Macaca
08-01 08:03 PM
The Speaker In Charge (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/31/AR2007073101628.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) By Harold Meyerson (meyersonh@washpost.com), August 1, 2007
This is one of those odd weeks when Congress may actually work. Both houses are likely to pass Democratic bills to expand SCHIP, the children's health coverage program. Yesterday, the House enacted lobbying reform, and the Senate may follow suit tomorrow. Also yesterday, the House passed a bill restoring the right of victims of pay discrimination to sue their employers.
In short, it's one of those weeks when Nancy Pelosi has no doubts about the wisdom of her decision to become speaker of the House.
"What's it like?" she asked herself, beaming, at the conclusion of a breakfast meeting with roughly 20 liberal journalists yesterday morning.
"It's fabulous! Absolutely fabulous!"
It can't always be thus. Her biggest frustration, of course, is Congress's inability to end the war in Iraq, which she terms "a huge moral catastrophe for the country." It is the public's biggest frustration as well, she says, and the main reason that popular support for Congress has plummeted.
In September, Iraq will once again be Congress's chief item of business, when Gen. David Petraeus delivers his state-of-the-war report.
Pelosi (understandably, given the administration's mountain of misrepresentation on all war-related matters) is wary. "The plural of anecdote is not data," she said. "I'm very concerned they'll pass off anecdotal successes as progress in Iraq."
The question in September will be whether congressional Republicans continue to support President Bush's open-ended commitment to keeping U.S. forces in Iraq while a civil war rages around them. To date, the Republicans' strategy, and not just on the war, has been to thwart the Democrats at every turn and to use the Senate's 60-vote supermajority requirement both to create a "do-nothing" Congress against which they can run and to spare their president from having to veto popular legislation. (Why they care about sparing Bush -- he will never face voters again; they will -- plunges us into the murk of abnormal psychology.)
The GOP strategy is not without its pitfalls. Republicans have succeeded in tanking Congress's approval ratings, but polls consistently show the public, most importantly in swing districts, preferring Democrats to Republicans. With this week's vote on expanding SCHIP, though, Democrats are convinced that the price of blocking health care for uninsured children is more than many Republicans are willing to pay. Bush has vowed to veto the legislation; Pelosi, noting with an almost incredulous glee that the administration will stand athwart children's health care on the grounds of opposing a higher tobacco tax, says, simply, "Welcome to this discussion."
Not all discussions, even in a good week, are so pleasurable to anticipate. Asked about the resolution that her congressional colleague Jay Inslee of Washington has introduced to impeach Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Pelosi put her hands to her temples as if to ward off a headache. For the past year, Pelosi has made clear to her colleagues and the public alike that she has no interest in pursuing the impeachment option, though Gonzales is certainly doing his damnedest to change her mind. She remains unpersuaded, believing that impeachment would fail and in the process would make weeks such as this one -- a week in which the public's business is at last getting done -- far more uncommon than they already are.
Pelosi understands the gravity of the damage that the administration has done to the Constitution and why that has impelled some of her colleagues to advocate impeachment. "If I were not the speaker and I were not in Congress," she said, very quietly, as she concluded her answer, "I would probably be advocating for impeachment." But the consequences she foresees from stopping the nation's business for an unwinnable fight outweighs those considerations.
Pelosi deserves considerable credit for holding her party together on a range of divisive issues, but she plainly views the coming fight among House Democrats on fuel efficiency standards as irrepressible.
The energy bill the House will pass this week contains no provisions that would raise those standards; such provisions, if any, await the outcome of a battle between Pelosi and Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell, the Democrat who has represented Detroit and the auto industry in Congress since 1955 (that is, before tailfins).
"I respect all our chairmen," Pelosi said. But the legislation, she continued, isn't about them. "It's about our children's ability to breathe clean air. Nothing less than the planet is at stake. I love him [Dingell] dearly, but we have to prevail. . . . The forces at work here [against stricter standards] are rich and entrenched," she concluded, "and it takes just a few [votes] to prevent us from unleashing the future."
Thus, the most elegant of happy warriors, in a week when it's fun to be speaker.
This is one of those odd weeks when Congress may actually work. Both houses are likely to pass Democratic bills to expand SCHIP, the children's health coverage program. Yesterday, the House enacted lobbying reform, and the Senate may follow suit tomorrow. Also yesterday, the House passed a bill restoring the right of victims of pay discrimination to sue their employers.
In short, it's one of those weeks when Nancy Pelosi has no doubts about the wisdom of her decision to become speaker of the House.
"What's it like?" she asked herself, beaming, at the conclusion of a breakfast meeting with roughly 20 liberal journalists yesterday morning.
"It's fabulous! Absolutely fabulous!"
It can't always be thus. Her biggest frustration, of course, is Congress's inability to end the war in Iraq, which she terms "a huge moral catastrophe for the country." It is the public's biggest frustration as well, she says, and the main reason that popular support for Congress has plummeted.
In September, Iraq will once again be Congress's chief item of business, when Gen. David Petraeus delivers his state-of-the-war report.
Pelosi (understandably, given the administration's mountain of misrepresentation on all war-related matters) is wary. "The plural of anecdote is not data," she said. "I'm very concerned they'll pass off anecdotal successes as progress in Iraq."
The question in September will be whether congressional Republicans continue to support President Bush's open-ended commitment to keeping U.S. forces in Iraq while a civil war rages around them. To date, the Republicans' strategy, and not just on the war, has been to thwart the Democrats at every turn and to use the Senate's 60-vote supermajority requirement both to create a "do-nothing" Congress against which they can run and to spare their president from having to veto popular legislation. (Why they care about sparing Bush -- he will never face voters again; they will -- plunges us into the murk of abnormal psychology.)
The GOP strategy is not without its pitfalls. Republicans have succeeded in tanking Congress's approval ratings, but polls consistently show the public, most importantly in swing districts, preferring Democrats to Republicans. With this week's vote on expanding SCHIP, though, Democrats are convinced that the price of blocking health care for uninsured children is more than many Republicans are willing to pay. Bush has vowed to veto the legislation; Pelosi, noting with an almost incredulous glee that the administration will stand athwart children's health care on the grounds of opposing a higher tobacco tax, says, simply, "Welcome to this discussion."
Not all discussions, even in a good week, are so pleasurable to anticipate. Asked about the resolution that her congressional colleague Jay Inslee of Washington has introduced to impeach Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Pelosi put her hands to her temples as if to ward off a headache. For the past year, Pelosi has made clear to her colleagues and the public alike that she has no interest in pursuing the impeachment option, though Gonzales is certainly doing his damnedest to change her mind. She remains unpersuaded, believing that impeachment would fail and in the process would make weeks such as this one -- a week in which the public's business is at last getting done -- far more uncommon than they already are.
Pelosi understands the gravity of the damage that the administration has done to the Constitution and why that has impelled some of her colleagues to advocate impeachment. "If I were not the speaker and I were not in Congress," she said, very quietly, as she concluded her answer, "I would probably be advocating for impeachment." But the consequences she foresees from stopping the nation's business for an unwinnable fight outweighs those considerations.
Pelosi deserves considerable credit for holding her party together on a range of divisive issues, but she plainly views the coming fight among House Democrats on fuel efficiency standards as irrepressible.
The energy bill the House will pass this week contains no provisions that would raise those standards; such provisions, if any, await the outcome of a battle between Pelosi and Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell, the Democrat who has represented Detroit and the auto industry in Congress since 1955 (that is, before tailfins).
"I respect all our chairmen," Pelosi said. But the legislation, she continued, isn't about them. "It's about our children's ability to breathe clean air. Nothing less than the planet is at stake. I love him [Dingell] dearly, but we have to prevail. . . . The forces at work here [against stricter standards] are rich and entrenched," she concluded, "and it takes just a few [votes] to prevent us from unleashing the future."
Thus, the most elegant of happy warriors, in a week when it's fun to be speaker.
wallpaper Lady Gaga Evening Dress
keshtwo
07-13 06:03 PM
Does the forum have IB4TL? in that case, here it is!
Macaca
08-05 07:42 AM
A Polarized, and Polarizing, Congress (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/03/AR2007080301949.html) By David S. Broder (davidbroder@washpost.com), August 5, 2007
The distinguishing characteristic of this Congress was on vivid display the other day when the House debated a bill to expand the federal program that provides health insurance for children of the working poor.
Even when it is performing a useful service, this Congress manages to look ugly and mean-spirited. So much blood has been spilled, so much bile stockpiled on Capitol Hill, that no good deed goes untarnished.
The State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is a 10-year-old proven success. Originally a product of bipartisan consensus, passed by a Republican Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton, it was one of the last domestic achievements before Monica and impeachment fever seized control.
It is up for renewal this year and suddenly has become a bone of contention. President Bush underfunded it in his budget; the $4.8 billion extra he proposed spending in the next five years would not finance insurance even for all those who are currently being served.
But when the Senate Finance Committee proposed boosting the funding to $35 billion -- financed by a hefty hike in tobacco taxes -- Bush threatened a veto, and he raised the rhetorical stakes by claiming that the measure was a step toward "government health insurance."
That was surprising news to Republican Sens. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Orrin Hatch of Utah, two staunch conservatives who had joined in sponsoring the Senate bill, which the Senate Finance Committee supported 17 to 4.
But rather than meet the president's unwise challenge with a strong bipartisan alternative, the House Democratic leadership decided to raise the partisan stakes even higher by bringing out a $50 billion bill that not only would expand SCHIP but would also curtail the private Medicare benefit delivery system that Bush favors.
To add insult to injury, House Democratic leaders then took a leaf from the old Republican playbook and brought the swollen bill to the floor with minimal time for debate and denied Republicans any opportunity to offer amendments.
The result was undisguised fury -- and some really ugly exchanges on the floor. The worst, given voice by former speaker Dennis Hastert, a Republican from Illinois, among others, was the charge that the Democrats were opening the program to illegal immigrants. The National Republican Congressional Committee distributed that distortion wholesale across the country in a flurry of news releases playing to the same kind of nativist prejudice that sank the immigration reform bill. In fact, governors of both parties support the certification system included in the bill for assuring that families meet citizenship requirements; the governors know that too many legal residents have been wrongly disqualified because they could not locate their birth certificates.
In the end, the House bill passed on a near-party-line vote, 225 to 204, far short of the margin that would be needed to override the promised Bush veto. That means the program will probably have to be given a temporary renewal before the Sept. 30 deadline, and eventually Democrats and the White House will negotiate an agreement.
So it will go down as one more example of unnecessary conflict. No rational human being could explain why a program that both parties support and both want to continue could ignite such a fight.
But that is Washington in this era of polarized politics. As Congress heads out for its August recess, it has accomplished about as much as is usually the case at this stage. It passed an overdue increase in the minimum wage and an overdue but healthy package of ethics reforms. It moved some routine legislation.
But what the public has seen and heard is mainly the ugly sound of partisan warfare. The Senate let a handful of dissident Republicans highjack the immigration bill. Its Democratic leadership marched up the hill and back down on repeated futile efforts to circumscribe American involvement in Iraq, then shamefully pulled back from a final vote when a constructive Republican alternative to the Bush policy was on offer.
The less-than-vital issue of the firing of eight U.S. attorneys has occupied more time and attention than the threat of a terrorist enclave in Pakistan -- or the unchecked growth of long-term debts that could sink Medicare and Social Security.
And when this Congress had an opportunity to take a relatively simple, incremental step to extend health insurance to a vulnerable group, the members managed to make a mess of it.
It's no wonder the approval ratings of Congress are so dismal.
The distinguishing characteristic of this Congress was on vivid display the other day when the House debated a bill to expand the federal program that provides health insurance for children of the working poor.
Even when it is performing a useful service, this Congress manages to look ugly and mean-spirited. So much blood has been spilled, so much bile stockpiled on Capitol Hill, that no good deed goes untarnished.
The State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is a 10-year-old proven success. Originally a product of bipartisan consensus, passed by a Republican Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton, it was one of the last domestic achievements before Monica and impeachment fever seized control.
It is up for renewal this year and suddenly has become a bone of contention. President Bush underfunded it in his budget; the $4.8 billion extra he proposed spending in the next five years would not finance insurance even for all those who are currently being served.
But when the Senate Finance Committee proposed boosting the funding to $35 billion -- financed by a hefty hike in tobacco taxes -- Bush threatened a veto, and he raised the rhetorical stakes by claiming that the measure was a step toward "government health insurance."
That was surprising news to Republican Sens. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Orrin Hatch of Utah, two staunch conservatives who had joined in sponsoring the Senate bill, which the Senate Finance Committee supported 17 to 4.
But rather than meet the president's unwise challenge with a strong bipartisan alternative, the House Democratic leadership decided to raise the partisan stakes even higher by bringing out a $50 billion bill that not only would expand SCHIP but would also curtail the private Medicare benefit delivery system that Bush favors.
To add insult to injury, House Democratic leaders then took a leaf from the old Republican playbook and brought the swollen bill to the floor with minimal time for debate and denied Republicans any opportunity to offer amendments.
The result was undisguised fury -- and some really ugly exchanges on the floor. The worst, given voice by former speaker Dennis Hastert, a Republican from Illinois, among others, was the charge that the Democrats were opening the program to illegal immigrants. The National Republican Congressional Committee distributed that distortion wholesale across the country in a flurry of news releases playing to the same kind of nativist prejudice that sank the immigration reform bill. In fact, governors of both parties support the certification system included in the bill for assuring that families meet citizenship requirements; the governors know that too many legal residents have been wrongly disqualified because they could not locate their birth certificates.
In the end, the House bill passed on a near-party-line vote, 225 to 204, far short of the margin that would be needed to override the promised Bush veto. That means the program will probably have to be given a temporary renewal before the Sept. 30 deadline, and eventually Democrats and the White House will negotiate an agreement.
So it will go down as one more example of unnecessary conflict. No rational human being could explain why a program that both parties support and both want to continue could ignite such a fight.
But that is Washington in this era of polarized politics. As Congress heads out for its August recess, it has accomplished about as much as is usually the case at this stage. It passed an overdue increase in the minimum wage and an overdue but healthy package of ethics reforms. It moved some routine legislation.
But what the public has seen and heard is mainly the ugly sound of partisan warfare. The Senate let a handful of dissident Republicans highjack the immigration bill. Its Democratic leadership marched up the hill and back down on repeated futile efforts to circumscribe American involvement in Iraq, then shamefully pulled back from a final vote when a constructive Republican alternative to the Bush policy was on offer.
The less-than-vital issue of the firing of eight U.S. attorneys has occupied more time and attention than the threat of a terrorist enclave in Pakistan -- or the unchecked growth of long-term debts that could sink Medicare and Social Security.
And when this Congress had an opportunity to take a relatively simple, incremental step to extend health insurance to a vulnerable group, the members managed to make a mess of it.
It's no wonder the approval ratings of Congress are so dismal.
2011 Lady Gaga#39;s crystal-studded
BPforGC
11-30 12:39 AM
There "are" no good "university" that will accept you, unless you get good TOEFL score.
You know what I mean.....
You know what I mean.....
more...
CRAZYMONK
03-11 09:17 AM
You need to file I-824 to get a duplicate I-797
waitnwatch
07-18 04:56 PM
In the right hand column on the homepage the threads used to be listed in chronological order with the one containing the last post on top.
Now it has changed so that I get the threads listed randomly.
Tech gurus - is there a way to fix this so that I can see the latest post on top like I used to previously.
Please help!!!!!!!!!!!
Now it has changed so that I get the threads listed randomly.
Tech gurus - is there a way to fix this so that I can see the latest post on top like I used to previously.
Please help!!!!!!!!!!!
more...
nihar
03-31 06:05 PM
This is with regard to GC and h1
I have applied for family based GC above 21 yrs old on December 2006 and also currently holding h1 valid from October 2008. I also have my opt till May. Now since my employer was not able to find me a project he wants me to chg my status. I do not know what to do and how to chg my visa as, if I go on student visa I need to show financial documents and since I have not made any money how is it possible . If you can also suggest some schools who will not charge much or some courses which are not very expensive and time consuming and also where I can get work authorization as I will find jobs which are not technical and in line with my educational and work qualification . I have a deadline this evening as my employer just called me and told me this
:confused::(
I have applied for family based GC above 21 yrs old on December 2006 and also currently holding h1 valid from October 2008. I also have my opt till May. Now since my employer was not able to find me a project he wants me to chg my status. I do not know what to do and how to chg my visa as, if I go on student visa I need to show financial documents and since I have not made any money how is it possible . If you can also suggest some schools who will not charge much or some courses which are not very expensive and time consuming and also where I can get work authorization as I will find jobs which are not technical and in line with my educational and work qualification . I have a deadline this evening as my employer just called me and told me this
:confused::(
2010 worst dressed grammys 2010.JPG
black_logs
01-22 04:38 PM
People from Arizona please sign up here
more...
ajaysri
04-09 02:29 PM
Hi,
I have changed to a new employer using AC-21 recently. I have pro-actively sent AC-21 documentation (new offer of employment, covering letter and supporting docs) to USCIS. Ever since, I am checking my case online. Its about 3 months now that I have sent this info and there has not been any update/LUD on my 485 case so far. I am not sure if my I-485 case has details about my new employment.
I am currently doing my EAD renewal. I am thinking if it will be possible to indicate to USCIS about my new employment. Can you please advice on -
a) if it is wise to do so?
b) How can it be done?
Thanks,
Ajaysri
I have changed to a new employer using AC-21 recently. I have pro-actively sent AC-21 documentation (new offer of employment, covering letter and supporting docs) to USCIS. Ever since, I am checking my case online. Its about 3 months now that I have sent this info and there has not been any update/LUD on my 485 case so far. I am not sure if my I-485 case has details about my new employment.
I am currently doing my EAD renewal. I am thinking if it will be possible to indicate to USCIS about my new employment. Can you please advice on -
a) if it is wise to do so?
b) How can it be done?
Thanks,
Ajaysri
hair britney spears grammy 2010
Blog Feeds
05-28 02:20 AM
All too often, it seems that some examiners at USCIS Service Centers are just looking for a way to deny petitions. Long-standing policies are ignored and new theories are advanced to deny perfectly-qualified applicants for immigration benefits. A few months ago, a few examiners decided on their own that M.B.B.S. degrees which are issued to physicians from British Commonwealth countries were not equivalent to M.D. degrees issued by medical schools in the U.S. As a result, many petitions and applications were denied on this basis. After much protest from the medical community, the USCIS in Washington got involved, and the...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/carlshusterman/2009/05/h-1bs-for-health-care-workers-advanced-degree-not-required.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/carlshusterman/2009/05/h-1bs-for-health-care-workers-advanced-degree-not-required.html)
more...
ecrangan
05-26 01:59 PM
Hi Guys:
My wife received the H1 approval notice today. Her employer notified her today morning. Good luck to all those who are waiting for the approval.
Thanks
RRR
My wife received the H1 approval notice today. Her employer notified her today morning. Good luck to all those who are waiting for the approval.
Thanks
RRR
hot Lady Gaga - The Best Hair in
Blog Feeds
12-10 05:20 PM
The San Jose Mercury News this week profiled Sheba George, Ph. D., an Indian-born sociologist who is the daughter of an Indian nurse, who is focusing her research on Indian nurses in the United States and how they can better integrate in to the American health care system. Professor George discusses in the interview the special challenges Indian nurses face and how these nurses can better adapt to their new environment.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/12/immigrant-of-the-day-sheba-george-sociologist.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/12/immigrant-of-the-day-sheba-george-sociologist.html)
more...
house rihanna 2011 grammy dress.
gsiskind
09-11 06:43 PM
Greg Siskind on Immigration Law and Policy: DID JOE WILSON MAKE UP STORY ABOUT PRACTICING IMMIGRATION LAW? (http://tinyurl.com/mhfosd)
tattoo Lady Gaga Grammys Costume
Blog Feeds
06-25 05:00 PM
From Lynn Sweet at the Chicago Tribune: Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) is among the small group of members of Congress meeting with President Obama Thursday afternoon to discuss immigration reform. Don't get your hopes up if you are tracking the issue. The meeting is happening, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) said Thursday morning at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast, because "the votes aren't there." Rahm's management rule: When you have the votes, you don't need a meeting.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/06/rahm-immigration-reform-still-lacking-needed-votes.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/06/rahm-immigration-reform-still-lacking-needed-votes.html)
more...
pictures 2010 GRAMMY#39;S: Lady Gaga in
golgappas
03-31 03:48 PM
I don't have any information on this. But if its any help an Indian named Gopi Vedachalam is suing TCS. Not for back wages but for taking away his tax refunds.
http://www.itbusinessedge.com/item/?ci=12818
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/13872991.htm
Will it help if we can locate him?
http://www.itbusinessedge.com/item/?ci=12818
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/13872991.htm
Will it help if we can locate him?
dresses lady gaga grammy dress
chand123
01-14 05:10 PM
I meant Papu..We have not yet heard from IV Core..I know funds may be an issue to do hard lobbying..can we use soft campigning like letter and Fax campign to turn attention to the legal issue..I thought it was time to pick up momentum now..
How about letter and Fax campaign to Key Congressmen..?. Papu?:)
I kind of agree with what you said, Pappu i think after next week we should do something to get some attention. This measure will be an addition to March1st rally.
Go IV
United we Stand
How about letter and Fax campaign to Key Congressmen..?. Papu?:)
I kind of agree with what you said, Pappu i think after next week we should do something to get some attention. This measure will be an addition to March1st rally.
Go IV
United we Stand
more...
makeup This dress is perfect for her
buehler
06-14 11:03 AM
It would be very tough to get CP appointment before the end of July. So I am not even thinking of CP. Also CP needs to be approved when your PD is current.
girlfriend lady gaga grammy dress
sixburgh
01-15 07:56 AM
Thanks!
hairstyles lady gaga grammy dress to
zCool
03-11 07:48 PM
What is this RFE for?
Is this for I140 or H1b?
Is this for I140 or H1b?
Blog Feeds
01-05 08:10 AM
Arizona's reputation for right wing lunacy certainly will be enhanced by this effort. Or maybe there's some pretty rational thinking behind SB1070 and eliminating rights for American born citizens of Hispanic descent. 30% of Arizonans are Hispanic. 42% of all students from kindergarten through twelth grade are Hispanic and the percentage goes even higher for the younger grades. Even if the efforts don't stand up to constitutional muster, maybe the real goal is not to get rid of illegal present immigrants, but, rather, all Hispanics, whether they are legal immigrants, born in the US or illegally present. Hispanics vote overwhelmingly...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/12/arizona-antis-pushing-birthright-citizenship-measure-.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/12/arizona-antis-pushing-birthright-citizenship-measure-.html)
carbon
12-21 08:02 PM
Hello IVians,
I am not fully aware of all the benefits of having EAD after filing 485. If you have the knowledge about it could you please list down it in this thread.
Thanks.
I am not fully aware of all the benefits of having EAD after filing 485. If you have the knowledge about it could you please list down it in this thread.
Thanks.
No comments:
Post a Comment