mhathi
09-26 10:01 AM
Here's something from his website. I am not one hundred percent sure of what he will do but I do remember him talking about increasing EB GCs early on in his presidency bid.
"Improve Our Immigration System
Obama and Biden believe we must fix the dysfunctional immigration bureaucracy and increase the number of legal immigrants to keep families together and meet the demand for jobs that employers cannot fill. "
I agree, Durbin will push for H1B restrictions and that is bad, but I think EB GCs may be safe according the the above.
"Improve Our Immigration System
Obama and Biden believe we must fix the dysfunctional immigration bureaucracy and increase the number of legal immigrants to keep families together and meet the demand for jobs that employers cannot fill. "
I agree, Durbin will push for H1B restrictions and that is bad, but I think EB GCs may be safe according the the above.
wallpaper Football player profile
americandesi
04-15 06:37 PM
3. Will the stress level increase after buying the house (again worried for making payments, losing jobs). Is it worth it.
It's definetly not worth it. Here's an artice on one such riches to rags story.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/personal/03/27/foodbank.family/
As per the article "She has had to take extreme measures to pay for her interest-only mortgage of $2,500 a month"
It's definetly not worth it. Here's an artice on one such riches to rags story.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/personal/03/27/foodbank.family/
As per the article "She has had to take extreme measures to pay for her interest-only mortgage of $2,500 a month"
Macaca
09-24 04:30 PM
How To Write To Congress (http://consumerist.com/consumer/your-government/how-to-write-to-congress-302775.php) BY CAREY GREENBERG-BERGER | Consumerist, SEP 23 2007
Writing to Congress is the single best way to express your view on public policy. The average consumer has a surprising ability to influence legislation by crafting a well written missive and avoiding several common mistakes.
Why Personal Letters Beat Form Letters
Don't get suckered in by the quick and easy "Write to Congress!" form letters littering the internet. Form letters are not an expression of values; they are a show of organizational strength. If the NRA convinces five million people to send letters opposing gun control, it shows that the NRA can muster five million people to action, not that five million people necessarily care about gun laws. Congressional offices know this and generally disregard form letters.
So what happens when you send a letter?
Every office has its own procedures for tabulating constituent correspondence, but most will produce a report at the end of week breaking down how many letters were received by issue area, separating out form letters from letters sent by individual constituents.
Members treat each type of letter differently, but most look for individual letters as a barometer of their district's concerns. These are the letters that have the most influence, the ones we will show you how to write.
What Should Your Letter Say?
We adhere to the three paragraph rule: introduce yourself, introduce your issue, request action. Congressional offices have staffers whose days are spent solely on the mail, so make their lives easier by keeping letter succinct and to the point.
Introduce Yourself: There is a two-prong test for determining your worth: 1) Are you a constituent? 2) Are you an important constituent? Feel free to puff up your chest. Are you a lifelong member of the district? Are you associated with community groups? Say so! Convince the reader that yours is a voice of experience and wisdom.
Be specific: Don't just ask a Member to oppose mandatory binding arbitration agreements. Ask them to rush to the floor to support S.1782, The Arbitration Fairness Act of 2007.
Marshall Facts: Your argument - and you are making an argument - must be supported by facts. Feel free to use facts gleaned from us or other sources, but don't copy and paste paragraphs of pre-written text from form letters. Personal experiences are particularly effective, and often moving. Share them!
Be Exceedingly Polite, Please: Congress attracts haughty personalities. Staffers don't appreciate being spoken down to or insulted. You are trying to rally them to your cause, so be nice!
Clearly State Your Request: Plainly tell your representative that you want them to support or oppose a certain bill. If you want a response, explicitly (but politely!) ask for one.
It should go without saying that your letter should follow all formal style guidelines, such as a return name and address, and should be free of spelling and grammatical errors.
Send Your Letter To The Right Place
Only write to your representatives. You have three: one Representative in the House, and two Senators. Do not send more than three letters. Some citizens try to get their voice heard by writing to all 435 members of the House. Congressional courtesy compels the 434 Members who do not represent the zealot to forward his letter to the one lucky Member who does. This angers the Member's staff greatly at the expense of any point you are trying to make.
The addresses for your Representatives and Senators are available online, but don't waste your time with an email. Letters carry significantly more weight. Send your letter to the Capitol, where the legislative staff is based, though it will take a while to arrive since all incoming Congressional mail is irradiated thanks to those still-unidentified Anthrax mailers.
For an even greater impact, send your letter care of the staffer covering the issue. These staffers - called Legislative Assistants - are the Member's eyes and ears on their assigned issue areas. Finding the staffer destined to read your letter is easy: call the Capitol switchboard (open 24 hours a day!) at (202) 224-3121, ask for your Member's office, and ask the person who answers for the name of the staffer handling the issue area or bill number. Once you get that name, address your letter like this:
Member Of Congress
c/o Staffer
Office Building/Number
Washington, DC 20515
What Should You Expect In Return?
Depends. There are 535 Congressional offices and each handles constituent correspondence differently. The vast majority respond to letters with either a form letter pre-written by a Legislative Assistant, or with a more personal response written by a Legislative Correspondent. Controversial issues that attract many letters normally receive a form letter response, while smaller issues or specific questions often receive the attention of a personalized response.
Conclusion
Members of Congress work for you. Without your votes, they won't stay in office. They go to great lengths to cultivate a positive relationship with you, their boss. Very few people take the time to write to a Member of Congress, so the few that do carry a disproportionate influence.
Fifteen minutes is well worth the time to influence a $2 trillion enterprise.
Writing to Congress is the single best way to express your view on public policy. The average consumer has a surprising ability to influence legislation by crafting a well written missive and avoiding several common mistakes.
Why Personal Letters Beat Form Letters
Don't get suckered in by the quick and easy "Write to Congress!" form letters littering the internet. Form letters are not an expression of values; they are a show of organizational strength. If the NRA convinces five million people to send letters opposing gun control, it shows that the NRA can muster five million people to action, not that five million people necessarily care about gun laws. Congressional offices know this and generally disregard form letters.
So what happens when you send a letter?
Every office has its own procedures for tabulating constituent correspondence, but most will produce a report at the end of week breaking down how many letters were received by issue area, separating out form letters from letters sent by individual constituents.
Members treat each type of letter differently, but most look for individual letters as a barometer of their district's concerns. These are the letters that have the most influence, the ones we will show you how to write.
What Should Your Letter Say?
We adhere to the three paragraph rule: introduce yourself, introduce your issue, request action. Congressional offices have staffers whose days are spent solely on the mail, so make their lives easier by keeping letter succinct and to the point.
Introduce Yourself: There is a two-prong test for determining your worth: 1) Are you a constituent? 2) Are you an important constituent? Feel free to puff up your chest. Are you a lifelong member of the district? Are you associated with community groups? Say so! Convince the reader that yours is a voice of experience and wisdom.
Be specific: Don't just ask a Member to oppose mandatory binding arbitration agreements. Ask them to rush to the floor to support S.1782, The Arbitration Fairness Act of 2007.
Marshall Facts: Your argument - and you are making an argument - must be supported by facts. Feel free to use facts gleaned from us or other sources, but don't copy and paste paragraphs of pre-written text from form letters. Personal experiences are particularly effective, and often moving. Share them!
Be Exceedingly Polite, Please: Congress attracts haughty personalities. Staffers don't appreciate being spoken down to or insulted. You are trying to rally them to your cause, so be nice!
Clearly State Your Request: Plainly tell your representative that you want them to support or oppose a certain bill. If you want a response, explicitly (but politely!) ask for one.
It should go without saying that your letter should follow all formal style guidelines, such as a return name and address, and should be free of spelling and grammatical errors.
Send Your Letter To The Right Place
Only write to your representatives. You have three: one Representative in the House, and two Senators. Do not send more than three letters. Some citizens try to get their voice heard by writing to all 435 members of the House. Congressional courtesy compels the 434 Members who do not represent the zealot to forward his letter to the one lucky Member who does. This angers the Member's staff greatly at the expense of any point you are trying to make.
The addresses for your Representatives and Senators are available online, but don't waste your time with an email. Letters carry significantly more weight. Send your letter to the Capitol, where the legislative staff is based, though it will take a while to arrive since all incoming Congressional mail is irradiated thanks to those still-unidentified Anthrax mailers.
For an even greater impact, send your letter care of the staffer covering the issue. These staffers - called Legislative Assistants - are the Member's eyes and ears on their assigned issue areas. Finding the staffer destined to read your letter is easy: call the Capitol switchboard (open 24 hours a day!) at (202) 224-3121, ask for your Member's office, and ask the person who answers for the name of the staffer handling the issue area or bill number. Once you get that name, address your letter like this:
Member Of Congress
c/o Staffer
Office Building/Number
Washington, DC 20515
What Should You Expect In Return?
Depends. There are 535 Congressional offices and each handles constituent correspondence differently. The vast majority respond to letters with either a form letter pre-written by a Legislative Assistant, or with a more personal response written by a Legislative Correspondent. Controversial issues that attract many letters normally receive a form letter response, while smaller issues or specific questions often receive the attention of a personalized response.
Conclusion
Members of Congress work for you. Without your votes, they won't stay in office. They go to great lengths to cultivate a positive relationship with you, their boss. Very few people take the time to write to a Member of Congress, so the few that do carry a disproportionate influence.
Fifteen minutes is well worth the time to influence a $2 trillion enterprise.
2011 Hot Football Players wallpaper
Macaca
05-14 06:24 PM
An Increasing Population is a Good Thing. So is Immigration. (http://www.spectator.co.uk/alexmassie/6941654/an-increasing-population-is-a-good-thing-so-is-immigration.thtml) By ALEX MASSIEFRIDAY | Spectator
Plenty of folk seem to think otherwise. Including George Bridges who has written a very curious post for the Motherblog in which he seems most perturbed by the prospect of this happy isle's population increasing. He even suggests he's not doing his bit since Mrs Bridges is expecting their third child, presumably furthering the onrushing demographic apocalypse.
Piffle. Good for Mrs Bridges and her fecund husband. Congratulations to them. May they produce this and many more little Bridges. A rising population is a feature of a healthy society, not the beginning of the end for this sceptered land. Of course an increasing population puts pressure on any number of public facilities and services, from transport to schools to housing to hospitals. But so what? It's also a motor for future economic growth which will - hurrah! - provide for all of this. Excess capacity caused by an absence of demand is, as many a rural parish will tell you, a much more grievous problem than having too many people. There is no need for this "for we are too many" Jude the Obscure stuff. There really isn't.
Mr Bridges concludes, darkly:
Cameron, Theresa May and Damian Green have made a good start at controlling immigration. But that�s just a start. More needs to be done to educate the public about the challenge. We need some radical thinking about how we solve it; and we must ask ourselves whether a state that was largely constructed to cope with 50 million people can meet the challenges of 70 million people?
Really? The logic of this position leads us to China's one-child policy. Is that really what those obsessed with population figures want to see? If not, perhaps they can tell us what the optimal UK population figure might be and how they propose to "cap" the number of people living in this country at that number?
OK, let us suppose that, ill-advisedly, the government reduces immigration to "zero". What then? Do you, as I say, limit the number of children people may have? Or do you pay people to emigrate so the population remains beneath your arbitrarily-decided "ideal" figure? Would that be enough? Probably not! There could be back-street, clandestine babies born every day!
Seriously, do these people think a falling population would be a good thing? Perhaps they do. Population decline is rarely the sign of a healthy society. Rarely? Never seems more probable. Factor in the reality that the existing population is increasingly elderly and it becomes clear, surely, that Britain will need more people. The alternative is fewer and fewer workers providing for more and more pensioners and, by doing so, ensuring that their own futures are bleaker than they need be. Suggesting that population growth is so very dangerous is, essentially, to demand much higher taxes on today's teenagers and their future. What's just about that?
So it's good that Mr and Mrs Bridges are spawning again. But their efforts, no matter how heroic, will not be enough. Which is another reason why immigration is a good thing not the beginning of the end. We need more people so we can cope with the costs of an increasingly wrinkly population.
This is the self-interested justification for more immigration (since not everyone is as selfless as the Bridges when it comes to healthy birth-rates) though of course there are many other, more altruistic and even noble grounds for welcoming a come-all-ye approach to these matters. To be born or live in Britain is to have access to opportunities and riches that are the stuff of dreams for most of the world's population. We should allow more people from other lands to have those chances.
That will be good for them and it will be necessary - and good - for us too. Sure, there are problems and strains and pressures associated with immigration and population growth but they're not nearly so terrifying as the prospect of a geriatric and closed society working its few remaining young people to the bone with little to no regard for the future well-being of the people supporting the oldies. Those obsessed by population figures should be asked what they consider to be the ideal worker:retiree ratio.
Again, and really it cannot be stressed enough, in the developed world a growing population is a mark of success, not failure.
Still, if you do think there's an imminent population crisis, there is one more option available to you: compulsory euthanasia ten years after you pass the point of average life expectancy. This seems a modest enough proposal, don't you think?
Obama�s wise investment: Making life easier for 'illegals' (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/obamas-wise-investment-making-life-easier-for-illegals/article2021683/) By DOUG SAUNDERS | Globe and Mail
Obama playing games with immigration (http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/05/12/navarrette.immigration.obama/index.html) By Ruben Navarrette | CNN
Gutless politicians are broken, not the immigration system (http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/05/gutless-politicians-are-broken-not-immigration-system) By Greg Kane | Examiner
The Muslim-American: reclaiming my identity (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20110514a1.html) By ARSHAD CHOWDHURY | The Japan Times
Plenty of folk seem to think otherwise. Including George Bridges who has written a very curious post for the Motherblog in which he seems most perturbed by the prospect of this happy isle's population increasing. He even suggests he's not doing his bit since Mrs Bridges is expecting their third child, presumably furthering the onrushing demographic apocalypse.
Piffle. Good for Mrs Bridges and her fecund husband. Congratulations to them. May they produce this and many more little Bridges. A rising population is a feature of a healthy society, not the beginning of the end for this sceptered land. Of course an increasing population puts pressure on any number of public facilities and services, from transport to schools to housing to hospitals. But so what? It's also a motor for future economic growth which will - hurrah! - provide for all of this. Excess capacity caused by an absence of demand is, as many a rural parish will tell you, a much more grievous problem than having too many people. There is no need for this "for we are too many" Jude the Obscure stuff. There really isn't.
Mr Bridges concludes, darkly:
Cameron, Theresa May and Damian Green have made a good start at controlling immigration. But that�s just a start. More needs to be done to educate the public about the challenge. We need some radical thinking about how we solve it; and we must ask ourselves whether a state that was largely constructed to cope with 50 million people can meet the challenges of 70 million people?
Really? The logic of this position leads us to China's one-child policy. Is that really what those obsessed with population figures want to see? If not, perhaps they can tell us what the optimal UK population figure might be and how they propose to "cap" the number of people living in this country at that number?
OK, let us suppose that, ill-advisedly, the government reduces immigration to "zero". What then? Do you, as I say, limit the number of children people may have? Or do you pay people to emigrate so the population remains beneath your arbitrarily-decided "ideal" figure? Would that be enough? Probably not! There could be back-street, clandestine babies born every day!
Seriously, do these people think a falling population would be a good thing? Perhaps they do. Population decline is rarely the sign of a healthy society. Rarely? Never seems more probable. Factor in the reality that the existing population is increasingly elderly and it becomes clear, surely, that Britain will need more people. The alternative is fewer and fewer workers providing for more and more pensioners and, by doing so, ensuring that their own futures are bleaker than they need be. Suggesting that population growth is so very dangerous is, essentially, to demand much higher taxes on today's teenagers and their future. What's just about that?
So it's good that Mr and Mrs Bridges are spawning again. But their efforts, no matter how heroic, will not be enough. Which is another reason why immigration is a good thing not the beginning of the end. We need more people so we can cope with the costs of an increasingly wrinkly population.
This is the self-interested justification for more immigration (since not everyone is as selfless as the Bridges when it comes to healthy birth-rates) though of course there are many other, more altruistic and even noble grounds for welcoming a come-all-ye approach to these matters. To be born or live in Britain is to have access to opportunities and riches that are the stuff of dreams for most of the world's population. We should allow more people from other lands to have those chances.
That will be good for them and it will be necessary - and good - for us too. Sure, there are problems and strains and pressures associated with immigration and population growth but they're not nearly so terrifying as the prospect of a geriatric and closed society working its few remaining young people to the bone with little to no regard for the future well-being of the people supporting the oldies. Those obsessed by population figures should be asked what they consider to be the ideal worker:retiree ratio.
Again, and really it cannot be stressed enough, in the developed world a growing population is a mark of success, not failure.
Still, if you do think there's an imminent population crisis, there is one more option available to you: compulsory euthanasia ten years after you pass the point of average life expectancy. This seems a modest enough proposal, don't you think?
Obama�s wise investment: Making life easier for 'illegals' (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/obamas-wise-investment-making-life-easier-for-illegals/article2021683/) By DOUG SAUNDERS | Globe and Mail
Obama playing games with immigration (http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/05/12/navarrette.immigration.obama/index.html) By Ruben Navarrette | CNN
Gutless politicians are broken, not the immigration system (http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/05/gutless-politicians-are-broken-not-immigration-system) By Greg Kane | Examiner
The Muslim-American: reclaiming my identity (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20110514a1.html) By ARSHAD CHOWDHURY | The Japan Times
more...
smisachu
07-14 11:04 PM
We need to concentrate our efforts in achieving relief for everyone in the EB community whether they are EB1/2/3 India/China or ROW. This infighting or dispersed efforts will not yield any results.
We should all strive for the passage of the 3 Lofgren Bills. Please contact your state chapter and help IV channel our efforts where it could be effective.
One observation: I am seeing a lot of individual efforts by many folks. I did not see their participation when we were trying for passage of the 3 bills through letter campaigns and phone campaigns.
Well at least you have woken up now...I will not complain.
Let us focus our efforts and get permanent fix instead of some temporary move by a screwed up system which at the end of each FY bumps up numbers in a one upmanship between DOS and USCIS. We all are caught in the middle and suffer.
My request to all the people re energized, we could really use your help in working on the lobbying efforts. Please contact your state lead as the issue cannot be posted on open IV forms.
We should all strive for the passage of the 3 Lofgren Bills. Please contact your state chapter and help IV channel our efforts where it could be effective.
One observation: I am seeing a lot of individual efforts by many folks. I did not see their participation when we were trying for passage of the 3 bills through letter campaigns and phone campaigns.
Well at least you have woken up now...I will not complain.
Let us focus our efforts and get permanent fix instead of some temporary move by a screwed up system which at the end of each FY bumps up numbers in a one upmanship between DOS and USCIS. We all are caught in the middle and suffer.
My request to all the people re energized, we could really use your help in working on the lobbying efforts. Please contact your state lead as the issue cannot be posted on open IV forms.
Macaca
02-21 04:04 PM
Sometime back CNN (or Wolf Blitzer) used to say that CNN is the best news on network. Does anyone remember the exact words? Thanks.
more...
Refugee_New
01-07 09:30 AM
But why just Israel? Jordan and Egypt also got the slice of the pie. Why not fire rocket at them? Blame Israel just because it's the only non-muslim country in the region so they should pay?
Secondly, Hamas is this powerful today just because people of Palestian allowed them, supported them, elected them now why shy from facing the fallout?
It's sad and unfortunate that people are dying but they are dying because of their bad choices not Israel's so called "aggression".
Its because they are the one that occupies others land and murdering innocent civilians brutally under the guise of self defence.
Secondly, Hamas is this powerful today just because people of Palestian allowed them, supported them, elected them now why shy from facing the fallout?
It's sad and unfortunate that people are dying but they are dying because of their bad choices not Israel's so called "aggression".
Its because they are the one that occupies others land and murdering innocent civilians brutally under the guise of self defence.
2010 Football Player Wallpaper:
ashkam
04-15 03:18 PM
Seriously? Yes.
Not me as I am arguing that a home is better than an apt, but some people here disagree for their own reasons.
Yes I have been reading some pretty bizarre responses. Apparently if you own a bigger house, you suddenly become incapable of giving your child love. Well, you learn something new everyday.
Not me as I am arguing that a home is better than an apt, but some people here disagree for their own reasons.
Yes I have been reading some pretty bizarre responses. Apparently if you own a bigger house, you suddenly become incapable of giving your child love. Well, you learn something new everyday.
more...
imbond707
08-06 08:41 AM
Dear Rolling_Flood,
Interfiling/PD Porting is a law. And I understand that you want to file lawsuit so that this law can be changed. If you are so adamant about this then why are you wasting your time to know our views on this? Why don�t you go ahead and file lawsuit? If indeed you succeed then what if Americans stands up and see opportunity from this case that EB based immigration system can be challenged and file lawsuit to change EB based immigration system that allows only PhDs to immigrate to US? And you are not PhD. Please for your sake take a moment and try to release negative energy you have and then you will see that this world is so beautiful.
May GOD give you wisdom. (Amen�)
James Bond
Interfiling/PD Porting is a law. And I understand that you want to file lawsuit so that this law can be changed. If you are so adamant about this then why are you wasting your time to know our views on this? Why don�t you go ahead and file lawsuit? If indeed you succeed then what if Americans stands up and see opportunity from this case that EB based immigration system can be challenged and file lawsuit to change EB based immigration system that allows only PhDs to immigrate to US? And you are not PhD. Please for your sake take a moment and try to release negative energy you have and then you will see that this world is so beautiful.
May GOD give you wisdom. (Amen�)
James Bond
hair Angelos Charisteas Wallpaper
paskal
07-14 05:37 PM
Thanks. I will look into it further when I get a chance. the number of GC granted in a year is complicated- and for the moment I speak offhand so correct me if needed. Till 2005, the recapture clouded the numbers. After that EB3 benefited from a Schedule A recapture that went almost entirely to EB3, a lot to EB3 Philipenes and a good chunk to EB3 India.
AFAIK last year though, once that was ll over and vertical spillover was implemented, EB2/EB3 Inid should both have got only the strict country quota mandated GC numbers.
Anway- offhand as I said...gotto rum.
Paskal,
Your post made me look again into the text. Alright, I see some things now, doesnt fully explain the lack of EB3 numbers but let me summarize..
EB2-ROW-> EB2(general-pool). I have always conceded that this should be the case. (for those who disagree, see my initial posts).
My point always has been on the spillover of EB1 numbers, that very clearly is to be shared amongst EB2 and EB3 (and if you apply USCIS "new" yard-stick), this will be first-come-first serve, so pretty much will help the most regressed category. However, it is my contention that in making the change of the Veritcal/Horizontal spillover (is there any "memo" on this?), USCIS went a step further than what they should have done. They denied EB1 spillover to EB3.
For the rest EB3ers, here is the relevant post that supports EB2-ROW to Eb2->general-pool. But it does not say anything about EB1 numbers
"If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limit ....
AFAIK last year though, once that was ll over and vertical spillover was implemented, EB2/EB3 Inid should both have got only the strict country quota mandated GC numbers.
Anway- offhand as I said...gotto rum.
Paskal,
Your post made me look again into the text. Alright, I see some things now, doesnt fully explain the lack of EB3 numbers but let me summarize..
EB2-ROW-> EB2(general-pool). I have always conceded that this should be the case. (for those who disagree, see my initial posts).
My point always has been on the spillover of EB1 numbers, that very clearly is to be shared amongst EB2 and EB3 (and if you apply USCIS "new" yard-stick), this will be first-come-first serve, so pretty much will help the most regressed category. However, it is my contention that in making the change of the Veritcal/Horizontal spillover (is there any "memo" on this?), USCIS went a step further than what they should have done. They denied EB1 spillover to EB3.
For the rest EB3ers, here is the relevant post that supports EB2-ROW to Eb2->general-pool. But it does not say anything about EB1 numbers
"If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limit ....
more...
nogc_noproblem
08-22 02:59 PM
A university committee was selecting a new dean.
They had narrowed the candidates down to a mathematician, an economist and a lawyer.
Each was asked this question during their interview: "How much is two plus two?"
The mathematician answered immediately, "Four."
The economist thought for several minutes and finally answered, "Four, plus or minus one."
Finally the lawyer stood up, peered around the room and motioned silently for the committee members to gather close to him. In a hushed, conspiratorial tone, he replied, "How much do you want it to be?"
They had narrowed the candidates down to a mathematician, an economist and a lawyer.
Each was asked this question during their interview: "How much is two plus two?"
The mathematician answered immediately, "Four."
The economist thought for several minutes and finally answered, "Four, plus or minus one."
Finally the lawyer stood up, peered around the room and motioned silently for the committee members to gather close to him. In a hushed, conspiratorial tone, he replied, "How much do you want it to be?"
hot Football Team Wallpaper
Rolling_Flood
08-05 08:19 AM
Mirage, in my own small way, i was also involved in the fight against Labor Sub. Cannot discuss it here as i do not think this is an appropriate forum.
However, i do understand your point of view. But, you have to realize that EB-1,2 and 3 are DISTINCT paths. "Time benefits" should not cascade across these different categories, and that is what i intend to fight legally.
I can provide more details in a week or so, when i have my final draft plan ready.
In your example the EB-3 guy was in the green card line before the EB-2 guy. Why on earth should he be asked to come in line after EB-2 guy if he decides to file a new one under EB-2. Why did not you wake up when Labor Substitution was going on. that was something which was utter non sense. People deciding to go for Green card in 2007 stood ahead of people from 2002 by substittuting a 2001 labor. Thank God it's gone.
However, i do understand your point of view. But, you have to realize that EB-1,2 and 3 are DISTINCT paths. "Time benefits" should not cascade across these different categories, and that is what i intend to fight legally.
I can provide more details in a week or so, when i have my final draft plan ready.
In your example the EB-3 guy was in the green card line before the EB-2 guy. Why on earth should he be asked to come in line after EB-2 guy if he decides to file a new one under EB-2. Why did not you wake up when Labor Substitution was going on. that was something which was utter non sense. People deciding to go for Green card in 2007 stood ahead of people from 2002 by substittuting a 2001 labor. Thank God it's gone.
more...
house Argentina player wallpaper
mbawa2574
05-28 08:21 AM
I think Indian Governernment should report this to WTO. America is creating conditions that are discriminatory and not business friendly. India should start cutting wings of American Companies selling goods in India. IT is our product and in case US people have problems with IT professionals from outside, they don't have any right to sell the goods to my people.
tattoo John Terry Football Wallpaper
michelle88
07-13 02:15 PM
the better way is to mention: 1) eb3 with earlier PD (before the end of 2005), the prevailing wage category was set higher, i.e, salary $60K fell in eb3 in 2004 but could be in eb2 in 2006. 2) LC based eb3 should be processed before perm based eb2, as the processing time for this step should be weighted to be evaluated in a bit fair way.
Very good point by alterego.
This letter has a very striking problem in it.. one that can cause a huge problem for the people signing it.
How can one say that they wanted to apply in EB2, but their lawyer said they should apply in EB3?
As pointed out by pappu, Category is determined by job requirements and not the summary qualifications of the beneficiary.
If you sign and say that the lawyer said you should apply in EB3/EB2/whatever, you are essentially stating that lawyers were involved in fabricating the job requirements. This is the same problem that is causing Fragomen clients to be investigated/audited.
This is just an advice. I am prepared to support IV and the members in whatever we decide to follow.
Very good point by alterego.
This letter has a very striking problem in it.. one that can cause a huge problem for the people signing it.
How can one say that they wanted to apply in EB2, but their lawyer said they should apply in EB3?
As pointed out by pappu, Category is determined by job requirements and not the summary qualifications of the beneficiary.
If you sign and say that the lawyer said you should apply in EB3/EB2/whatever, you are essentially stating that lawyers were involved in fabricating the job requirements. This is the same problem that is causing Fragomen clients to be investigated/audited.
This is just an advice. I am prepared to support IV and the members in whatever we decide to follow.
more...
pictures Football Player Wallpaper
yabadaba
08-11 08:24 AM
http://www.flcdatacenter.com/CaseH1B.aspx
maybe we can do an official press release showing how dumb these people are. as far as i know all this information can be downloaded directly from the flc datacenter. we need to start writing op eds against people like lou dobbs who keep skewing the debate
maybe we can do an official press release showing how dumb these people are. as far as i know all this information can be downloaded directly from the flc datacenter. we need to start writing op eds against people like lou dobbs who keep skewing the debate
dresses In recent years, this player
alterego
11-11 10:50 PM
Americans are fair minded for the most part. They saw the propoganda of the far right for what it was. This election did not tilt on immigration, but on other issues. However the fact that the conservatives got zero traction from their hard line approach implies that the country was looking for a more comprehensive solution.
I think that the american public does want secure borders and to some extent is unhappy with the status quo on the border. However they are also cognisant of the fact that immigrant labour benefits them and their lifestyles tremendously. They by and large do not favour a get tough only policy. They could easily embrace a policy where hardworking people can "earn their way" into the kingdom. Bipartisanship will perhaps show the way forward. Imagine those guys like Sensenbrenner,Tancredo would not even negotiate with the Senate or allow anything pro any kind of immigration to a general house vote taking advantage of their majority position by their "majority of the majority rule". They even actively stripped legal immigration provisions in conference last year. As for Sensenbrenner and his types. Lets see how much they enjoy being in the "minority of the minority" now, I guess the bulldog that chewed out the senators and cleaned his teeth with their bones is now but a mere poodle in the room! Gotta love elections in a democracy.
I think that the american public does want secure borders and to some extent is unhappy with the status quo on the border. However they are also cognisant of the fact that immigrant labour benefits them and their lifestyles tremendously. They by and large do not favour a get tough only policy. They could easily embrace a policy where hardworking people can "earn their way" into the kingdom. Bipartisanship will perhaps show the way forward. Imagine those guys like Sensenbrenner,Tancredo would not even negotiate with the Senate or allow anything pro any kind of immigration to a general house vote taking advantage of their majority position by their "majority of the majority rule". They even actively stripped legal immigration provisions in conference last year. As for Sensenbrenner and his types. Lets see how much they enjoy being in the "minority of the minority" now, I guess the bulldog that chewed out the senators and cleaned his teeth with their bones is now but a mere poodle in the room! Gotta love elections in a democracy.
more...
makeup american football players
nojoke
04-14 03:47 PM
Again, it may not be applicable to ur situation.
in my case, i am paying $400 in equity and $300 in tax deduction so i am paying effectively $1300 .(My mortgage is $2k, includes eveything(Insurace,HOA).In $1300, i can get 1-2 bedroom in DC Metro area depending upon location.
Yes, over a period of time tax benefits decreases but equity increases. so i stay , and after 10 years i will be paying $800 evey month towards principal.
now depend upon when i sell , if i sell and price is same as when i bought, only advantage i have i enjoyed 3 bedroom instead of 1-2 which may not be needed depending upon family size/need.
If i would have bought in 2006 (peak time) calculation is different and i may be loosing $200-300 per month based upon interest rate. (Currenlt i am on 5.25% 30 year fixed) .
Another big factor is interest rate. if you buy house (when it is has bottom) you may end paying same if interest rate is high. that's why i think it is best time to buy since interest rate is low and housing is slow and good inventory.
Location..Location.. Location...is most important thing.
worst hit market are ohio,michigan because Big 3 automakers are suffereing.
more you stay in house ..7 , 10 or 15 years. Your equity build faster.
Best use i think i was able to do.. took out a equity loan which is now 6% and paid my ICICI loan(house in india) which was averaging 12-13%.
but again if i have to sell now ..then i am sure i will loose money because it will not sell.
Some of my frnd bought house in $800K in DC metro. yes they lost 20% big amount ...but there main worry is cash flow. You need dual income all the time to pay mortgage.
My only advise is always limit ur mortgage to one salary. it may means that you have to commute longer, may be remote area.
Media is the one who created the hype & and also they are paritally responsible for downturn.
For 330K house, the calculations are probably splitting hairs. If it had already lost value to what the income in your area can support, then it is good time. But if it is still going down, I would rather buy a house at the bottom even if the interest rate gets higher. I can sell the house immediately without loss, if I have too.
in my case, i am paying $400 in equity and $300 in tax deduction so i am paying effectively $1300 .(My mortgage is $2k, includes eveything(Insurace,HOA).In $1300, i can get 1-2 bedroom in DC Metro area depending upon location.
Yes, over a period of time tax benefits decreases but equity increases. so i stay , and after 10 years i will be paying $800 evey month towards principal.
now depend upon when i sell , if i sell and price is same as when i bought, only advantage i have i enjoyed 3 bedroom instead of 1-2 which may not be needed depending upon family size/need.
If i would have bought in 2006 (peak time) calculation is different and i may be loosing $200-300 per month based upon interest rate. (Currenlt i am on 5.25% 30 year fixed) .
Another big factor is interest rate. if you buy house (when it is has bottom) you may end paying same if interest rate is high. that's why i think it is best time to buy since interest rate is low and housing is slow and good inventory.
Location..Location.. Location...is most important thing.
worst hit market are ohio,michigan because Big 3 automakers are suffereing.
more you stay in house ..7 , 10 or 15 years. Your equity build faster.
Best use i think i was able to do.. took out a equity loan which is now 6% and paid my ICICI loan(house in india) which was averaging 12-13%.
but again if i have to sell now ..then i am sure i will loose money because it will not sell.
Some of my frnd bought house in $800K in DC metro. yes they lost 20% big amount ...but there main worry is cash flow. You need dual income all the time to pay mortgage.
My only advise is always limit ur mortgage to one salary. it may means that you have to commute longer, may be remote area.
Media is the one who created the hype & and also they are paritally responsible for downturn.
For 330K house, the calculations are probably splitting hairs. If it had already lost value to what the income in your area can support, then it is good time. But if it is still going down, I would rather buy a house at the bottom even if the interest rate gets higher. I can sell the house immediately without loss, if I have too.
girlfriend Crouch Top Football Player
unitednations
07-08 04:47 PM
thanks UN..
we don't mean to bug you..!!
but sometimes these r so scary..it feels we r better off being illegal in this country..
all this is just plain BS..when we r paying so much in taxes and SS in this country..we r still chopped and diced like vegetables ...
btw..on the same note since you r here..does the 'out of status' count only after the last entry in to thr country..or it is still scrutinised right from the time you land into the US..
pls post..
Unlawful presence; overstaying i-94 card and not filing a timely extension before expiry of non immigrant status. Very serious issue; especially if someone overstays y more then six months.
Out of status; legally here (unexpired I-94 card) but not complying with terms and conditions of the I-94 card.
In both situations; everything is wiped out upon exit and re-entry. However; if someone has unlawful presence of more then six months then it is fatal if you leave as the 3 and 10 year bars apply to re-entry.
we don't mean to bug you..!!
but sometimes these r so scary..it feels we r better off being illegal in this country..
all this is just plain BS..when we r paying so much in taxes and SS in this country..we r still chopped and diced like vegetables ...
btw..on the same note since you r here..does the 'out of status' count only after the last entry in to thr country..or it is still scrutinised right from the time you land into the US..
pls post..
Unlawful presence; overstaying i-94 card and not filing a timely extension before expiry of non immigrant status. Very serious issue; especially if someone overstays y more then six months.
Out of status; legally here (unexpired I-94 card) but not complying with terms and conditions of the I-94 card.
In both situations; everything is wiped out upon exit and re-entry. However; if someone has unlawful presence of more then six months then it is fatal if you leave as the 3 and 10 year bars apply to re-entry.
hairstyles carlos tevez wallpaper
Macaca
12-27 06:59 PM
India chasing a U.N. chimera (http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article995760.ece) By K. S. DAKSHINA MURTHY | The Hindu
In recent years it has become standard practice for the Indian media to ask visiting foreign dignitaries where they stand on New Delhi's claim to a permanent seat in the UNSC. If the answers are in the affirmative, there are smiles all round and the glow is then transmitted to readers or viewers as the case may be.
Among the Permanent Five in the Council, the United Kingdom has long affirmed support, so have France and Russia. China has remained non-committal. So the United States' stand was deemed crucial. When President Barack Obama, during his recent visit, backed India for a permanent seat, the joy was palpable. The media went to town as if it were just a matter of time before India joined the select group of the World's almighty. The happiness lasted a few days until the first tranche of WikiLeaks punctured the mood somewhat.
The revelation of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's classified whisper, describing India as a self-appointed front-runner exposed Washington's innermost thoughts on the subject. Though the embarrassing leak was subsequently sought to be played down, it opened the curtain to a larger truth which is that the U.S. and the other four have never really been interested in real reforms to the Security Council.
Public pronouncements, positive affirmations and slap-on-the-back relationships don't necessarily translate into action on the ground.
Reforms
Jakob Silas Lund of the Centre for U.N. Reform Education states a few individuals within the process believe that some of the Permanent Five countries “are more than happy to see reform moving at near-zero-velocity speed”.
The reforms are open to interpretation. Broadly, they mean democratisation of the Security Council to make it representative and in tune with the contemporary world. This, for some, means more permanent members. The Group of four — India, Brazil, Japan and Germany — has been the most vocal in demanding it be included.
What is surprising, especially where India is concerned, is the hope and optimism that it is heading towards a permanent seat. In reality, a committee set up by the United Nations 17 years ago to go into reforms shows little signs of progress.
The first meeting was held in 1994 of the U.N. group, a mouthful, called the “Open-Ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Other Matters Related to the Security Council”. Until now, this group has completed four rounds of negotiations, just on preliminaries.
A brief peek into the past will make it clear that the addition of more veto-wielding permanent members to the Council is a veritable pipe dream. For any amendment to the U.N. charter, two-thirds of the General Assembly needs to acquiesce. This may be possible but the next requirement, that of ratification by the Permanent Five, is the real obstacle.
Since the formation of the United Nations in 1945, there have been only a handful of meetings of the Security Council to discuss the original charter, and even that, merely to discuss minor amendments. One of some significance came about in 1965 when the membership of temporary, non-veto powered countries in the Council was increased from six to 10 and the number of votes required to pass any decision increased to nine from seven.
As academic and U.N. commentator Thomas G. Weiss wrote in the Washington Quarterly, “Most governments rhetorically support the mindless call for equity, specifically by increasing membership and eliminating the veto. Yet, no progress has been made on these numerical or procedural changes because absolutely no consensus exists about the exact shape of the Security Council or the elimination of the veto.”
The argument for a bigger, more representative Council is undoubtedly valid but the issue is who will implement it and how.
U.S. is the prime mover
In today's global equation the U.S. is the acknowledged prime mover. It has already had to sweat it out to convince the other four members to go with it on several issues, like the sanctions against Iran. If more countries are allowed to join the Council the difficulties for U.S. interests are obvious, even if those included are vetted for their closeness to Washington.
Real and effective reforms should have meant democratisation of the Security Council to reflect the aspirations of all its members. Ideally, this should mean removal of permanency and the veto power to be replaced with a rotating membership for all countries, where each one big or small, powerful or weak gets to sit for a fixed term in the hallowed seats of the Council. This is unthinkable within the existing framework of the United Nations. At the heart of the issue is the reluctance of the Permanent Five to give up the prized veto power.
The situation is paradoxical given that democracy is being touted, pushed and inflicted by the U.S. across the world. But democracy seems to end where the Security Council begins. The rest of the world has no choice but to bow to its decisions. The consequences for defying the Council can be terrifying as was experienced by Saddam Hussein's Iraq through the 1990's. Iran is now on the receiving end for its defiance on the nuclear issue.
Not just that, the credibility of the Security Council itself took a beating over its inability to prevent the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Having failed to convince France, Russia and China to vote for invading Iraq, the U.S. went alone. The Council was reduced to a bystander. It failed to fulfil its primary task, that of ensuring security — to Iraq.
What this also implies is that Council or no Council, in today's unipolar world, the U.S. will go with what it decides and no one can stop it. This has been the case particularly since the end of the Cold War. “With a U.S. global presence as great as that of any empire in history, Security Council efforts to control U.S. actions are beginning to resemble the Roman Senate's efforts to control the emperor,” writes Weiss.
Instead of trying to clamber onto a patently unfair arrangement it would have made more sense if the four self-appointed front-runners along with the rest of the world had demanded a more equitable and representative Council.
To achieve this, academic and U.N. expert Erik Voeten suggests pressure tactics to counter veto power. One tactic is for countries en bloc to ignore the decisions taken in the Security Council. Another is for Germany and Japan, which are among the largest contributors to the United Nations, to turn off the tap.
Despite this, if nothing happens, countries may have no choice but to look for, or at least threaten to float, an alternative U.N.-like organisation whose structure would be more in tandem with the contemporary world. Idealistic, perhaps. But this should force the Permanent Five to sit up and take real notice.
K.S. Dakshina Murthy was formerly Editor of Al Jazeera based in Doha, Qatar
In recent years it has become standard practice for the Indian media to ask visiting foreign dignitaries where they stand on New Delhi's claim to a permanent seat in the UNSC. If the answers are in the affirmative, there are smiles all round and the glow is then transmitted to readers or viewers as the case may be.
Among the Permanent Five in the Council, the United Kingdom has long affirmed support, so have France and Russia. China has remained non-committal. So the United States' stand was deemed crucial. When President Barack Obama, during his recent visit, backed India for a permanent seat, the joy was palpable. The media went to town as if it were just a matter of time before India joined the select group of the World's almighty. The happiness lasted a few days until the first tranche of WikiLeaks punctured the mood somewhat.
The revelation of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's classified whisper, describing India as a self-appointed front-runner exposed Washington's innermost thoughts on the subject. Though the embarrassing leak was subsequently sought to be played down, it opened the curtain to a larger truth which is that the U.S. and the other four have never really been interested in real reforms to the Security Council.
Public pronouncements, positive affirmations and slap-on-the-back relationships don't necessarily translate into action on the ground.
Reforms
Jakob Silas Lund of the Centre for U.N. Reform Education states a few individuals within the process believe that some of the Permanent Five countries “are more than happy to see reform moving at near-zero-velocity speed”.
The reforms are open to interpretation. Broadly, they mean democratisation of the Security Council to make it representative and in tune with the contemporary world. This, for some, means more permanent members. The Group of four — India, Brazil, Japan and Germany — has been the most vocal in demanding it be included.
What is surprising, especially where India is concerned, is the hope and optimism that it is heading towards a permanent seat. In reality, a committee set up by the United Nations 17 years ago to go into reforms shows little signs of progress.
The first meeting was held in 1994 of the U.N. group, a mouthful, called the “Open-Ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Other Matters Related to the Security Council”. Until now, this group has completed four rounds of negotiations, just on preliminaries.
A brief peek into the past will make it clear that the addition of more veto-wielding permanent members to the Council is a veritable pipe dream. For any amendment to the U.N. charter, two-thirds of the General Assembly needs to acquiesce. This may be possible but the next requirement, that of ratification by the Permanent Five, is the real obstacle.
Since the formation of the United Nations in 1945, there have been only a handful of meetings of the Security Council to discuss the original charter, and even that, merely to discuss minor amendments. One of some significance came about in 1965 when the membership of temporary, non-veto powered countries in the Council was increased from six to 10 and the number of votes required to pass any decision increased to nine from seven.
As academic and U.N. commentator Thomas G. Weiss wrote in the Washington Quarterly, “Most governments rhetorically support the mindless call for equity, specifically by increasing membership and eliminating the veto. Yet, no progress has been made on these numerical or procedural changes because absolutely no consensus exists about the exact shape of the Security Council or the elimination of the veto.”
The argument for a bigger, more representative Council is undoubtedly valid but the issue is who will implement it and how.
U.S. is the prime mover
In today's global equation the U.S. is the acknowledged prime mover. It has already had to sweat it out to convince the other four members to go with it on several issues, like the sanctions against Iran. If more countries are allowed to join the Council the difficulties for U.S. interests are obvious, even if those included are vetted for their closeness to Washington.
Real and effective reforms should have meant democratisation of the Security Council to reflect the aspirations of all its members. Ideally, this should mean removal of permanency and the veto power to be replaced with a rotating membership for all countries, where each one big or small, powerful or weak gets to sit for a fixed term in the hallowed seats of the Council. This is unthinkable within the existing framework of the United Nations. At the heart of the issue is the reluctance of the Permanent Five to give up the prized veto power.
The situation is paradoxical given that democracy is being touted, pushed and inflicted by the U.S. across the world. But democracy seems to end where the Security Council begins. The rest of the world has no choice but to bow to its decisions. The consequences for defying the Council can be terrifying as was experienced by Saddam Hussein's Iraq through the 1990's. Iran is now on the receiving end for its defiance on the nuclear issue.
Not just that, the credibility of the Security Council itself took a beating over its inability to prevent the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Having failed to convince France, Russia and China to vote for invading Iraq, the U.S. went alone. The Council was reduced to a bystander. It failed to fulfil its primary task, that of ensuring security — to Iraq.
What this also implies is that Council or no Council, in today's unipolar world, the U.S. will go with what it decides and no one can stop it. This has been the case particularly since the end of the Cold War. “With a U.S. global presence as great as that of any empire in history, Security Council efforts to control U.S. actions are beginning to resemble the Roman Senate's efforts to control the emperor,” writes Weiss.
Instead of trying to clamber onto a patently unfair arrangement it would have made more sense if the four self-appointed front-runners along with the rest of the world had demanded a more equitable and representative Council.
To achieve this, academic and U.N. expert Erik Voeten suggests pressure tactics to counter veto power. One tactic is for countries en bloc to ignore the decisions taken in the Security Council. Another is for Germany and Japan, which are among the largest contributors to the United Nations, to turn off the tap.
Despite this, if nothing happens, countries may have no choice but to look for, or at least threaten to float, an alternative U.N.-like organisation whose structure would be more in tandem with the contemporary world. Idealistic, perhaps. But this should force the Permanent Five to sit up and take real notice.
K.S. Dakshina Murthy was formerly Editor of Al Jazeera based in Doha, Qatar
pani_6
07-13 01:15 PM
What ever you might say Lawyers acted in DOL advise..
Very good point by alterego.
This letter has a very striking problem in it.. one that can cause a huge problem for the people signing it.
How can one say that they wanted to apply in EB2, but their lawyer said they should apply in EB3?
As pointed out by pappu, Category is determined by job requirements and not the summary qualifications of the beneficiary.
If you sign and say that the lawyer said you should apply in EB3/EB2/whatever, you are essentially stating that lawyers were involved in fabricating the job requirements. This is the same problem that is causing Fragomen clients to be investigated/audited.
This is just an advice. I am prepared to support IV and the members in whatever we decide to follow.
Very good point by alterego.
This letter has a very striking problem in it.. one that can cause a huge problem for the people signing it.
How can one say that they wanted to apply in EB2, but their lawyer said they should apply in EB3?
As pointed out by pappu, Category is determined by job requirements and not the summary qualifications of the beneficiary.
If you sign and say that the lawyer said you should apply in EB3/EB2/whatever, you are essentially stating that lawyers were involved in fabricating the job requirements. This is the same problem that is causing Fragomen clients to be investigated/audited.
This is just an advice. I am prepared to support IV and the members in whatever we decide to follow.
Macaca
12-27 08:33 PM
The Speaker's Grand Illusion (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/26/AR2007122601484.html) Nancy Pelosi and Congressional Democrats Need to Get Real About What They've Accomplished By David S. Broder | Washington Post, Dec 27, 2007
After one year of Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, public approval ratings for Congress have sunk below their level when Republicans were still in control. A Post poll this month put the approval score at 32 percent, the disapproval at 60.
In the last such survey during Republican control, congressional approval was 36 percent. So what are the Democrats to make of that? They could be using this interregnum before the start of their second year to evaluate their strategy and improve their standing. But if Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House and leader of their new majority, is to be believed, they are, instead, going to brag about their achievements.
In a year-end "fact sheet," her office proclaimed that "the Democratic-led House is listening to the American people and providing the New Direction the people voted for in November. The House has passed a wide range of measures to make America safer, restore the American dream and restore accountability. We are proud of the progress made this session and recognize that more needs to be done."
While surveys by The Post and other news organizations show that the public believes little or nothing of value has been accomplished in a year of bitter partisan wrangling on Capitol Hill, Pelosi claims that "the House has had a remarkable level of achievement over the first year, passing 130 key measures -- with nearly 70 percent passing with significant bipartisan support."
That figure is achieved by setting the bar conveniently low -- measuring as bipartisan any issue in which even 50 House Republicans broke ranks to vote with the Democrats. Thus, a party-line vote in which Democrats supported but most Republicans opposed criminal penalties for price-gouging on gasoline was converted, in Pelosi's accounting, into a "bipartisan" vote because it was backed by 56 Republicans.
There is more sleight of hand in her figures. Among the "key measures" counted in the news release are voice votes to protect infants from unsafe cribs and high chairs, and votes to require drain covers in pools and spas. Such wins bulk up the statistics. Many other "victories" credited to the House were later undone by the Senate, including all the restrictions on the deployment of troops in Iraq. And on 46 of the measures passed by the House, more than one-third of the total, the notation is added, "The president has threatened to veto," or has already vetoed, the bill.
One would think that this high level of institutional warfare would be of concern to the Democrats. But there is no suggestion in this recital that any adjustment to the nation's priorities may be required. If Pelosi is to be believed, the Democrats will keep challenging the Bush veto strategy for the remaining 12 months of his term -- and leave it up to him to make any compromises.
An honest assessment of the year would credit the Democrats with some achievements. They passed an overdue increase in the minimum wage and wrote some useful ethics legislation. They finally took the first steps to increase the pressure on Detroit to improve auto mileage efficiency.
But much of the year's political energy was squandered on futile efforts to micromanage the strategy in Iraq, and in the end, the Democrats yielded every point to the president. That left their presidential candidates arguing for measures in Iraq that have limited relevance to events on the ground -- a potential weak point in the coming election.
The major Democratic presidential hopefuls all have their political careers rooted in Congress, and the vulnerabilities of that Congress will in time come home to roost with them. Today, Democrats take some comfort from the fact that their approval ratings in Congress look marginally better than the Republicans'. In the most recent Post poll, Democrats are at 40 percent approval; Republicans, at 32 percent. But more disapprove than approve of both parties.
That is another reason it behooves the Democrats to get real about their own record on Capitol Hill. It needs improvement. And in less than a year, the voters will deliver their own verdict.
After one year of Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, public approval ratings for Congress have sunk below their level when Republicans were still in control. A Post poll this month put the approval score at 32 percent, the disapproval at 60.
In the last such survey during Republican control, congressional approval was 36 percent. So what are the Democrats to make of that? They could be using this interregnum before the start of their second year to evaluate their strategy and improve their standing. But if Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House and leader of their new majority, is to be believed, they are, instead, going to brag about their achievements.
In a year-end "fact sheet," her office proclaimed that "the Democratic-led House is listening to the American people and providing the New Direction the people voted for in November. The House has passed a wide range of measures to make America safer, restore the American dream and restore accountability. We are proud of the progress made this session and recognize that more needs to be done."
While surveys by The Post and other news organizations show that the public believes little or nothing of value has been accomplished in a year of bitter partisan wrangling on Capitol Hill, Pelosi claims that "the House has had a remarkable level of achievement over the first year, passing 130 key measures -- with nearly 70 percent passing with significant bipartisan support."
That figure is achieved by setting the bar conveniently low -- measuring as bipartisan any issue in which even 50 House Republicans broke ranks to vote with the Democrats. Thus, a party-line vote in which Democrats supported but most Republicans opposed criminal penalties for price-gouging on gasoline was converted, in Pelosi's accounting, into a "bipartisan" vote because it was backed by 56 Republicans.
There is more sleight of hand in her figures. Among the "key measures" counted in the news release are voice votes to protect infants from unsafe cribs and high chairs, and votes to require drain covers in pools and spas. Such wins bulk up the statistics. Many other "victories" credited to the House were later undone by the Senate, including all the restrictions on the deployment of troops in Iraq. And on 46 of the measures passed by the House, more than one-third of the total, the notation is added, "The president has threatened to veto," or has already vetoed, the bill.
One would think that this high level of institutional warfare would be of concern to the Democrats. But there is no suggestion in this recital that any adjustment to the nation's priorities may be required. If Pelosi is to be believed, the Democrats will keep challenging the Bush veto strategy for the remaining 12 months of his term -- and leave it up to him to make any compromises.
An honest assessment of the year would credit the Democrats with some achievements. They passed an overdue increase in the minimum wage and wrote some useful ethics legislation. They finally took the first steps to increase the pressure on Detroit to improve auto mileage efficiency.
But much of the year's political energy was squandered on futile efforts to micromanage the strategy in Iraq, and in the end, the Democrats yielded every point to the president. That left their presidential candidates arguing for measures in Iraq that have limited relevance to events on the ground -- a potential weak point in the coming election.
The major Democratic presidential hopefuls all have their political careers rooted in Congress, and the vulnerabilities of that Congress will in time come home to roost with them. Today, Democrats take some comfort from the fact that their approval ratings in Congress look marginally better than the Republicans'. In the most recent Post poll, Democrats are at 40 percent approval; Republicans, at 32 percent. But more disapprove than approve of both parties.
That is another reason it behooves the Democrats to get real about their own record on Capitol Hill. It needs improvement. And in less than a year, the voters will deliver their own verdict.
No comments:
Post a Comment