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 love life quotes to live by.
stefanv
07-01 08:41 AM
http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/9662/tdcfireworkstemplate1.jpgSomthing I did really quickly during break :D
kirupa
11-02 09:42 PM
Added!
2011 love life quotes to live by.
agoodman001
08-16 02:00 PM
I am on H1 and working at client place, my parents visited few months back. Some of my friends(who are at client place) in-laws/parents also visited. As long as you produce documents specified, there wont be any prblm with visitor visa.
more...
pansworld
07-08 02:10 PM
Is it possible to get AILA to give "moral support" to the flower campaign? Maybe they might be able to help gain media attention.
Cheers
Cheers
eagerr2i
07-18 07:14 PM
Let the EAD expire, it makes more sense to use H1B when you enter the country. EAD and Advance Parole should be avoided and be used only as a last resort in extreme cases beacuse of the way immigration rules are carved.
more...
chanduv23
12-08 02:19 PM
Some light coming up in the tunnel. Hope its not that of an oncoming train.
Unless some political goof up turns, economy seems to be getting brighter and brighter. This might help translate into more jobs and opportunities..
U.S. CEOs' economic view brightens; wary of hiring | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5B73DY20091208)
There seems to be mevement in the job market, but things are definitely bpound to improve once holiday season is over.
We can see the uptrend beginning new year
Unless some political goof up turns, economy seems to be getting brighter and brighter. This might help translate into more jobs and opportunities..
U.S. CEOs' economic view brightens; wary of hiring | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5B73DY20091208)
There seems to be mevement in the job market, but things are definitely bpound to improve once holiday season is over.
We can see the uptrend beginning new year
2010 life here at Live and Love
Juelz
08-02 09:08 AM
wasn't this finished like ages ago? :huh:
more...
rk2006
08-06 07:30 PM
I applied for AP and EAD renewal in July 2010. I need to go to India by Oct 1st week for some personal work which can not wait beyond that time.
I am planing to expidite my AP if I wont get AP by then. What can I do with my EAD?
- Do I need to be present in US for EAD or I can leave US and ask my friend send EAD to India when it gets approved?
- If I go to India before EAD approval and if I am called for finger printing what are my options? Like, if I dont/cant come by the finger printing appointment date what happens ?
I appreciate for your reply.
I am planing to expidite my AP if I wont get AP by then. What can I do with my EAD?
- Do I need to be present in US for EAD or I can leave US and ask my friend send EAD to India when it gets approved?
- If I go to India before EAD approval and if I am called for finger printing what are my options? Like, if I dont/cant come by the finger printing appointment date what happens ?
I appreciate for your reply.
hair Life of Saviors Love and
kpkrind
05-15 11:30 AM
yes
more...
CecilG
08-30 11:02 AM
My H1B Visa stamp expires in Jan 08 but H1B Status expires Sept 08. Is it too early to get a new H1B stamp 4 months before expiration of the H1B stamp I currently have.
I am planning to go to Ottawa now for a stamp that expires in Sept 08.
Thanks for your help.
I am planning to go to Ottawa now for a stamp that expires in Sept 08.
Thanks for your help.
hot Live Life Love Life Pictures,
chriskalani
11-01 02:18 PM
Actually just money.
www.ChrisKalani.com (http://www.ChrisKalani.com)
www.ChrisKalani.com (http://www.ChrisKalani.com)
more...
house and live the life you love
Blog Feeds
10-29 12:20 PM
[Blogger's Note: Today's guest posting on immigration dysfunctionality offers a view on pop culture. The parenthetical "(REALLY!?!)" in the title -- inserted as an editorial comment by the blog's usual author -- suggests the smarmy skepticism of an Amy Poehler and Seth Meyers riff on Saturday Night Live. The Haloween-themed guest post is by Nici Kersey, my colleague at Seyfarth Shaw LLP and a rising star in the immigration-lawyer firmament.] For Halloween, I have decided to dress as Max from Where the Wild Things Are. I was not able to locate a Max costume at any of the traditional Halloween...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/angelopaparelli/2009/10/my-entry.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/angelopaparelli/2009/10/my-entry.html)
tattoo quot;Love the Life you Livequot;
sanjay02
07-11 01:07 AM
Hi
I am in my 8th year H1-B( came in 1999 first to USA) extension based on pending I-140 & I-485 , I have my 2nd EAD in So now my question is
Is it safe for me to switch to EAD or keep extending my H1-B till I have my I-140 and 485 is approved? My I-140 has been pending for the last 2 yrs because of the FBI security checks etc. Since my H1-B extension beyond 6 yrs is based on pending I-140 and I-485 does it really make sense to keep extending it since I have to pay from my end my employer doesnt pay for it or is it better to be on EAD?
Thnks
I am in my 8th year H1-B( came in 1999 first to USA) extension based on pending I-140 & I-485 , I have my 2nd EAD in So now my question is
Is it safe for me to switch to EAD or keep extending my H1-B till I have my I-140 and 485 is approved? My I-140 has been pending for the last 2 yrs because of the FBI security checks etc. Since my H1-B extension beyond 6 yrs is based on pending I-140 and I-485 does it really make sense to keep extending it since I have to pay from my end my employer doesnt pay for it or is it better to be on EAD?
Thnks
more...
pictures really live and love life.
tempgc
09-23 05:09 PM
EB 485 Numbers in Excel for easy reading and calculations
https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Agsah2P-Kr24dFM1dk9zOUVaVzR6RTFHMzlMSHpLLUE&hl=en
https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Agsah2P-Kr24dFM1dk9zOUVaVzR6RTFHMzlMSHpLLUE&hl=en
dresses love life quotes to live by.
webm
10-14 11:46 AM
Just in case:
http://mumbai.usconsulate.gov/cut_off_dates.html
http://mumbai.usconsulate.gov/cut_off_dates.html
more...
makeup Live and Laugh with them.
bobadam
08-04 09:54 PM
I want to know whether I can legally open some business in USA. A sole proprietorship is the simplest business format in USA. I am currently in F1(OPT) visa and will be H1B visa sometime later. Whether F1(OPT) and H1B visa holder can legally open sole proprietorship in USA?
My attorney told the foreigner without Green Card can open business in USA but can't get paid. The sole proprietorship count all business profit/loss as individual income/loss for tax. (Form 1040 Sch C) I am afraid this is not legal for my current visa status.
Anyone here has opened business in USA without a Green Card legally? If yes, could you please share with us which type of company you opened? (Inc, LLP, or ...?)
Thank you very much!
My attorney told the foreigner without Green Card can open business in USA but can't get paid. The sole proprietorship count all business profit/loss as individual income/loss for tax. (Form 1040 Sch C) I am afraid this is not legal for my current visa status.
Anyone here has opened business in USA without a Green Card legally? If yes, could you please share with us which type of company you opened? (Inc, LLP, or ...?)
Thank you very much!
girlfriend love life quotes to live by.
petepatel
10-05 07:50 PM
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=ace7ec20cfbd4110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D
Mine was received on Aug 10,2007
:mad:
Mine was received on Aug 10,2007
:mad:
hairstyles cute quotes on life and love.
willwin
11-05 09:35 AM
I am sure the EB unused numbers would be recaptured before end of FY2008
adibhatla
10-02 05:50 PM
Hello fellow IV'ans.....
Based on the volume trend shown in the USCIS website I called them and wanted to know whether my case has been pre-adjudicated or not?
Obviously I got the standard answer from the customer service saying the case is pending, I pressed on the fact that I needed to know (based on their website's information) whether the case is pre-adjudicated or not.
The customer Service rep. then forwarded the call to the National Service Center where an officer picked up the call and said "as of September, 02 2009 the case is in the Pre-Decision Unit and that they will decide on the case, but still at TSC.
I am a little confused :confused: coz haven't heard anything, anywhere, anyone talking about case being in the Pre-Decision stage. Your esteemed thoughts please....
Based on the volume trend shown in the USCIS website I called them and wanted to know whether my case has been pre-adjudicated or not?
Obviously I got the standard answer from the customer service saying the case is pending, I pressed on the fact that I needed to know (based on their website's information) whether the case is pre-adjudicated or not.
The customer Service rep. then forwarded the call to the National Service Center where an officer picked up the call and said "as of September, 02 2009 the case is in the Pre-Decision Unit and that they will decide on the case, but still at TSC.
I am a little confused :confused: coz haven't heard anything, anywhere, anyone talking about case being in the Pre-Decision stage. Your esteemed thoughts please....
Macaca
11-13 10:19 AM
The Can't-Win Democratic Congress (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/12/AR2007111201418.html) By E. J. Dionne Jr. | Washington Post, November 13, 2007
Democrats in Congress are discovering what it's like to live in the worst of all possible worlds. They are condemned for selling out to President Bush and condemned for failing to make compromises aimed at getting things done.
Democrats complain that this is unfair, and, in some sense, it is. But who said that politics was fair?
Over the short run, Democratic congressional leaders can count on little support from their party's presidential candidates, particularly Barack Obama and John Edwards. Both have decided their best way of going after front-runner Hillary Clinton-- who has been in Washington since her husband's election as president in 1992 -- is to criticize politics as usual.
At this weekend's Democratic fundraising dinner in Des Moines, Obama and Edwards not only attacked Bush fiercely but also issued broadsides against the larger status quo.
When Obama assailed "the same old Washington textbook campaigns" and declared that he was "sick and tired of Democrats thinking that the only way to look tough on national security is by talking and acting and voting like George Bush Republicans," he was aiming at Clinton. But Obama was echoing what many in his party have been saying about their congressional leadership.
And when Edwards said that "Washington is awash with corporate money, with lobbyists who pass it out, with politicians who ask for it," he was criticizing a system in which his own party is implicated.
It makes sense for Democratic presidential candidates to distance themselves from the party's Washington wing. A poll released last week by the Pew Research Center found that 54 percent of Americans disapprove of the performance of Democratic congressional leaders, an increase in dissatisfaction of 18 points since February. Among Democrats, disapproval of their own leaders rose from 16 percent in February to 35 percent now; in the same period, disapproval among independents rose from 41 percent to 56 percent.
Democrats in Congress say that their achievements of a minimum-wage increase, lobbying reform, improvements in the student loan program and last week's override of Bush's veto of a $23 billion water-projects bill are being overlooked -- and that Bush and his congressional allies have systematically blocked even bipartisan efforts to produce further results.
For example: The increases in financing for the State Children's Health Insurance Program passed after Democrats made a slew of concessions to Republicans to win broad GOP support. But in the House, Democrats were short of the votes needed to override the president's veto, so the proposal languishes.
Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.), chairman of the Appropriations Committee, notes that he has bargained productively with Republicans and that his budget bills have secured dozens of their votes. But the president seems intent on a budget confrontation.
In a letter to Bush on Saturday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid tried to underscore the president's role in the stalemate by calling for a "dialogue" to settle budget differences that "have never been so great that we cannot reach agreement on a spending plan that meets the needs of the American people."
They went on: "Key to this dialogue, however, is some willingness on your part to actually find common ground. Thus far, we have seen only a hard line drawn and a demand that we send only legislation that reflects your cuts to critical priorities of the American people."
Pelosi and Reid have a point, and they want Bush to get the blame for a budget impasse. But Bush seems to have decided that if he can't raise his own dismal approval ratings, he will drag the Democrats down with him. So far, that is what's happening.
Yet the budget is just one of the Democrats' problems. Their own partisans are furious that they have not been able to force a change in Bush's Iraq policy. In the Pew survey, 47 percent said the Democrats had not gone "far enough" in challenging Bush on Iraq. Many in the rank and file are also angry that the Democratic-led Senate let through the nomination of Michael Mukasey as attorney general even though he declined to classify waterboarding as a form of torture.
Congressional Democrats are caught between two contradictory desires. One part of the electorate wants them to be practical dealmakers, another wants them to live up to the standard Obama set in the peroration of his Iowa speech when he praised those who "stood up . . . when it was risky, stood up when it was hard, stood up when it wasn't popular." Is there a handbook somewhere on how to be a courageous dealmaker? Pelosi and Reid would love to read it.
’08 clock ticks for Congress (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/08-clock-ticks-for-congress-2007-11-13.html) By Manu Raju | The Hill, November 13, 2007
Anti-War Voters Lash Out at Democrats They Helped Put in Office (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=a9lDtrJGGVyg) By Nicholas Johnston | Bloomberg, November 13, 2007
Democrats in Congress are discovering what it's like to live in the worst of all possible worlds. They are condemned for selling out to President Bush and condemned for failing to make compromises aimed at getting things done.
Democrats complain that this is unfair, and, in some sense, it is. But who said that politics was fair?
Over the short run, Democratic congressional leaders can count on little support from their party's presidential candidates, particularly Barack Obama and John Edwards. Both have decided their best way of going after front-runner Hillary Clinton-- who has been in Washington since her husband's election as president in 1992 -- is to criticize politics as usual.
At this weekend's Democratic fundraising dinner in Des Moines, Obama and Edwards not only attacked Bush fiercely but also issued broadsides against the larger status quo.
When Obama assailed "the same old Washington textbook campaigns" and declared that he was "sick and tired of Democrats thinking that the only way to look tough on national security is by talking and acting and voting like George Bush Republicans," he was aiming at Clinton. But Obama was echoing what many in his party have been saying about their congressional leadership.
And when Edwards said that "Washington is awash with corporate money, with lobbyists who pass it out, with politicians who ask for it," he was criticizing a system in which his own party is implicated.
It makes sense for Democratic presidential candidates to distance themselves from the party's Washington wing. A poll released last week by the Pew Research Center found that 54 percent of Americans disapprove of the performance of Democratic congressional leaders, an increase in dissatisfaction of 18 points since February. Among Democrats, disapproval of their own leaders rose from 16 percent in February to 35 percent now; in the same period, disapproval among independents rose from 41 percent to 56 percent.
Democrats in Congress say that their achievements of a minimum-wage increase, lobbying reform, improvements in the student loan program and last week's override of Bush's veto of a $23 billion water-projects bill are being overlooked -- and that Bush and his congressional allies have systematically blocked even bipartisan efforts to produce further results.
For example: The increases in financing for the State Children's Health Insurance Program passed after Democrats made a slew of concessions to Republicans to win broad GOP support. But in the House, Democrats were short of the votes needed to override the president's veto, so the proposal languishes.
Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.), chairman of the Appropriations Committee, notes that he has bargained productively with Republicans and that his budget bills have secured dozens of their votes. But the president seems intent on a budget confrontation.
In a letter to Bush on Saturday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid tried to underscore the president's role in the stalemate by calling for a "dialogue" to settle budget differences that "have never been so great that we cannot reach agreement on a spending plan that meets the needs of the American people."
They went on: "Key to this dialogue, however, is some willingness on your part to actually find common ground. Thus far, we have seen only a hard line drawn and a demand that we send only legislation that reflects your cuts to critical priorities of the American people."
Pelosi and Reid have a point, and they want Bush to get the blame for a budget impasse. But Bush seems to have decided that if he can't raise his own dismal approval ratings, he will drag the Democrats down with him. So far, that is what's happening.
Yet the budget is just one of the Democrats' problems. Their own partisans are furious that they have not been able to force a change in Bush's Iraq policy. In the Pew survey, 47 percent said the Democrats had not gone "far enough" in challenging Bush on Iraq. Many in the rank and file are also angry that the Democratic-led Senate let through the nomination of Michael Mukasey as attorney general even though he declined to classify waterboarding as a form of torture.
Congressional Democrats are caught between two contradictory desires. One part of the electorate wants them to be practical dealmakers, another wants them to live up to the standard Obama set in the peroration of his Iowa speech when he praised those who "stood up . . . when it was risky, stood up when it was hard, stood up when it wasn't popular." Is there a handbook somewhere on how to be a courageous dealmaker? Pelosi and Reid would love to read it.
’08 clock ticks for Congress (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/08-clock-ticks-for-congress-2007-11-13.html) By Manu Raju | The Hill, November 13, 2007
Anti-War Voters Lash Out at Democrats They Helped Put in Office (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=a9lDtrJGGVyg) By Nicholas Johnston | Bloomberg, November 13, 2007
No comments:
Post a Comment