for your answer,
New LC if old LC states incorrect job requirements.
I have a Masters Degree in the US and the 5 yr experience required for the EB2 also the position requires it; however my lawyer made a mistake and asked for an EB3.
I already received my I-140 and my I-485 was filed at the same time.
What can I do to change to EB2?
Thanks a lot for your answer,
more...
house Masina se numeste GTI W12 si
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.
tattoo In 2007 the GTI W12 made its
Macaca
05-19 07:54 AM
3 Months of Tense Talks Led to Immigration Deal (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/19/washington/19immig.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) By CARL HULSE (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html) and ROBERT PEAR (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html), May 19, 2007
WASHINGTON, May 18 � Hours before a bipartisan deal on immigration policy was to be announced Thursday, a tenuous compromise was threatening to unravel, and tempers flared once again.
Just off the Senate floor, Senators John McCain of Arizona and John Cornyn of Texas, both Republicans, exchanged sharp words, with Mr. McCain accusing his colleague of raising arcane legal issues to scuttle the deal. Mr. Cornyn retorted that he was entitled to his view and noted that Mr. McCain had spent more time campaigning for president than negotiating in recent weeks.
The senatorial dust-up, described by witnesses, was just one of the tense moments in remarkable negotiations over the last three months that resulted in this week�s accord. Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who oversaw the talks, compared them to a floating craps game, with a changing cast of characters and shifting sites.
Lawmakers and staff members who participated said passions occasionally ran high in the dozens of meetings, with Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, sometimes using his temper as a negotiating tactic. Senators who had spent hours anguishing over the smallest details had little patience for colleagues who made brief appearances to offer their views.
�New people came in and wanted to revisit the whole deal,� Mr. Specter said. �That happened all the time. It was very frustrating.�
In the end, negotiators overcame political divisions and some level of distrust to produce the agreement that will be debated in the Senate beginning next week. Lawmakers said they forged bonds partly through the telling of personal stories about their own family roots, as well as long hours spent together and the prospect that the bill might be a last chance at reaching consensus on a major national problem.
�It was like waiting for a baby to be born,� said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, about the negotiations. �On occasion, it was like being in mediation with a divorced couple. It was like being at camp with your buddies. It was feeling like a part of history.�
As difficult as the negotiations were, they might ultimately seem tame compared with the fight the authors of the plan now face. Before the language of the bill was even published, the proposal � a major domestic objective of the Bush administration � was under attack from the right for allowing illegal immigrants to earn citizenship and from the left for dividing families. The offices of the negotiators were under siege from critics who had the phones ringing endlessly.
�It is real easy to demagogue this thing, and some people probably won�t be able to help themselves,� said Senator Mel Martinez, Republican of Florida and another key participant in the talks. �We are going to have to stick together on the fundamentals of this agreement.�
The talks had their genesis in last year�s failure on immigration after House Republicans essentially chose to ignore a bill passed by the Senate that conservatives derided as amnesty since it would have allowed some of the 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States to remain and eventually qualify to be citizens.
President Bush helped plant the seeds of this year�s negotiations on Jan. 8, at a White House event celebrating the fifth anniversary of the No Child Left Behind Act. Mr. Bush pulled aside Senator Kennedy, and they went into a room off the Oval Office to talk about immigration.
A month later, Senator Jon Kyl, a conservative Republican from Arizona who would become an important figure in striking the deal, began meeting with other Republicans and administration officials to explore ways to find a legislative response to an issue with potent political and humanitarian ramifications.
When those talks progressed far enough, the Republicans on March 28 invited in Democrats like Mr. Kennedy, a longtime advocate of immigration changes, and Senators Ken Salazar of Colorado and Robert Menendez of New Jersey. What followed was a series of meetings around the Capitol, typically on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday nights, as the lawmakers, staff members, White House officials and two or three cabinet secretaries immersed themselves in immigration rules as part of unusually direct high-level negotiations.
�To take an issue and basically start from scratch and write it from the bottom up is something I haven�t seen done in a really long time,� said Candida Wolff, chief of Congressional relations for the White House.
The first big hurdle was cleared a few weeks ago when the negotiators settled on what they called the grand bargain, the main outlines of the issues they were going to address. Major elements included border security improvements and other measures that would have to be undertaken before new citizenship programs were put in place; potential legal status for millions of illegal immigrants; new visas for hundreds of thousands of temporary workers; and clearing a backlog of family applicants for residency.
Republicans also won support for a new �merit-based system of immigration,� which would give more weight to job skills and education and less to family ties. The negotiators decided to adopt a point system to evaluate the qualifications of foreign citizens seeking permission to immigrate to the United States.
No question was too small for the senators. They asked: How many points should be awarded to a refrigerator mechanic with a certificate from a community college?
The negotiations were a roller coaster ride that continued until the deal was announced Thursday, with negotiators expressing despair one day and optimism the next.
�Wednesday evening was one of the most important moments,� Mr. Kennedy said in an interview. �The mood and the atmosphere were good. You got a feeling that maybe this would all be possible. But on Thursday morning, it suddenly deteriorated again.� He told his colleagues that �it�s imperative that we announce an agreement� on Thursday afternoon, or else they could lose momentum. The announcement was made.
In some respects, the lawmakers benefited from the Congressional focus on the Iraq war as they were able to negotiate below the radar, avoiding the disclosure of every twist and turn in the talks and pressure from influential interest groups. Those involved also said the deep participation of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff was vital.
The senators who put together the bill say they have their own reservations about aspects of it. And some of the regular participants, including Senators Cornyn and Menendez, have backed away from endorsing it. But those who have embraced the bill say they intend to see it through.
�We made a pact,� said Mr. Specter, who was referred to as Mr. Chairman even though Democrats control Congress. �We will stick together even on provisions we don�t like. We are a long way from home in getting this through the Senate.�
WASHINGTON, May 18 � Hours before a bipartisan deal on immigration policy was to be announced Thursday, a tenuous compromise was threatening to unravel, and tempers flared once again.
Just off the Senate floor, Senators John McCain of Arizona and John Cornyn of Texas, both Republicans, exchanged sharp words, with Mr. McCain accusing his colleague of raising arcane legal issues to scuttle the deal. Mr. Cornyn retorted that he was entitled to his view and noted that Mr. McCain had spent more time campaigning for president than negotiating in recent weeks.
The senatorial dust-up, described by witnesses, was just one of the tense moments in remarkable negotiations over the last three months that resulted in this week�s accord. Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who oversaw the talks, compared them to a floating craps game, with a changing cast of characters and shifting sites.
Lawmakers and staff members who participated said passions occasionally ran high in the dozens of meetings, with Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, sometimes using his temper as a negotiating tactic. Senators who had spent hours anguishing over the smallest details had little patience for colleagues who made brief appearances to offer their views.
�New people came in and wanted to revisit the whole deal,� Mr. Specter said. �That happened all the time. It was very frustrating.�
In the end, negotiators overcame political divisions and some level of distrust to produce the agreement that will be debated in the Senate beginning next week. Lawmakers said they forged bonds partly through the telling of personal stories about their own family roots, as well as long hours spent together and the prospect that the bill might be a last chance at reaching consensus on a major national problem.
�It was like waiting for a baby to be born,� said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, about the negotiations. �On occasion, it was like being in mediation with a divorced couple. It was like being at camp with your buddies. It was feeling like a part of history.�
As difficult as the negotiations were, they might ultimately seem tame compared with the fight the authors of the plan now face. Before the language of the bill was even published, the proposal � a major domestic objective of the Bush administration � was under attack from the right for allowing illegal immigrants to earn citizenship and from the left for dividing families. The offices of the negotiators were under siege from critics who had the phones ringing endlessly.
�It is real easy to demagogue this thing, and some people probably won�t be able to help themselves,� said Senator Mel Martinez, Republican of Florida and another key participant in the talks. �We are going to have to stick together on the fundamentals of this agreement.�
The talks had their genesis in last year�s failure on immigration after House Republicans essentially chose to ignore a bill passed by the Senate that conservatives derided as amnesty since it would have allowed some of the 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States to remain and eventually qualify to be citizens.
President Bush helped plant the seeds of this year�s negotiations on Jan. 8, at a White House event celebrating the fifth anniversary of the No Child Left Behind Act. Mr. Bush pulled aside Senator Kennedy, and they went into a room off the Oval Office to talk about immigration.
A month later, Senator Jon Kyl, a conservative Republican from Arizona who would become an important figure in striking the deal, began meeting with other Republicans and administration officials to explore ways to find a legislative response to an issue with potent political and humanitarian ramifications.
When those talks progressed far enough, the Republicans on March 28 invited in Democrats like Mr. Kennedy, a longtime advocate of immigration changes, and Senators Ken Salazar of Colorado and Robert Menendez of New Jersey. What followed was a series of meetings around the Capitol, typically on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday nights, as the lawmakers, staff members, White House officials and two or three cabinet secretaries immersed themselves in immigration rules as part of unusually direct high-level negotiations.
�To take an issue and basically start from scratch and write it from the bottom up is something I haven�t seen done in a really long time,� said Candida Wolff, chief of Congressional relations for the White House.
The first big hurdle was cleared a few weeks ago when the negotiators settled on what they called the grand bargain, the main outlines of the issues they were going to address. Major elements included border security improvements and other measures that would have to be undertaken before new citizenship programs were put in place; potential legal status for millions of illegal immigrants; new visas for hundreds of thousands of temporary workers; and clearing a backlog of family applicants for residency.
Republicans also won support for a new �merit-based system of immigration,� which would give more weight to job skills and education and less to family ties. The negotiators decided to adopt a point system to evaluate the qualifications of foreign citizens seeking permission to immigrate to the United States.
No question was too small for the senators. They asked: How many points should be awarded to a refrigerator mechanic with a certificate from a community college?
The negotiations were a roller coaster ride that continued until the deal was announced Thursday, with negotiators expressing despair one day and optimism the next.
�Wednesday evening was one of the most important moments,� Mr. Kennedy said in an interview. �The mood and the atmosphere were good. You got a feeling that maybe this would all be possible. But on Thursday morning, it suddenly deteriorated again.� He told his colleagues that �it�s imperative that we announce an agreement� on Thursday afternoon, or else they could lose momentum. The announcement was made.
In some respects, the lawmakers benefited from the Congressional focus on the Iraq war as they were able to negotiate below the radar, avoiding the disclosure of every twist and turn in the talks and pressure from influential interest groups. Those involved also said the deep participation of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff was vital.
The senators who put together the bill say they have their own reservations about aspects of it. And some of the regular participants, including Senators Cornyn and Menendez, have backed away from endorsing it. But those who have embraced the bill say they intend to see it through.
�We made a pact,� said Mr. Specter, who was referred to as Mr. Chairman even though Democrats control Congress. �We will stick together even on provisions we don�t like. We are a long way from home in getting this through the Senate.�
more...
pictures volkswagen golf gti w12
jonty_11
07-19 05:09 PM
please post articles in News Article thread..
dresses 800x600 — download Golf GTI
Anand007
12-10 12:28 AM
LETS COUNT EB2/INDIA/CURRENTS.
I just want to count how many are left.
How many EB2(India) with PD current still waiting for AOS, pl post here
post your info in the following format
1. Your PD:
2. Current Status: [RFE Submitted/Initial Review/Final review/printing] etc
3. Service Center:
4. Category: EB2 Only please.
5. Country of Chargeability: India only please.
Note: My advise to all those whose PD is current for more than 6months, to go ahaed and file a writ of mandamus. It will get you instant results. :cool:
I just want to count how many are left.
How many EB2(India) with PD current still waiting for AOS, pl post here
post your info in the following format
1. Your PD:
2. Current Status: [RFE Submitted/Initial Review/Final review/printing] etc
3. Service Center:
4. Category: EB2 Only please.
5. Country of Chargeability: India only please.
Note: My advise to all those whose PD is current for more than 6months, to go ahaed and file a writ of mandamus. It will get you instant results. :cool:
more...
makeup VW Golf W12
coolfun
04-01 12:50 AM
I know this is really stupid but I can't seem to find the answer to this one:
- I am doing a paper filing of 1040. Do I need to send 1040 as a two sided print out or single sided printouts?
The CA 540 specifically says single sided printouts but am not able to find this information for 1040.
Thanks a ton for your help.
- I am doing a paper filing of 1040. Do I need to send 1040 as a two sided print out or single sided printouts?
The CA 540 specifically says single sided printouts but am not able to find this information for 1040.
Thanks a ton for your help.
girlfriend BMR Diablo in VW Golf GTI W12
NolaIndian32
05-07 10:47 AM
anyone??? any help??
hairstyles VW Golf GTI W12 Limited
pmamp
03-02 03:23 PM
Can I apply for EAD for spouse on the basis of I-140 approval? I can not file I-485 due to retrogression and he is running out of her H1B visa limit.
Thanks
Thanks
abdev
07-21 01:02 PM
PERM (labor certification) process is a requirement from the DOL and has to be fulfilled by the employer. The employer will have to bear the costs of this first step in GC which includes (filing fees, recruitment process, lawyer fees etc). It is illegal for an employer to seek this compensation from the employee. Expenses incurred in I-140 and I-485 need not be compensated by the employer.
In your case, it seems that the employer is ready to help you with all the documentation but is not ready to bear the expenses. You will have to explain to your employer how the GC Process works and the requirements of the PERM process.
In your case, it seems that the employer is ready to help you with all the documentation but is not ready to bear the expenses. You will have to explain to your employer how the GC Process works and the requirements of the PERM process.
latina
03-05 10:34 AM
I am from Philadelphia and might just be available then (not sure though)
No comments:
Post a Comment