Macaca
06-01 07:26 PM
Pelosi�s Order in the House (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/01/us/politics/01web-hulse.html) By CARL HULSE (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/01/us/politics/01web-hulse.html), June 1, 2007
The differences between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her predecessor, J. Dennis Hastert, could not be more striking.
He is a burly former wrestling coach, a conservative Republican from small-town Illinois who usually ran from the microphones. She is the designer-clad member of a political family, a wealthy liberal from San Francisco who sees herself as a top party spokeswoman.
But what could turn out to be their defining contrast was exhibited on May 24, when Ms. Pelosi allowed the Iraq war spending bill to clear the House with predominantly Republican votes while most Democrats � including her � opposed it. It was a marked departure from the principle that guided Mr. Hastert during his years as speaker.
Mr. Hastert was an advocate of governing the House by a �majority of the majority� � a standard he thought best served the interests of his Republican members and, by extension, the nation. Just months into her tenure, Ms. Pelosi has shown she will deviate from that approach, balancing the potential of significant rewards against big risks.
The rewards could come from success in winning approval of major legislation that reaches beyond party label. Critics of Mr. Hastert said his self-imposed rule prevented the House from considering centrist social and economic measures that, in their view, could have benefited both parties. It is likely, for instance, that a coalition existed in the House last year to pass an immigration overhaul that Republicans and Democrats could have hailed going into the elections. But strong opposition from a majority of the majority derailed that idea.
The risks are related to party cohesion. If a leader such as Ms. Pelosi regularly cuts against the wishes of most of the people who put her in leadership, it stands to reason they would eventually wonder if new leadership was warranted. At a more subtle level, passing important bills with coalitions built outside party lines can expose and deepen fractures within them and sap the support of interest groups that can be essential to winning and holding onto power.
Republicans see internal problems for Democrats as they sort through how to govern. �The problem for Pelosi is that the majority of her majority still has a minority mindset,� said John Feehery, a lobbyist who was an adviser to Mr. Hastert. �They would rather protest than legislate. And that dynamic will weaken her control over the House in the long-run."
While some anti-war groups remain outraged at the war vote, many Democrats were not all that upset with the way she handled it. Through some procedural maneuvers, the speaker allowed Democrats to back a minimum wage increase and popular domestic spending and still vote against the war money. At the same time, Democrats got out of what the leadership saw as a political jam that could have left them being blamed for cutting off money to troops overseas.
The next test for Ms. Pelosi will come on looming votes over increased free trade. Many - perhaps most - House Democrats are leery of going along with the push by President Bush, free-trading Democrats and congressional Republicans for new trade deals that they believe ship jobs out of the country and lack labor and environmental safeguards.
To some veteran House Democrats, the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement is a particularly bitter memory. A majority of then-minority Republicans joined with a minority of then-majority Democrats to pass the deal sought by President Bill Clinton. Quite a few Democrats believe that approval of the trade deal over the objections of organized labor diluted union support in 1994 and contributed to the loss of Congress by the Democrats that year. Ms. Pelosi was among 102 Democrats who backed the 1993 trade deal; 156 Democrats, including the majority leader and whip, opposed it.
Anti-trade Democrats are worried the war vote foreshadowed Ms. Pelosi making a similar trade move this year, forgetting the hard lessons of NAFTA. They promise that such a decision will stir strong resentment. Ms. Pelosi has urged lawmakers not to jump to conclusions, but she is making no guarantees that legislation must have majority Democratic backing.
�I have to take into consideration something broader than the majority of the majority in the Democratic Caucus,� she told reporters.
The differences between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her predecessor, J. Dennis Hastert, could not be more striking.
He is a burly former wrestling coach, a conservative Republican from small-town Illinois who usually ran from the microphones. She is the designer-clad member of a political family, a wealthy liberal from San Francisco who sees herself as a top party spokeswoman.
But what could turn out to be their defining contrast was exhibited on May 24, when Ms. Pelosi allowed the Iraq war spending bill to clear the House with predominantly Republican votes while most Democrats � including her � opposed it. It was a marked departure from the principle that guided Mr. Hastert during his years as speaker.
Mr. Hastert was an advocate of governing the House by a �majority of the majority� � a standard he thought best served the interests of his Republican members and, by extension, the nation. Just months into her tenure, Ms. Pelosi has shown she will deviate from that approach, balancing the potential of significant rewards against big risks.
The rewards could come from success in winning approval of major legislation that reaches beyond party label. Critics of Mr. Hastert said his self-imposed rule prevented the House from considering centrist social and economic measures that, in their view, could have benefited both parties. It is likely, for instance, that a coalition existed in the House last year to pass an immigration overhaul that Republicans and Democrats could have hailed going into the elections. But strong opposition from a majority of the majority derailed that idea.
The risks are related to party cohesion. If a leader such as Ms. Pelosi regularly cuts against the wishes of most of the people who put her in leadership, it stands to reason they would eventually wonder if new leadership was warranted. At a more subtle level, passing important bills with coalitions built outside party lines can expose and deepen fractures within them and sap the support of interest groups that can be essential to winning and holding onto power.
Republicans see internal problems for Democrats as they sort through how to govern. �The problem for Pelosi is that the majority of her majority still has a minority mindset,� said John Feehery, a lobbyist who was an adviser to Mr. Hastert. �They would rather protest than legislate. And that dynamic will weaken her control over the House in the long-run."
While some anti-war groups remain outraged at the war vote, many Democrats were not all that upset with the way she handled it. Through some procedural maneuvers, the speaker allowed Democrats to back a minimum wage increase and popular domestic spending and still vote against the war money. At the same time, Democrats got out of what the leadership saw as a political jam that could have left them being blamed for cutting off money to troops overseas.
The next test for Ms. Pelosi will come on looming votes over increased free trade. Many - perhaps most - House Democrats are leery of going along with the push by President Bush, free-trading Democrats and congressional Republicans for new trade deals that they believe ship jobs out of the country and lack labor and environmental safeguards.
To some veteran House Democrats, the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement is a particularly bitter memory. A majority of then-minority Republicans joined with a minority of then-majority Democrats to pass the deal sought by President Bill Clinton. Quite a few Democrats believe that approval of the trade deal over the objections of organized labor diluted union support in 1994 and contributed to the loss of Congress by the Democrats that year. Ms. Pelosi was among 102 Democrats who backed the 1993 trade deal; 156 Democrats, including the majority leader and whip, opposed it.
Anti-trade Democrats are worried the war vote foreshadowed Ms. Pelosi making a similar trade move this year, forgetting the hard lessons of NAFTA. They promise that such a decision will stir strong resentment. Ms. Pelosi has urged lawmakers not to jump to conclusions, but she is making no guarantees that legislation must have majority Democratic backing.
�I have to take into consideration something broader than the majority of the majority in the Democratic Caucus,� she told reporters.
wallpaper Nicole, however, has a lot on
crystal
08-27 04:24 PM
I guess that is also H1B as H1B for non-profit organizations does not fall under yearly quota .they can get H1B anytime , so no need to wait til Oct.
digiscott
March 2nd, 2005, 04:07 PM
only twice
2011 |Nicole richie at each
sss9i
09-28 03:12 PM
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=ace7ec20cfbd4110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=82b06a9fec745110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=82b06a9fec745110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D
more...
Blog Feeds
02-17 09:50 AM
My friend John Lamb in Nashville has had this idea for a while. It sounds a little nuts at first, but as John notes - Giving American citizens the power of granting legal status to their foreign-born friends is an idea I've had for a while but not trumpeted very much. The idea is, if deputization of immigration enforcement responsibilities is such a great idea, why not deputize the admission and naturalization piece, as well?. Well now a Utah Republican Senator is proposing a bill that would do just this. According to the Salt Lake Tribune: Rep. John Dougall, R-Highland,...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2011/02/the-friends-visa.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2011/02/the-friends-visa.html)
kisana
03-30 07:26 PM
I am planning to joing new empoyer on EAD even though I have proper H1B. Because employer do not want to sponser for anything. My wife is planning to go to india during this period and she will be using H4 for travel. My questions are
1. Can I swith to new job even though my wife is not here and she is going to use H4 visa which she got it as aresult of my h1b visa from my privious employer.
2. What are the thing we need to do or check before joining the new employer.
Any help in this regard is highly appriciated.
Encouraged by admin fixes just contributed $100.
1. Can I swith to new job even though my wife is not here and she is going to use H4 visa which she got it as aresult of my h1b visa from my privious employer.
2. What are the thing we need to do or check before joining the new employer.
Any help in this regard is highly appriciated.
Encouraged by admin fixes just contributed $100.
more...
lost
04-20 03:17 PM
My wife is planning on going to India in summer, and she has either misplaced or lost her i94 card. What should i do now?
2010 Nicole Richie Beach Summer
roadtogreen
08-28 01:48 PM
1. I got laid off from company A last year. I was on H1B. Company A notified me about 1 month in advance so I had some time to find another job. I also had a valid EAD which I wasn't using at that time. They also did not cancel I-140.
2. I joined Company B using my EAD within the 30 day period, so I never went out of status. Also, I didn't file AC21
3. My GC application was approved in the first week of Aug.
I have a couple of really interesting opportunities that I would like to pursue. My job profile has been similar at both A and B and will likely be similar even in C should I join there. Am I required to work at B for any specific period of time before I can pursue these opportunities?
2. I joined Company B using my EAD within the 30 day period, so I never went out of status. Also, I didn't file AC21
3. My GC application was approved in the first week of Aug.
I have a couple of really interesting opportunities that I would like to pursue. My job profile has been similar at both A and B and will likely be similar even in C should I join there. Am I required to work at B for any specific period of time before I can pursue these opportunities?
more...
Ann Ruben
05-24 08:27 AM
You should be protected by the 180 day grace period provided by �245(k).
hair Nicole Richie v plavkách
pd052009
03-25 12:07 PM
Countdown: 37 More days to go (Incl. today)
Required Yes Votes : 5000
Read from the below link for more details
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/2243885-post2.html (Support Thread for "I485 filing w/o Curr. PD" initiative)
Required Yes Votes : 5000
Read from the below link for more details
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/2243885-post2.html (Support Thread for "I485 filing w/o Curr. PD" initiative)
more...
Macaca
07-24 08:04 AM
Reform, the FDR way (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-shlaes23jul23,1,2603353.story) Democrats are right to revere Roosevelt, but even he knew when to reform his own reforms. By Amity Shlaes, AMITY SHLAES is the author of "The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression," a syndicated columnist for Bloomberg News and a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. July 23, 2007
WHERE'S the fun? That's the feeling you get watching the Democrats in Washington this summer. Gone is the happy plan for a frenzy of lawmaking, the "Hundred Hours" of action Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised when the Democrats took the House. The speaker's artful allusion to Franklin D. Roosevelt's "Hundred Days" quickly became an ironic echo. During that first euphoric legislative period, Roosevelt managed to rescue the banking system from disaster, assist bankrupted farmers, rewrite the economics of agriculture and the rules for flailing businesses, bring back beer � you name it. Contemporary leaders can't even act on pressing issues such as agriculture and immigration, not to mention Social Security.
Why can't politicians be Roosevelts today? For an answer, let's look to the middle of 1935, about two years into FDR's New Deal and the equivalent of about now in the election cycle. The federal government was still smaller than the nation's state and local governments combined. Two out of 10 men were unemployed. FDR took the economic emergency as a powerful mandate for further lawmaking. He jumped into the project with all the glee of a boy leaping into a sandbox. The papers reported that he was going to "blast out of committee" yet another round of bills, and blast he did � that year the country's premier labor law, the Wagner Act, was passed, as was Social Security.
At about the same time, Roosevelt slapped together the Rural Electrification Administration, which came on top of the New Deal's large farm subsidies. For construction workers, artists and writers, he created � also in mid-1935 � the Works Progress Administration, which hired the unemployed, including artists, craftsmen and journalists. To appreciate the size of that gift, imagine a contemporary politician responding to a market crash by putting ex-employees of Google on the federal payroll. The president also built on to an already large structure, the Public Works Administration, which funded town halls, grammar schools and swimming pools in 3,000 counties. The money? Roosevelt passed a tax increase that opponents called the "soak the rich" act. It contained an estate tax rate hike that would make John Edwards drool. By 1936, the government took up more than 9% of gross domestic product. For the first peacetime year in U.S. history, Washington had edged past the state and local governments in size to become a larger part of the national economy. (Just a few years earlier, state and local governments had been twice as large as Washington.) FDR had reversed the old crucial ratio of federalism, and Washington has dominated the country ever since.
Those early commitments set a trend of promises. Some of them became what we now call entitlements. Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s layered on governmental commitments with the Great Society. President Bush has heaped on more, with a new entitlement: prescription drugs for seniors. Only a narrow part of the federal budget remains for discretionary spending � the part left over for new ideas. And setting aside the question of whether an individual program is good, bad or simply in need of an overhaul, we've found as a country that old commitments are simply too hard to undo.
This is partly because of the way the political game works. When you seek to take away a benefit from one targeted recipient, he will fight like crazy to keep it � think of the ferocious battles the farm lobby wages over even tiny reductions in agricultural subsidies. Those who gain from reducing the size of the handout, however, are members of the lobbyless general public who will receive only an incremental advantage, maybe the equivalent of a penny or two apiece. So the rest of us don't have the incentive or ability to apply countervailing pressure. Yet that's exactly what we need today: the energy and exhilaration of FDR in his first term.
Today's timidity would have disturbed FDR, who had no trouble knocking down the sandcastles he had made. Early in the 1930s, he created 4 million jobs with the Civilian Works Administration, then uncreated them when he decided the CWA was too close to the English dole. When he tired of Harold Ickes' Public Works Administration, he scaled it back, and finally abolished it in 1941. As for Ickes' Department of the Interior, FDR decided that it was time to revise it into "a real Conservation Department" � a change many would welcome today.
A few leaders since FDR have persuaded Congress to help them bring about changes on this scale � Ronald Reagan's bipartisan tax reform of 1986 and Bill Clinton's welfare reform a decade later come to mind. These presidents were truer to FDR's spirit than the hesitating Congress of today. Clearing some blank space for new institutions is possible. But lawmakers won't do it if they honor Rooseveltian edifices more than Roosevelt did himself.
WHERE'S the fun? That's the feeling you get watching the Democrats in Washington this summer. Gone is the happy plan for a frenzy of lawmaking, the "Hundred Hours" of action Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised when the Democrats took the House. The speaker's artful allusion to Franklin D. Roosevelt's "Hundred Days" quickly became an ironic echo. During that first euphoric legislative period, Roosevelt managed to rescue the banking system from disaster, assist bankrupted farmers, rewrite the economics of agriculture and the rules for flailing businesses, bring back beer � you name it. Contemporary leaders can't even act on pressing issues such as agriculture and immigration, not to mention Social Security.
Why can't politicians be Roosevelts today? For an answer, let's look to the middle of 1935, about two years into FDR's New Deal and the equivalent of about now in the election cycle. The federal government was still smaller than the nation's state and local governments combined. Two out of 10 men were unemployed. FDR took the economic emergency as a powerful mandate for further lawmaking. He jumped into the project with all the glee of a boy leaping into a sandbox. The papers reported that he was going to "blast out of committee" yet another round of bills, and blast he did � that year the country's premier labor law, the Wagner Act, was passed, as was Social Security.
At about the same time, Roosevelt slapped together the Rural Electrification Administration, which came on top of the New Deal's large farm subsidies. For construction workers, artists and writers, he created � also in mid-1935 � the Works Progress Administration, which hired the unemployed, including artists, craftsmen and journalists. To appreciate the size of that gift, imagine a contemporary politician responding to a market crash by putting ex-employees of Google on the federal payroll. The president also built on to an already large structure, the Public Works Administration, which funded town halls, grammar schools and swimming pools in 3,000 counties. The money? Roosevelt passed a tax increase that opponents called the "soak the rich" act. It contained an estate tax rate hike that would make John Edwards drool. By 1936, the government took up more than 9% of gross domestic product. For the first peacetime year in U.S. history, Washington had edged past the state and local governments in size to become a larger part of the national economy. (Just a few years earlier, state and local governments had been twice as large as Washington.) FDR had reversed the old crucial ratio of federalism, and Washington has dominated the country ever since.
Those early commitments set a trend of promises. Some of them became what we now call entitlements. Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s layered on governmental commitments with the Great Society. President Bush has heaped on more, with a new entitlement: prescription drugs for seniors. Only a narrow part of the federal budget remains for discretionary spending � the part left over for new ideas. And setting aside the question of whether an individual program is good, bad or simply in need of an overhaul, we've found as a country that old commitments are simply too hard to undo.
This is partly because of the way the political game works. When you seek to take away a benefit from one targeted recipient, he will fight like crazy to keep it � think of the ferocious battles the farm lobby wages over even tiny reductions in agricultural subsidies. Those who gain from reducing the size of the handout, however, are members of the lobbyless general public who will receive only an incremental advantage, maybe the equivalent of a penny or two apiece. So the rest of us don't have the incentive or ability to apply countervailing pressure. Yet that's exactly what we need today: the energy and exhilaration of FDR in his first term.
Today's timidity would have disturbed FDR, who had no trouble knocking down the sandcastles he had made. Early in the 1930s, he created 4 million jobs with the Civilian Works Administration, then uncreated them when he decided the CWA was too close to the English dole. When he tired of Harold Ickes' Public Works Administration, he scaled it back, and finally abolished it in 1941. As for Ickes' Department of the Interior, FDR decided that it was time to revise it into "a real Conservation Department" � a change many would welcome today.
A few leaders since FDR have persuaded Congress to help them bring about changes on this scale � Ronald Reagan's bipartisan tax reform of 1986 and Bill Clinton's welfare reform a decade later come to mind. These presidents were truer to FDR's spirit than the hesitating Congress of today. Clearing some blank space for new institutions is possible. But lawmakers won't do it if they honor Rooseveltian edifices more than Roosevelt did himself.
hot Just Nicole.:)
kumar1
12-17 05:49 PM
There is a retrogression in perm process..only those who came to this country before 2000 can file for PERM.
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
kidding man.
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
kidding man.
more...
house Beach babe Nicole Richie
newuser
01-14 10:23 PM
Voted.
Search for "Green Card" as the keyword also
Search for "Green Card" as the keyword also
tattoo Nicole Richie and boyfriend
acharaniya
09-05 05:00 PM
I just got an email from CRIS stating that they've transferred my case from TSC to NSC.
1. Anyone else see that?
2. Good or Bad?
PD - Feb 2005
1. Anyone else see that?
2. Good or Bad?
PD - Feb 2005
more...
pictures weekend as Nicole and Joel
Skelerex
07-14 01:14 PM
Well, I am a facebook fanatic!
http://a.imageshack.us/img202/9861/tdc10facebook.gif (http://img202.imageshack.us/i/tdc10facebook.gif/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
http://a.imageshack.us/img202/9861/tdc10facebook.gif (http://img202.imageshack.us/i/tdc10facebook.gif/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
dresses Nicole Richie Joel Madden
munnu77
01-14 03:30 PM
My H1-B renewal application was approved last month.
Still an agent came from USCIS last week for site inspection. He talked to HR first, then came to my room. ASked for an photo id, then asked usual questions, job responsibilities, salary, location,
educational qualifications, salary statement...
took some fotos of my room and desk b4 he left.
Everything went on for 15 mints.
Thought, I should share this info with you.
Thank you
Still an agent came from USCIS last week for site inspection. He talked to HR first, then came to my room. ASked for an photo id, then asked usual questions, job responsibilities, salary, location,
educational qualifications, salary statement...
took some fotos of my room and desk b4 he left.
Everything went on for 15 mints.
Thought, I should share this info with you.
Thank you
more...
makeup nicole richie
e3visa
04-26 09:19 AM
The E-3 visa holder can hold mutiple jobs and the E-3 visa holder from practical application be sponsored for a green card as well by their employer.
girlfriend Nicole Richie#39;s messy bun!
kirupa
07-07 06:06 AM
Added!
(I also made the image appear when loaded)
(I also made the image appear when loaded)
hairstyles Nicole Richie and boyfriend
ramaonline
02-11 06:15 PM
You may be able to stay without a job as long as the future job offer is still open and the gc sponsoring employer has an intent to hire you after the 485 is approved. Please confirm with your immig attny
rk2006
08-12 10:08 AM
Can some one reply to my post please. My question is regarding EAD only. Once I apply for EAD and go to India what happens
1. If I am not there while it approved? Can my frnd send me the EAD to India?
2. if I get called for finger printing for EAD and if dont go for it? Will my AOS will be treated as abandoned?
1. If I am not there while it approved? Can my frnd send me the EAD to India?
2. if I get called for finger printing for EAD and if dont go for it? Will my AOS will be treated as abandoned?
googlegc
10-16 08:20 AM
To invoke AC21 after 180 days of pending I485, I140 does not have to be approved. But its risky as your I485 application is based on I140, if things go wrong with underlying I140 then your I485 case will be affected.
Please refer to Yates Memo for AC21.
HTH
aguy:
To Invoke AC21(to work on EAD) Your I140 must be approved and you need to pass 180 days after your RecieptDate.
Please refer to Yates Memo for AC21.
HTH
aguy:
To Invoke AC21(to work on EAD) Your I140 must be approved and you need to pass 180 days after your RecieptDate.
No comments:
Post a Comment