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.
wallpaper Juno+movie+cover
Macaca
02-29 07:21 AM
In Defense of Lobbying (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/28/AR2008022803232.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) By Charles Krauthammer | WP, Feb 29
Everyone knows the First Amendment protects freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly. How many remember that, in addition, the First Amendment protects a fifth freedom -- to lobby?
Of course it doesn't use the word lobby. It calls it the right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Lobbyists are people hired to do that for you, so that you can actually stay home with the kids and remain gainfully employed rather than spend your life in the corridors of Washington.
To hear the candidates in this presidential campaign, you'd think lobbying is just one notch below waterboarding, a black art practiced by the great malefactors of wealth to keep the middle class in a vise and loose upon the nation every manner of scourge: oil dependency, greenhouse gases, unpayable mortgages and those tiny entrees you get at French restaurants.
Lobbying is constitutionally protected, but that doesn't mean we have to like it all. Let's agree to frown upon bad lobbying, such as getting a tax break for a particular industry. Let's agree to welcome good lobbying -- the actual redress of a legitimate grievance -- such as protecting your home from being turned to dust to make way for some urban development project.
There is a defense of even bad lobbying. It goes like this: You wouldn't need to be seeking advantage if the federal government had not appropriated for itself in the 20th century all kinds of powers, regulations, intrusions and manipulations (often through the tax code) that had never been presumed in the 19th century and certainly were never imagined by the Founders. What appears to be rent-seeking is thus redress of a larger grievance -- insufferable government meddling in what had traditionally been considered an area of free enterprise.
Good lobbying, on the other hand, requires no such larger contextual explanation. It is a cherished First Amendment right -- necessary, like the others, to protect a free people against overbearing and potentially tyrannical government.
What would be an example of petitioning the government for a redress of a legitimate grievance? Let's say you're a media company wishing to acquire a television station in Pittsburgh. Because of the huge federal regulatory structure, you require the approval of a government agency. In this case it's called the Federal Communications Commission.
Now, one of the roles of Congress is to make sure that said bureaucrats are interpreting and enforcing Congress's laws with fairness and dispatch. All members of Congress, no matter how populist, no matter how much they rail against "special interests," zealously protect this right of oversight. Therefore, one of the jobs of the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee is to ensure that the bureaucrats of the FCC are doing their job.
What would constitute not doing their job? A textbook example would be the FCC sitting two full years on a pending application to acquire a Pittsburgh TV station. There could hardly be a better case of a legitimate "petition for a redress" than that of the aforementioned private entity asking the chairman of the appropriate oversight committee to ask the tardy bureaucrats for a ruling. So the chairman does that, writing to the FCC demanding a ruling -- any ruling -- while explicitly stating that he is asking for no particular outcome.
This, of course, is precisely what John McCain did on behalf of Paxson Communications in writing two letters to the FCC in which he asked for a vote on the pending television-station acquisition. These two letters are the only remotely hard pieces of evidence in a 3,000-word front-page New York Times article casting doubt on John McCain's ethics.
Which is why what was intended to be an expos¿ turned into a farce, compounded by the fact that the other breathless revelation turned out to be thrice-removed rumors of an alleged affair nine years ago.
It must be said of McCain that he has invited such astonishingly thin charges against him because he has made a career of ostentatiously questioning the motives and ethics of those who have resisted his campaign finance reform and other measures that he imagines will render Congress influence-free.
Ostentatious self-righteousness may be a sin, but it is not a scandal. Nor is it a crime or a form of corruption. The Times's story is a classic example of sloppy gotcha journalism. But it is also an example of how the demagoguery about lobbying has so penetrated the popular consciousness that the mere mention of it next to a prominent senator is thought to be enough to sustain an otherwise vaporous hit piece.
Free advice to the K Street crowd: Consider a name change. Wynum, Dynum and Bindum: Redress Petitioners.
Everyone knows the First Amendment protects freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly. How many remember that, in addition, the First Amendment protects a fifth freedom -- to lobby?
Of course it doesn't use the word lobby. It calls it the right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Lobbyists are people hired to do that for you, so that you can actually stay home with the kids and remain gainfully employed rather than spend your life in the corridors of Washington.
To hear the candidates in this presidential campaign, you'd think lobbying is just one notch below waterboarding, a black art practiced by the great malefactors of wealth to keep the middle class in a vise and loose upon the nation every manner of scourge: oil dependency, greenhouse gases, unpayable mortgages and those tiny entrees you get at French restaurants.
Lobbying is constitutionally protected, but that doesn't mean we have to like it all. Let's agree to frown upon bad lobbying, such as getting a tax break for a particular industry. Let's agree to welcome good lobbying -- the actual redress of a legitimate grievance -- such as protecting your home from being turned to dust to make way for some urban development project.
There is a defense of even bad lobbying. It goes like this: You wouldn't need to be seeking advantage if the federal government had not appropriated for itself in the 20th century all kinds of powers, regulations, intrusions and manipulations (often through the tax code) that had never been presumed in the 19th century and certainly were never imagined by the Founders. What appears to be rent-seeking is thus redress of a larger grievance -- insufferable government meddling in what had traditionally been considered an area of free enterprise.
Good lobbying, on the other hand, requires no such larger contextual explanation. It is a cherished First Amendment right -- necessary, like the others, to protect a free people against overbearing and potentially tyrannical government.
What would be an example of petitioning the government for a redress of a legitimate grievance? Let's say you're a media company wishing to acquire a television station in Pittsburgh. Because of the huge federal regulatory structure, you require the approval of a government agency. In this case it's called the Federal Communications Commission.
Now, one of the roles of Congress is to make sure that said bureaucrats are interpreting and enforcing Congress's laws with fairness and dispatch. All members of Congress, no matter how populist, no matter how much they rail against "special interests," zealously protect this right of oversight. Therefore, one of the jobs of the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee is to ensure that the bureaucrats of the FCC are doing their job.
What would constitute not doing their job? A textbook example would be the FCC sitting two full years on a pending application to acquire a Pittsburgh TV station. There could hardly be a better case of a legitimate "petition for a redress" than that of the aforementioned private entity asking the chairman of the appropriate oversight committee to ask the tardy bureaucrats for a ruling. So the chairman does that, writing to the FCC demanding a ruling -- any ruling -- while explicitly stating that he is asking for no particular outcome.
This, of course, is precisely what John McCain did on behalf of Paxson Communications in writing two letters to the FCC in which he asked for a vote on the pending television-station acquisition. These two letters are the only remotely hard pieces of evidence in a 3,000-word front-page New York Times article casting doubt on John McCain's ethics.
Which is why what was intended to be an expos¿ turned into a farce, compounded by the fact that the other breathless revelation turned out to be thrice-removed rumors of an alleged affair nine years ago.
It must be said of McCain that he has invited such astonishingly thin charges against him because he has made a career of ostentatiously questioning the motives and ethics of those who have resisted his campaign finance reform and other measures that he imagines will render Congress influence-free.
Ostentatious self-righteousness may be a sin, but it is not a scandal. Nor is it a crime or a form of corruption. The Times's story is a classic example of sloppy gotcha journalism. But it is also an example of how the demagoguery about lobbying has so penetrated the popular consciousness that the mere mention of it next to a prominent senator is thought to be enough to sustain an otherwise vaporous hit piece.
Free advice to the K Street crowd: Consider a name change. Wynum, Dynum and Bindum: Redress Petitioners.
msp1976
04-07 08:31 AM
Members working for consulting companies can talk to their employers about this. Let us know their response.
The employers are not gonna be worried about it..
Many of these restrictions were passed for the L1 program some 1 year back.
I know many people on L1 still working at client sites and no one even saying peep about it...
This is what I heard from a friend who is a employee of a NYSE listed firm with 100+ million turnover...He and a few more on L1 raised this question to their company lawyer.. The company lawyer had many arguments to defend their position. For example 'If DOL raises a question, the company would say we have offices at multiple locations one at each client site..'There is a small army of lawyers on the company's retainer and they are not afraid at all...They told the L1 employees to calm down and leave it to them....There are many creative ways in which to structure the consulting deals and the law is worth the paper it is printed on.....
DOL is gonna have 200 more employees for the enforcement...200 is nothing frankly...Then they have to funded every year...May be congress would not fund the additional 200. Governments never have the will to go after the businesses....So the law would look very restrictive on paper and no real impact.....I know as a fact that the L1 restriction law had absolutely no impact...
The net scenario would really depend on what happens during the first year or so...Suppose USCIS starts denying applications and they deny 10K applications...Then 5K and more of these appeal the denial and in the end sue the USCIS ..Do not forget to remember that CIR is passed and the USCIS is loaded with the legalization workload...The appeals system and the immigration courts would get swamped with these cases...As long as the case is in the appeal or the court, they employee continues to work.....The employees would have problems with the Drivers license and like but some would stick it out...Once USCIS appeals system and courts system gets overloaded with the case load...USCIS and the US attorneys would lose their will power to try to enforce the law......
I do not know the details of judicial review for H1 denials and I did not see anything in this law curtailing the judicial review of H1B petitions...So a lot is subjective about the law.....Many laws never have their intended impact it just goes sits in some corner...
The employers are not gonna be worried about it..
Many of these restrictions were passed for the L1 program some 1 year back.
I know many people on L1 still working at client sites and no one even saying peep about it...
This is what I heard from a friend who is a employee of a NYSE listed firm with 100+ million turnover...He and a few more on L1 raised this question to their company lawyer.. The company lawyer had many arguments to defend their position. For example 'If DOL raises a question, the company would say we have offices at multiple locations one at each client site..'There is a small army of lawyers on the company's retainer and they are not afraid at all...They told the L1 employees to calm down and leave it to them....There are many creative ways in which to structure the consulting deals and the law is worth the paper it is printed on.....
DOL is gonna have 200 more employees for the enforcement...200 is nothing frankly...Then they have to funded every year...May be congress would not fund the additional 200. Governments never have the will to go after the businesses....So the law would look very restrictive on paper and no real impact.....I know as a fact that the L1 restriction law had absolutely no impact...
The net scenario would really depend on what happens during the first year or so...Suppose USCIS starts denying applications and they deny 10K applications...Then 5K and more of these appeal the denial and in the end sue the USCIS ..Do not forget to remember that CIR is passed and the USCIS is loaded with the legalization workload...The appeals system and the immigration courts would get swamped with these cases...As long as the case is in the appeal or the court, they employee continues to work.....The employees would have problems with the Drivers license and like but some would stick it out...Once USCIS appeals system and courts system gets overloaded with the case load...USCIS and the US attorneys would lose their will power to try to enforce the law......
I do not know the details of judicial review for H1 denials and I did not see anything in this law curtailing the judicial review of H1B petitions...So a lot is subjective about the law.....Many laws never have their intended impact it just goes sits in some corner...
2011 her new video quot;Superbadquot;
Macaca
09-28 10:29 PM
Forget the Israel Lobby. The Hill's Next Big Player Is Made in India (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/28/AR2007092801350_2.html) By Mira Kamdar (miraukamdar@gmail.com) | Washington Post, September 30, 2007
Mira Kamdar, a fellow at the World Policy Institute and the Asia Society, is the author of "Planet India: How the Fastest-Growing Democracy is Transforming America and the World."
The fall's most controversial book is almost certainly "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," in which political scientists John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt warn that Jewish Americans have built a behemoth that has bullied policymakers into putting Israel's interests in the Middle East ahead of America's. To Mearsheimer and Walt, AIPAC, the main pro-Israel lobbying group, is insidious. But to more and more Indian Americans, it's downright inspiring.
With growing numbers, clout and self-confidence, the Indian American community is turning its admiration for the Israel lobby and its respect for high-achieving Jewish Americans into a powerful new force of its own. Following consciously in AIPAC's footsteps, the India lobby is getting results in Washington -- and having a profound impact on U.S. policy, with important consequences for the future of Asia and the world.
"This is huge," enthused Ron Somers, the president of the U.S.-India Business Council, from a posh hotel lobby in Philadelphia. "It's the Berlin Wall coming down. It's Nixon in China."
What has Somers so energized is a landmark nuclear cooperation deal between India and the United States, which would give India access to U.S. nuclear technology and deliver fuel supplies to India's civilian power plants in return for placing them under permanent international safeguards. Under the deal's terms, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty -- for decades the cornerstone of efforts to limit the spread of nuclear weapons -- will in effect be waived for India, just nine years after the Clinton administration slapped sanctions on New Delhi for its 1998 nuclear tests. But the Bush administration, eager to check the rise of China by tilting toward its massive neighbor, has sought to forge a new strategic alliance with India, cemented by the civil nuclear deal.
On the U.S. side, the pact awaits nothing more than one final up-or-down vote in Congress. (In India, the situation is far more complicated; India's left-wing parties, sensitive to any whiff of imperialism, have accused Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of surrendering the country's sovereignty -- a broadside that may yet scuttle the deal.) On Capitol Hill, despite deep divisions over Iraq, immigration and the outsourcing of American jobs to India, Democrats and Republicans quickly fell into line on the nuclear deal, voting for it last December by overwhelming bipartisan majorities. Even lawmakers who had made nuclear nonproliferation a core issue over their long careers, such as Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), quickly came around to President Bush's point of view. Why?
The answer is that the India lobby is now officially a powerful presence on the Hill. The nuclear pact brought together an Indian government that is savvier than ever about playing the Washington game, an Indian American community that is just coming into its own and powerful business interests that see India as perhaps the single biggest money-making opportunity of the 21st century.
The nuclear deal has been pushed aggressively by well-funded groups representing industry in both countries. At the center of the lobbying effort has been Robert D. Blackwill, a former U.S. ambassador to India and deputy national security adviser who's now with a well-connected Republican lobbying firm, Barbour, Griffith & Rogers LLC. The firm's Web site touts Blackwill as a pillar of its "India Practice," along with a more recent hire, Philip D. Zelikow, a former top adviser to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who was also one of the architects of the Bush administration's tilt toward India. The Confederation of Indian Industry paid Blackwill to lobby various U.S. government entities, according to the Boston Globe. And India is also paying a major Beltway law firm, Venable LLP.
The U.S.-India Business Council has lavished big money on lobbyists, too. With India slated to spend perhaps $60 billion over the next few years to boost its military capabilities, major U.S. corporations are hoping that the nuclear agreement will open the door to some extremely lucrative opportunities, including military contracts and deals to help build nuclear power plants. According to a recent MIT study, Lockheed Martin is pushing to land a $4 billion to $9 billion contract for more than 120 fighter planes that India plans to buy. "The bounty is enormous," gushed Somers, the business council's president.
So enormous, in fact, that Bonner & Associates created an India lobbying group last year to make sure that U.S. companies reap a major chunk of it. Dubbed the Indian American Security Leadership Council, the group was underwritten by Ramesh Kapur, a former trustee of the Democratic National Committee, and Krishna Srinivasa, who has been backing GOP causes since his 1984 stint as co-chair of Asian Americans for Reagan-Bush. The council has, oddly, "recruited groups representing thousands of American veterans" to urge Congress to pass the nuclear deal.
The India lobby is also eager to use Indian Americans to put a human face -- not to mention a voter's face and a campaign contributor's face -- on its agenda. "Industry would make its business case," Somers explained, "and Indian Americans would make the emotional case."
There are now some 2.2 million Americans of Indian origin -- a number that's growing rapidly. First-generation immigrants keenly recall the humiliating days when India was dismissed as an overpopulated, socialist haven of poverty and disease. They are thrilled by the new respect India is getting. Meanwhile, a second, American-born generation of Indian Americans who feel comfortable with activism and publicity is just beginning to hit its political stride. As a group, Indian Americans have higher levels of education and income than the national average, making them a natural for political mobilization.
One standout member of the first generation is Sanjay Puri, who founded the U.S. India Political Action Committee in 2002. (Its acronym, USINPAC, even sounds a bit like AIPAC.) He came to the United States in 1985 to get an MBA at George Washington University, staying on to found an information-technology company. A man of modest demeanor who wears a lapel pin that joins the Indian and American flags, Puri grew tired of watching successful Indian Americans pony up money just so they could get their picture taken with a politician. "I thought, 'What are we getting out of this?', " he explains.
In just five years, USINPAC has become the most visible face of Indian American lobbying. Its Web site boasts photos of its leaders with President Bush, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and presidential candidates from Fred Thompson to Barack Obama. The group pointedly sports a New Hampshire branch. It can also take some credit for ending the Senate career of Virginia Republican George Allen, whose notorious taunt of "macaca" to a young Indian American outraged the community. Less publicly, USINPAC claims to have brought a lot of lawmakers around. "You haven't heard a lot from Dan Burton lately, right?" Puri asked, referring to a Republican congressman from Indiana who has long been perceived as an India basher.
USINPAC is capable of pouncing; witness the incident last June when Obama's campaign issued a memo excoriating Hillary Rodham Clinton for her close ties to wealthy Indian Americans and her alleged support for outsourcing, listing the New York senator's affiliation as "D-Punjab." Puri personally protested in a widely circulated open letter, and Obama quickly issued an apology. "Did you see? That letter was addressed directly to Sanjay," Varun Mehta, a senior at Boston University and USINPAC volunteer, told me with evident admiration. "That's the kind of clout Sanjay has."
Like many politically engaged Indian Americans, Puri has a deep regard for the Israel lobby -- particularly in a country where Jews make up just a small minority of the population. "A lot of Jewish people tell me maybe I was Jewish in my past life," he jokes. The respect runs both ways. The American Jewish Committee, for instance, recently sent letters to members of Congress supporting the U.S.-India nuclear deal.
"We model ourselves on the Jewish people in the United States," explains Mital Gandhi of USINPAC's new offshoot, the U.S.-India Business Alliance. "We're not quite there yet. But we're getting there."
Mira Kamdar, a fellow at the World Policy Institute and the Asia Society, is the author of "Planet India: How the Fastest-Growing Democracy is Transforming America and the World."
The fall's most controversial book is almost certainly "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," in which political scientists John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt warn that Jewish Americans have built a behemoth that has bullied policymakers into putting Israel's interests in the Middle East ahead of America's. To Mearsheimer and Walt, AIPAC, the main pro-Israel lobbying group, is insidious. But to more and more Indian Americans, it's downright inspiring.
With growing numbers, clout and self-confidence, the Indian American community is turning its admiration for the Israel lobby and its respect for high-achieving Jewish Americans into a powerful new force of its own. Following consciously in AIPAC's footsteps, the India lobby is getting results in Washington -- and having a profound impact on U.S. policy, with important consequences for the future of Asia and the world.
"This is huge," enthused Ron Somers, the president of the U.S.-India Business Council, from a posh hotel lobby in Philadelphia. "It's the Berlin Wall coming down. It's Nixon in China."
What has Somers so energized is a landmark nuclear cooperation deal between India and the United States, which would give India access to U.S. nuclear technology and deliver fuel supplies to India's civilian power plants in return for placing them under permanent international safeguards. Under the deal's terms, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty -- for decades the cornerstone of efforts to limit the spread of nuclear weapons -- will in effect be waived for India, just nine years after the Clinton administration slapped sanctions on New Delhi for its 1998 nuclear tests. But the Bush administration, eager to check the rise of China by tilting toward its massive neighbor, has sought to forge a new strategic alliance with India, cemented by the civil nuclear deal.
On the U.S. side, the pact awaits nothing more than one final up-or-down vote in Congress. (In India, the situation is far more complicated; India's left-wing parties, sensitive to any whiff of imperialism, have accused Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of surrendering the country's sovereignty -- a broadside that may yet scuttle the deal.) On Capitol Hill, despite deep divisions over Iraq, immigration and the outsourcing of American jobs to India, Democrats and Republicans quickly fell into line on the nuclear deal, voting for it last December by overwhelming bipartisan majorities. Even lawmakers who had made nuclear nonproliferation a core issue over their long careers, such as Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), quickly came around to President Bush's point of view. Why?
The answer is that the India lobby is now officially a powerful presence on the Hill. The nuclear pact brought together an Indian government that is savvier than ever about playing the Washington game, an Indian American community that is just coming into its own and powerful business interests that see India as perhaps the single biggest money-making opportunity of the 21st century.
The nuclear deal has been pushed aggressively by well-funded groups representing industry in both countries. At the center of the lobbying effort has been Robert D. Blackwill, a former U.S. ambassador to India and deputy national security adviser who's now with a well-connected Republican lobbying firm, Barbour, Griffith & Rogers LLC. The firm's Web site touts Blackwill as a pillar of its "India Practice," along with a more recent hire, Philip D. Zelikow, a former top adviser to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who was also one of the architects of the Bush administration's tilt toward India. The Confederation of Indian Industry paid Blackwill to lobby various U.S. government entities, according to the Boston Globe. And India is also paying a major Beltway law firm, Venable LLP.
The U.S.-India Business Council has lavished big money on lobbyists, too. With India slated to spend perhaps $60 billion over the next few years to boost its military capabilities, major U.S. corporations are hoping that the nuclear agreement will open the door to some extremely lucrative opportunities, including military contracts and deals to help build nuclear power plants. According to a recent MIT study, Lockheed Martin is pushing to land a $4 billion to $9 billion contract for more than 120 fighter planes that India plans to buy. "The bounty is enormous," gushed Somers, the business council's president.
So enormous, in fact, that Bonner & Associates created an India lobbying group last year to make sure that U.S. companies reap a major chunk of it. Dubbed the Indian American Security Leadership Council, the group was underwritten by Ramesh Kapur, a former trustee of the Democratic National Committee, and Krishna Srinivasa, who has been backing GOP causes since his 1984 stint as co-chair of Asian Americans for Reagan-Bush. The council has, oddly, "recruited groups representing thousands of American veterans" to urge Congress to pass the nuclear deal.
The India lobby is also eager to use Indian Americans to put a human face -- not to mention a voter's face and a campaign contributor's face -- on its agenda. "Industry would make its business case," Somers explained, "and Indian Americans would make the emotional case."
There are now some 2.2 million Americans of Indian origin -- a number that's growing rapidly. First-generation immigrants keenly recall the humiliating days when India was dismissed as an overpopulated, socialist haven of poverty and disease. They are thrilled by the new respect India is getting. Meanwhile, a second, American-born generation of Indian Americans who feel comfortable with activism and publicity is just beginning to hit its political stride. As a group, Indian Americans have higher levels of education and income than the national average, making them a natural for political mobilization.
One standout member of the first generation is Sanjay Puri, who founded the U.S. India Political Action Committee in 2002. (Its acronym, USINPAC, even sounds a bit like AIPAC.) He came to the United States in 1985 to get an MBA at George Washington University, staying on to found an information-technology company. A man of modest demeanor who wears a lapel pin that joins the Indian and American flags, Puri grew tired of watching successful Indian Americans pony up money just so they could get their picture taken with a politician. "I thought, 'What are we getting out of this?', " he explains.
In just five years, USINPAC has become the most visible face of Indian American lobbying. Its Web site boasts photos of its leaders with President Bush, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and presidential candidates from Fred Thompson to Barack Obama. The group pointedly sports a New Hampshire branch. It can also take some credit for ending the Senate career of Virginia Republican George Allen, whose notorious taunt of "macaca" to a young Indian American outraged the community. Less publicly, USINPAC claims to have brought a lot of lawmakers around. "You haven't heard a lot from Dan Burton lately, right?" Puri asked, referring to a Republican congressman from Indiana who has long been perceived as an India basher.
USINPAC is capable of pouncing; witness the incident last June when Obama's campaign issued a memo excoriating Hillary Rodham Clinton for her close ties to wealthy Indian Americans and her alleged support for outsourcing, listing the New York senator's affiliation as "D-Punjab." Puri personally protested in a widely circulated open letter, and Obama quickly issued an apology. "Did you see? That letter was addressed directly to Sanjay," Varun Mehta, a senior at Boston University and USINPAC volunteer, told me with evident admiration. "That's the kind of clout Sanjay has."
Like many politically engaged Indian Americans, Puri has a deep regard for the Israel lobby -- particularly in a country where Jews make up just a small minority of the population. "A lot of Jewish people tell me maybe I was Jewish in my past life," he jokes. The respect runs both ways. The American Jewish Committee, for instance, recently sent letters to members of Congress supporting the U.S.-India nuclear deal.
"We model ourselves on the Jewish people in the United States," explains Mital Gandhi of USINPAC's new offshoot, the U.S.-India Business Alliance. "We're not quite there yet. But we're getting there."
more...
singhsa3
12-27 10:26 AM
Macca,
Our is an adovacy group comprising of only volunteers and with specific agenda. There may be several other Advocacy groups with similar characteristics as ours, agreed they may or may not be immigration focussed. Thus, examples of such Advocay groups that had to lobby to change laws in their favor , overcoming oppositions will help.
For such advocacy groups , do you have any insights into the following ( Based on your readings or research)?
a) What such group do to increase active participation of their members?
b) How such groups are organized?
c) How the short term and long term goals are developed/identified?
d) How the leadership pieline for such groups is developed?
e) Best practices when interacting with other like minded groups, without undermining their own agenda.
If you would like to discuss on the phone or through e-mail. Thas should be fine with me.
Thanks
Singhsa3
Our is an adovacy group comprising of only volunteers and with specific agenda. There may be several other Advocacy groups with similar characteristics as ours, agreed they may or may not be immigration focussed. Thus, examples of such Advocay groups that had to lobby to change laws in their favor , overcoming oppositions will help.
For such advocacy groups , do you have any insights into the following ( Based on your readings or research)?
a) What such group do to increase active participation of their members?
b) How such groups are organized?
c) How the short term and long term goals are developed/identified?
d) How the leadership pieline for such groups is developed?
e) Best practices when interacting with other like minded groups, without undermining their own agenda.
If you would like to discuss on the phone or through e-mail. Thas should be fine with me.
Thanks
Singhsa3
unitednations
03-24 12:34 PM
face it as long as the economy is tanking this is going to be an ongoing debate. Everything goes thorugh stages of high and low and we are now expereincing the lows of having the h1b's.
Sledge While your points are valid, remember folks do not choose consulting (nor do students) as a first choice but I have friends who were employed without any issues directly with client companies who in the midst of recession decide to fire everyone. What are you options if your GC is denied because the company declared bankruptcy? How do you justify to yourself staying with the employer when they files you under Eb3 category when you a master's degree holder from one of the 10 best universities in the US? What are the employee choices here, just pack up and leave? leave houses, friends and people you stayed with many years.
You think they haven't searched for full time positions with other companies only to be turned back? or worse case restart the entire GC process and forgo the 6+ years?
And the experiences I am relating are from the 2001 recession. I have already seen history repeat itself now but my more fear is that tomorrow USCIS will unfortunately hit the person who followed all the rules After all how is the USCIS knowing which are the good companies and which are bad? These very things are happening and very much can happen to you as well. Do not sit on a high perch and think it will not trickle down to me
That is one thing I have noticed of this divide between non consulting and consulting jobs.
Reality is that people either came on f-1 or they came on h-1 through staffing company.
Permanent jobs are the least safe from immigration point of view. As soon as there is a downturn; they will cut your job unmercilessly; doesn't matter which stage of the greencard you are in. You have absolutely no flexibility whatsoever (eb2 versus eb3); when or if they are going to start the greencard process. In fact companies such as these are the ones who generally won't give you any details of labor or 140.
Many of the peple who are in 8 or 9 year h-1b painfully learned this lesson. They generally started at staffing company; got enticed by permanent job; got stuck in labor processing; got laid off; jumped back to staffing company; chased labor substitution; got 140 denied; jumped to another company and started again.
Many of the people I discussed with who have been here for a long time on h-1b were continually re-starting their greencard for all these issues.
I remember seeing a posting by another member that stated people from india were more susceptible to being out of status or having applications denied because of the long wait to get the greencard. The longer it goes; the bigger chane of something going wrong.
People from other countries don't have such issues. I know one person from Uzbekistan who was on OPT and filed h-1b quota case in April 2007; at the same time company filed labor for him. He got greencard approved before the h-1b even got adjudicated.
One of the issues of stafffing companies is that it is usually run by another person who was a non immigrant at one point themselves so they did not revoke h-1b's and were very flexible with their employees (that flexibility made them skirt h-1b rules). However, now that flexibility is gone as USCIS has gone through zero tolerance.
The way USCIS/DOL/CONSULATES are behaving is making it very difficult for even the traditional companies to pursue or even keep non immigrants. Right now with the layoffs, many people from the traditional companies are approaching the staffing companies to do h-1b's. However, the staffing companies are not doing them because they are starting to follow the rules as close as they can. If they don't have a job for you then they are not going to file (no more speculative employment).
Sledge While your points are valid, remember folks do not choose consulting (nor do students) as a first choice but I have friends who were employed without any issues directly with client companies who in the midst of recession decide to fire everyone. What are you options if your GC is denied because the company declared bankruptcy? How do you justify to yourself staying with the employer when they files you under Eb3 category when you a master's degree holder from one of the 10 best universities in the US? What are the employee choices here, just pack up and leave? leave houses, friends and people you stayed with many years.
You think they haven't searched for full time positions with other companies only to be turned back? or worse case restart the entire GC process and forgo the 6+ years?
And the experiences I am relating are from the 2001 recession. I have already seen history repeat itself now but my more fear is that tomorrow USCIS will unfortunately hit the person who followed all the rules After all how is the USCIS knowing which are the good companies and which are bad? These very things are happening and very much can happen to you as well. Do not sit on a high perch and think it will not trickle down to me
That is one thing I have noticed of this divide between non consulting and consulting jobs.
Reality is that people either came on f-1 or they came on h-1 through staffing company.
Permanent jobs are the least safe from immigration point of view. As soon as there is a downturn; they will cut your job unmercilessly; doesn't matter which stage of the greencard you are in. You have absolutely no flexibility whatsoever (eb2 versus eb3); when or if they are going to start the greencard process. In fact companies such as these are the ones who generally won't give you any details of labor or 140.
Many of the peple who are in 8 or 9 year h-1b painfully learned this lesson. They generally started at staffing company; got enticed by permanent job; got stuck in labor processing; got laid off; jumped back to staffing company; chased labor substitution; got 140 denied; jumped to another company and started again.
Many of the people I discussed with who have been here for a long time on h-1b were continually re-starting their greencard for all these issues.
I remember seeing a posting by another member that stated people from india were more susceptible to being out of status or having applications denied because of the long wait to get the greencard. The longer it goes; the bigger chane of something going wrong.
People from other countries don't have such issues. I know one person from Uzbekistan who was on OPT and filed h-1b quota case in April 2007; at the same time company filed labor for him. He got greencard approved before the h-1b even got adjudicated.
One of the issues of stafffing companies is that it is usually run by another person who was a non immigrant at one point themselves so they did not revoke h-1b's and were very flexible with their employees (that flexibility made them skirt h-1b rules). However, now that flexibility is gone as USCIS has gone through zero tolerance.
The way USCIS/DOL/CONSULATES are behaving is making it very difficult for even the traditional companies to pursue or even keep non immigrants. Right now with the layoffs, many people from the traditional companies are approaching the staffing companies to do h-1b's. However, the staffing companies are not doing them because they are starting to follow the rules as close as they can. If they don't have a job for you then they are not going to file (no more speculative employment).
more...
Refugee_New
01-06 02:41 PM
Yes, they definitely have...Hamas should stop using school kids as human shield before complaining. Heres link for you - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elyXQ6g-TJs
You just go and see this video. Sent by some tamil media.
http://kalaiy.blogspot.com/2009/01/you-tube.html
You just go and see this video. Sent by some tamil media.
http://kalaiy.blogspot.com/2009/01/you-tube.html
2010 1 Comic-Con: Superbad Trumps
gimme_GC2006
03-23 01:54 PM
my only problem is Work contracts.
How am I supposed to get contracts of all clients.
My employer doesnt share saying its private and confidential..I worked for a top 5 Indian IT in the past..no way I can get those details..duh :confused:
How am I supposed to get contracts of all clients.
My employer doesnt share saying its private and confidential..I worked for a top 5 Indian IT in the past..no way I can get those details..duh :confused:
more...
fide_champ
04-06 06:26 AM
Fide_champ,
I am also looking for buying house in new jersey and as you mentioned all good places with good schools have hardly any effect from recession and housing down turn. But any way if you have to buy a house for long term then no point in waiting. The only thing bad times do to good places is value doesn't increase like it does in good times. Any suggestions on areas in New Jersey with good school and affordable (I mean something in 350-450k)? I know some very good areas where worst looking house starts at 700k which is out of scope.
USDream2Dust
USDReam2Dust,
Even in good school areas the values came down but not as much as 20, 30 or 50%. In my area, houses above 500K are not selling. But i could see multiple bidders for houses that are good and attractively priced(5 to 10%) reduction. We are probably at 2004/2005 prices right now. The most encouraging thing is people are still buying.
I live in south jersey and i know little bit about the south jersey market. I do not know much about other areas. In south jersey moorestown, mount laurel, marlton, voorhees, cherry hill are good areas to buy. Send a PM and we can discuss further about your specific requirements.
I am also looking for buying house in new jersey and as you mentioned all good places with good schools have hardly any effect from recession and housing down turn. But any way if you have to buy a house for long term then no point in waiting. The only thing bad times do to good places is value doesn't increase like it does in good times. Any suggestions on areas in New Jersey with good school and affordable (I mean something in 350-450k)? I know some very good areas where worst looking house starts at 700k which is out of scope.
USDream2Dust
USDReam2Dust,
Even in good school areas the values came down but not as much as 20, 30 or 50%. In my area, houses above 500K are not selling. But i could see multiple bidders for houses that are good and attractively priced(5 to 10%) reduction. We are probably at 2004/2005 prices right now. The most encouraging thing is people are still buying.
I live in south jersey and i know little bit about the south jersey market. I do not know much about other areas. In south jersey moorestown, mount laurel, marlton, voorhees, cherry hill are good areas to buy. Send a PM and we can discuss further about your specific requirements.
hair more emma stone child.
diptam
09-26 04:37 PM
Just Kidding - reading your post i was feeling like I'm reading a comment from Fox News. However i do respect your opinion and thanks for expressing it.
My Point is more long term - in the shorter term no major change can happen to economy even if Barack wins but eventually Economy would be stronger under Barack's leadership. He also stressed that he would stop "JOBS BEING SHIPPED OVERSEAS" which means companies like TATA or INFY or some Chinese company taking my Job ( or any American's Job ) away from US to INDIA or CHINA. If you are planning a future in US - you would not want your US job taken away by your brother at INDIA or CHINA and Barack will make sure that doesn't happen.
The Bottonline is he will create tons of Jobs at US , so unemployment will be very low , average peoples will be happy and however loud ANTI-IMMIGRANTS scream and shout no AMERICAN will pay attention. Our EB reforms will Pass much easily and we will be able to able to lead a much happier and content life with GREEN CARD.
Once again my Point is definitely Long Term - in the shorter duration Barack has to first fix the Mortgage Mess and do something with Iran by taking help from EUROPE.
For arguments sake :)
if Barak wins the skies will part, unemployment will disappear, GCs will rain from the sky. Americans will hug Iran and peace will prevail....it is insane arguments like the one below that obamaphiles make, scares me about what will happen when he becomes the president. No legislative experience that is ok for him but not ok for Republican VP choice. Trashy ads from him are ok but no..no from the republicans. not a single major newspaper talks about his dealings with rezko or the 100k allocated to be spent on the garden. No major deatails on a single concrete proposal...reason being that public is not interested in the finer details. In the tank with major unions, look at the promises being made to them...anyways i dont get to vote i can look at all this dispassionately and watch it from far. He has a slick marketing campaing and the media loves him. Either ways my EB is so screwed i dont think either can help us out.
as you say 'lets take it EZ'
My Point is more long term - in the shorter term no major change can happen to economy even if Barack wins but eventually Economy would be stronger under Barack's leadership. He also stressed that he would stop "JOBS BEING SHIPPED OVERSEAS" which means companies like TATA or INFY or some Chinese company taking my Job ( or any American's Job ) away from US to INDIA or CHINA. If you are planning a future in US - you would not want your US job taken away by your brother at INDIA or CHINA and Barack will make sure that doesn't happen.
The Bottonline is he will create tons of Jobs at US , so unemployment will be very low , average peoples will be happy and however loud ANTI-IMMIGRANTS scream and shout no AMERICAN will pay attention. Our EB reforms will Pass much easily and we will be able to able to lead a much happier and content life with GREEN CARD.
Once again my Point is definitely Long Term - in the shorter duration Barack has to first fix the Mortgage Mess and do something with Iran by taking help from EUROPE.
For arguments sake :)
if Barak wins the skies will part, unemployment will disappear, GCs will rain from the sky. Americans will hug Iran and peace will prevail....it is insane arguments like the one below that obamaphiles make, scares me about what will happen when he becomes the president. No legislative experience that is ok for him but not ok for Republican VP choice. Trashy ads from him are ok but no..no from the republicans. not a single major newspaper talks about his dealings with rezko or the 100k allocated to be spent on the garden. No major deatails on a single concrete proposal...reason being that public is not interested in the finer details. In the tank with major unions, look at the promises being made to them...anyways i dont get to vote i can look at all this dispassionately and watch it from far. He has a slick marketing campaing and the media loves him. Either ways my EB is so screwed i dont think either can help us out.
as you say 'lets take it EZ'
more...
gg_ny
02-21 09:07 PM
I am no fan of Dobbs and haven't watched his show longer than 15 min. in total. I didn't want to eloborate on something in that posting but would rather do now: by fanning of the mass hysteria, you do get attention- let it be Dobbs or Tancredo. Last year, because of the media and the politicians, many normally centric Americans listened to anti immigration propaganda, in particular, Dobbsian ones. No/not much American tears were shed when CIR was stalled in the Congress last year. The reason: people would tune to anyone-sentinent or nonsense persons- if those creatures speak what those people want to hear at that time. Now the Congress seems to be centric or stuck at the center due to gridlock but how long this will last?
I believe that the average American civic sense is moving towards what is seen in European countries - discourage immigration in any form. Dobbs may not be an agent but definitely an instrument that keeps this feeling alive. It sells CNN and also keeps the base happy. How else would you explain a plain propaganda being catered via a network like CNN which claims to be different from - for example right-oriented Fox. Dobbs does it, there would be more louder Dobbsians in the future if anti immigration gets established inteh general psyche of Americans as it has already in many, many, many european nations.
He is not questioned, ridiculed or targeted because he is a nobody. His viewership is not in millions but in hundred thousands. 762,000 to be precise. With such viewership numbers nobody targets him because its not worth it. Even "SpongeBob SquarePants" a carton show on Nickelodeon manages to get higher viewership than Lou Dobbs even though "SpongeBob SquarePants" is targeted at children.
we are targeting him because he is saying things which are inaccurate if not ludicrous regarding immigration. He is similar to tancredo. Did anybody know there was a xenophobe called tancredo before he started riling against CIR. Lou Dobbs and Tancredo realized they have stuck gold with there diatribe against immigration and they are riding this xenophobic wave for it full worth.
I believe that the average American civic sense is moving towards what is seen in European countries - discourage immigration in any form. Dobbs may not be an agent but definitely an instrument that keeps this feeling alive. It sells CNN and also keeps the base happy. How else would you explain a plain propaganda being catered via a network like CNN which claims to be different from - for example right-oriented Fox. Dobbs does it, there would be more louder Dobbsians in the future if anti immigration gets established inteh general psyche of Americans as it has already in many, many, many european nations.
He is not questioned, ridiculed or targeted because he is a nobody. His viewership is not in millions but in hundred thousands. 762,000 to be precise. With such viewership numbers nobody targets him because its not worth it. Even "SpongeBob SquarePants" a carton show on Nickelodeon manages to get higher viewership than Lou Dobbs even though "SpongeBob SquarePants" is targeted at children.
we are targeting him because he is saying things which are inaccurate if not ludicrous regarding immigration. He is similar to tancredo. Did anybody know there was a xenophobe called tancredo before he started riling against CIR. Lou Dobbs and Tancredo realized they have stuck gold with there diatribe against immigration and they are riding this xenophobic wave for it full worth.
hot Mamas amp; the Papas movie.
texcan
08-06 05:26 PM
A man was driving home one evening and realized that it was his daughter's birthday and he hadn't bought her a present. He drove to the mall and ran to the toy store and he asked the store manager "How much is that new Barbie in the window?"
The Manager replied, "Which one? We have, 'Barbie goes to the gym'for $19.95 ...
'Barbie goes to the Ball' for $19.95 ...
'Barbie goes shopping for $19.95 ...
'Barbie goes to the beach' for $19.95...
'Barbie goes to the Nightclub' for $19.95 ...
and 'Divorced Barbie' for $375.00."
"Why is the Divorced Barbie $375.00, when all the others are $19.95?" Dad asked surprised.
"Divorced Barbie comes with Ken's car, Ken's House, Ken's boat, Ken's dog, Ken's cat and Ken's furniture."
The Manager replied, "Which one? We have, 'Barbie goes to the gym'for $19.95 ...
'Barbie goes to the Ball' for $19.95 ...
'Barbie goes shopping for $19.95 ...
'Barbie goes to the beach' for $19.95...
'Barbie goes to the Nightclub' for $19.95 ...
and 'Divorced Barbie' for $375.00."
"Why is the Divorced Barbie $375.00, when all the others are $19.95?" Dad asked surprised.
"Divorced Barbie comes with Ken's car, Ken's House, Ken's boat, Ken's dog, Ken's cat and Ken's furniture."
more...
house flicks like Superbad and
Macaca
12-21 10:53 AM
Bush boxed in his congressional foes (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-congress21dec21,1,2311328.story) Democrats took the Hill but were stymied by a steadfast president By Janet Hook | LA Times, Dec 21, 2007
WASHINGTON � Just over a year ago, a chastened President Bush acknowledged that his party had taken a "thumping" in the congressional elections, and he greeted the new Democratic majority at the weakest point of his presidency.
But since then, Democrats in Congress have taken a thumping of their own as Bush has curbed their budget demands, blocked a cherished children's health initiative, stalled the drive to withdraw troops from Iraq and stymied all efforts to raise taxes.
Rather than turn tail for his last two years in the White House, Bush has used every remaining weapon in his depleted arsenal -- the veto, executive orders, the loyalty of Republicans in Congress -- to keep Democrats from getting their way.He has struck a combative pose, dashing hopes that he would be more accommodating in the wake of his party's drubbing in the 2006 midterm voting.
Bush's own second-term domestic agenda is a shambles: His ambitions to overhaul Social Security and immigration law are dead; plans to update his signature education program have foundered; few other initiatives are waiting in the wings.
But on a host of foreign and domestic policy issues, backed by a remarkably disciplined Republican Party in the House and Senate, Bush has been able to confound Democrats. It has been a source of great frustration to the party that came to power with sky-high expectations and the belief it had a mandate for change. And it is a vivid reminder of how much clout even a weakened president can have -- especially one as single-minded as Bush.
"We have custody of Congress, but we don't have control," said Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Valley Village). "Bush has shown, time and again, that he's a very stubborn guy. November 2006 didn't change that."
Many Republicans have been surprised and impressed with Bush's continuing power -- even when he has used it to ends they disagreed with.
"At the beginning of the year, most of us viewed the president as having less control over the process than ever," said Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), a moderate who voted against Bush on healthcare, the budget and other issues. "But this year, he realized more goals than in a lot of the years when he had Republicans controlling Congress."
At a news conference Thursday after Congress adjourned for the year, Bush had kind words for much of Congress' work and did not gloat over his success in keeping Democrats' ambitions in check.
"What ended up happening was good for the country," he said.
Democrats blamed this year's congressional gridlock on Bush, but his inflexibility on key issues was just one factor.
Republican lawmakers showed scant interest in compromise. Democrats were riven by internal divisions. And Bush did little to unite rather than divide the factions on Capitol Hill. He did not much resemble the kind of politician he was as governor of Texas, when he forged a strong relationship with the Democratic lieutenant governor.
Immediately after the 2006 election, it looked as if Bush might offer Democrats an olive branch and set a more bipartisan tone. He let go controversial Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. He called incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) at home on Christmas. After years of ignoring congressional Democrats, he began inviting them by the dozen to the White House to hear them out.
But the honeymoon did not last long. Democrats were furious when, after an election they believed was a mandate to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, Bush in January announced a buildup. A few weeks later, he went around Congress and issued an executive order giving the White House greater control over the rules and policies issued by regulatory agencies. White House meetings with Democrats turned partisan -- and then petered out. Bush repeatedly reached for the bluntest of presidential tools -- the veto.
His first veto this year nixed a war spending bill that included a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq. Democrats' promise to press the issue all year lost steam after testimony in September from the top commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, instilled confidence in Republicans whose commitment to the war had grown shaky. Without more GOP defections, Democrats in the Senate were powerless to undercut Bush's war policy.
Bush also wielded his veto power to great effect on domestic issues.
He blocked Democratic efforts to expand stem cell research, a popular bill that had broad bipartisan support. The failed effort to override that veto provided a window onto a dynamic that was key to Bush's source of strength throughout the year: Many moderate Republicans parted ways with the president on the stem cell override vote -- as they later did on his veto of the children's health bill -- but there were enough conservatives who agreed with him to sustain his vetoes.
Bush issued a barrage of veto threats to curb Democrats' domestic spending plans -- an effort that helped him regain some favor among fiscal conservatives who had lambasted him for allowing the Republican-controlled Congress to jack up spending to record levels.
"Fiscal conservatives can see the president getting stronger on spending this year than in the previous six years," said Brian Riedl, a budget expert at the Heritage Foundation.
Democrats had wanted to add $22 billion to Bush's funding request. But he drew a line in the sand and guarded it for months. He vetoed a bill packed with spending for education, health and other popular programs. The final budget approved this week adhered to his overall spending limit -- and dropped riders on abortion and other issues he objected to. And it included the money for the Iraq war with no strings attached.
Bush also held the line against Democrats' efforts to raise taxes, which they proposed to offset the costs of new health spending, energy programs and a middle-class tax break. Faced with Bush's veto, Democrats could not enact taxes on such inviting targets as cigarettes, wealthy hedge-fund managers and big oil companies.
Bush's Republican allies were almost giddy with their unexpected success.
"Who would have thought a year ago that Democrats would have come down to the president's budget number, that we would be ending the year by funding the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that we could complete the year without raising taxes on the American people?" said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). "And all despite having a Democrat majority in Congress."
Heading into the 2008 elections, Democrats will have to keep their supporters from becoming demoralized over not being able to deliver more with their majority.
"It's hard for them to understand, and it's even harder for us to live with," said Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.).
But Democrats are trying to turn their tribulations into a campaign issue by telling voters that the party will not really have a working majority until they expand their Senate caucus from the current 51 to 60 -- the number they need to block GOP filibusters and other stalling tactics.
The tag line on a fundraising pitch by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee: "51 seats is not enough. Help us turn our country around."
Acknowledging that GOP victories this year consisted simply of blocking Democrats, some Republicans say they will have to develop a more positive agenda to build a successful political brand. Said Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), "The product we're selling is negative."
WASHINGTON � Just over a year ago, a chastened President Bush acknowledged that his party had taken a "thumping" in the congressional elections, and he greeted the new Democratic majority at the weakest point of his presidency.
But since then, Democrats in Congress have taken a thumping of their own as Bush has curbed their budget demands, blocked a cherished children's health initiative, stalled the drive to withdraw troops from Iraq and stymied all efforts to raise taxes.
Rather than turn tail for his last two years in the White House, Bush has used every remaining weapon in his depleted arsenal -- the veto, executive orders, the loyalty of Republicans in Congress -- to keep Democrats from getting their way.He has struck a combative pose, dashing hopes that he would be more accommodating in the wake of his party's drubbing in the 2006 midterm voting.
Bush's own second-term domestic agenda is a shambles: His ambitions to overhaul Social Security and immigration law are dead; plans to update his signature education program have foundered; few other initiatives are waiting in the wings.
But on a host of foreign and domestic policy issues, backed by a remarkably disciplined Republican Party in the House and Senate, Bush has been able to confound Democrats. It has been a source of great frustration to the party that came to power with sky-high expectations and the belief it had a mandate for change. And it is a vivid reminder of how much clout even a weakened president can have -- especially one as single-minded as Bush.
"We have custody of Congress, but we don't have control," said Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Valley Village). "Bush has shown, time and again, that he's a very stubborn guy. November 2006 didn't change that."
Many Republicans have been surprised and impressed with Bush's continuing power -- even when he has used it to ends they disagreed with.
"At the beginning of the year, most of us viewed the president as having less control over the process than ever," said Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), a moderate who voted against Bush on healthcare, the budget and other issues. "But this year, he realized more goals than in a lot of the years when he had Republicans controlling Congress."
At a news conference Thursday after Congress adjourned for the year, Bush had kind words for much of Congress' work and did not gloat over his success in keeping Democrats' ambitions in check.
"What ended up happening was good for the country," he said.
Democrats blamed this year's congressional gridlock on Bush, but his inflexibility on key issues was just one factor.
Republican lawmakers showed scant interest in compromise. Democrats were riven by internal divisions. And Bush did little to unite rather than divide the factions on Capitol Hill. He did not much resemble the kind of politician he was as governor of Texas, when he forged a strong relationship with the Democratic lieutenant governor.
Immediately after the 2006 election, it looked as if Bush might offer Democrats an olive branch and set a more bipartisan tone. He let go controversial Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. He called incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) at home on Christmas. After years of ignoring congressional Democrats, he began inviting them by the dozen to the White House to hear them out.
But the honeymoon did not last long. Democrats were furious when, after an election they believed was a mandate to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, Bush in January announced a buildup. A few weeks later, he went around Congress and issued an executive order giving the White House greater control over the rules and policies issued by regulatory agencies. White House meetings with Democrats turned partisan -- and then petered out. Bush repeatedly reached for the bluntest of presidential tools -- the veto.
His first veto this year nixed a war spending bill that included a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq. Democrats' promise to press the issue all year lost steam after testimony in September from the top commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, instilled confidence in Republicans whose commitment to the war had grown shaky. Without more GOP defections, Democrats in the Senate were powerless to undercut Bush's war policy.
Bush also wielded his veto power to great effect on domestic issues.
He blocked Democratic efforts to expand stem cell research, a popular bill that had broad bipartisan support. The failed effort to override that veto provided a window onto a dynamic that was key to Bush's source of strength throughout the year: Many moderate Republicans parted ways with the president on the stem cell override vote -- as they later did on his veto of the children's health bill -- but there were enough conservatives who agreed with him to sustain his vetoes.
Bush issued a barrage of veto threats to curb Democrats' domestic spending plans -- an effort that helped him regain some favor among fiscal conservatives who had lambasted him for allowing the Republican-controlled Congress to jack up spending to record levels.
"Fiscal conservatives can see the president getting stronger on spending this year than in the previous six years," said Brian Riedl, a budget expert at the Heritage Foundation.
Democrats had wanted to add $22 billion to Bush's funding request. But he drew a line in the sand and guarded it for months. He vetoed a bill packed with spending for education, health and other popular programs. The final budget approved this week adhered to his overall spending limit -- and dropped riders on abortion and other issues he objected to. And it included the money for the Iraq war with no strings attached.
Bush also held the line against Democrats' efforts to raise taxes, which they proposed to offset the costs of new health spending, energy programs and a middle-class tax break. Faced with Bush's veto, Democrats could not enact taxes on such inviting targets as cigarettes, wealthy hedge-fund managers and big oil companies.
Bush's Republican allies were almost giddy with their unexpected success.
"Who would have thought a year ago that Democrats would have come down to the president's budget number, that we would be ending the year by funding the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that we could complete the year without raising taxes on the American people?" said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). "And all despite having a Democrat majority in Congress."
Heading into the 2008 elections, Democrats will have to keep their supporters from becoming demoralized over not being able to deliver more with their majority.
"It's hard for them to understand, and it's even harder for us to live with," said Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.).
But Democrats are trying to turn their tribulations into a campaign issue by telling voters that the party will not really have a working majority until they expand their Senate caucus from the current 51 to 60 -- the number they need to block GOP filibusters and other stalling tactics.
The tag line on a fundraising pitch by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee: "51 seats is not enough. Help us turn our country around."
Acknowledging that GOP victories this year consisted simply of blocking Democrats, some Republicans say they will have to develop a more positive agenda to build a successful political brand. Said Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), "The product we're selling is negative."
tattoo hilarious movie ” superbad
Refugee_New
01-06 02:32 PM
Yes, they definitely have...Hamas should stop using school kids as human shield before complaining. Heres link for you - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elyXQ6g-TJs
Gaza is a small town where more than 1.5 million people live there. Hamas is part and parcel of Gaza because they are elected by palestinian people and wherever they go, its full of people. Its a small land with crowded people. Gaza is like a crowded market.
Again you are trying to justify the killing of innocent school kids and civilian. This is a big LIE constantly told by media to cover up the massacre. This is part of their divide and rule strategy. This Lie is something similar to WMD claim.
Do you think Indian police will bomb the crowded street in order to kill a theif, then blame the theif that he is hiding behind civilian?
Gaza is a small town where more than 1.5 million people live there. Hamas is part and parcel of Gaza because they are elected by palestinian people and wherever they go, its full of people. Its a small land with crowded people. Gaza is like a crowded market.
Again you are trying to justify the killing of innocent school kids and civilian. This is a big LIE constantly told by media to cover up the massacre. This is part of their divide and rule strategy. This Lie is something similar to WMD claim.
Do you think Indian police will bomb the crowded street in order to kill a theif, then blame the theif that he is hiding behind civilian?
more...
pictures hilarious movie ” superbad
mariner5555
04-20 01:04 AM
since nothing much is happening - I thought that I would post this - seems like a worst case scenario -but who knows ..some of his predictions have already come true ..this was interview on mar 24.
---------
Q. Where are home prices going?
A. Two years ago, I predicted home prices would fall cumulatively 20%, but now I believe it will be at least 30%.
With a 20% fall in home prices, about 16 million households are under water. They have negative equity, which means the value of their homes is below the value of their mortgages. With a 30% drop in prices, you have 21 million households that are in negative equity. And since the mortgages are no-recourse loans, essentially they can walk away.
Even if only half of the 16 million households were to walk away, that alone could lead to losses for the financial system of $1 trillion. Even a 20% drop in home values may imply losses of $1 trillion that are not priced into the market today. So that's the floor. Again, it could be higher — as much as $2 trillion — if prices fall 30% and more people walk.
Q. You are predicting problems in commercial real estate, which we haven't seen yet. When do you expect the crisis to hit?
A. The same kind of reckless lending practices that occurred in subprime also occurred in commercial real estate — things like really high loan-to-value ratios and inflated estimations of how much rent would increase. If you look at the CMBX index (which tracks bonds backed by real estate loans), the spreads imply a huge number of defaults on existing commercial real estate loans. More important, the market for new commercial real estate loans is totally frozen, like the one for subprime new originations.
Q. But when will this happen?
A. That shoe has not dropped yet. But I expect the severe recession in residential housing will lead to a severe recession in commercial real estate. The reason is simple: If you go west, you have entire ghost towns outside of Phoenix, Las Vegas and throughout California. Who is going to be building new shopping centers, shopping malls, offices and stores where you have ghost towns? Also, there has been a lot of commercial real estate activity in the last couple of years, including a huge increase in retail capacity at a time of consumer-led recession. So, I expect [a commercial real estate] collapse will occur in the next few quarters.
Q. How bad will things get?
A. I would argue this is the worst financial crisis the U.S. has had since the Great Depression. We haven't seen this type of real financial turmoil for the last 70 years. Of course, it's not going to be as bad as the Great Depression. But this isn't your typical run-of-the-mill recession that in the last two episodes lasted only eight months with a minor contraction in output. This is going to last at least 12 months and more likely 18 months, which is something we haven't seen in decades.
Q. So you expect the economy to start turning around in mid-2009?
A. The real economic activity, yes. But some parts of the system are going to be in a severe contraction for much longer; home prices are going to keep falling for another three years, in my view. And the financial mess is going to take years to clean up.
-----------------------------
---------
Q. Where are home prices going?
A. Two years ago, I predicted home prices would fall cumulatively 20%, but now I believe it will be at least 30%.
With a 20% fall in home prices, about 16 million households are under water. They have negative equity, which means the value of their homes is below the value of their mortgages. With a 30% drop in prices, you have 21 million households that are in negative equity. And since the mortgages are no-recourse loans, essentially they can walk away.
Even if only half of the 16 million households were to walk away, that alone could lead to losses for the financial system of $1 trillion. Even a 20% drop in home values may imply losses of $1 trillion that are not priced into the market today. So that's the floor. Again, it could be higher — as much as $2 trillion — if prices fall 30% and more people walk.
Q. You are predicting problems in commercial real estate, which we haven't seen yet. When do you expect the crisis to hit?
A. The same kind of reckless lending practices that occurred in subprime also occurred in commercial real estate — things like really high loan-to-value ratios and inflated estimations of how much rent would increase. If you look at the CMBX index (which tracks bonds backed by real estate loans), the spreads imply a huge number of defaults on existing commercial real estate loans. More important, the market for new commercial real estate loans is totally frozen, like the one for subprime new originations.
Q. But when will this happen?
A. That shoe has not dropped yet. But I expect the severe recession in residential housing will lead to a severe recession in commercial real estate. The reason is simple: If you go west, you have entire ghost towns outside of Phoenix, Las Vegas and throughout California. Who is going to be building new shopping centers, shopping malls, offices and stores where you have ghost towns? Also, there has been a lot of commercial real estate activity in the last couple of years, including a huge increase in retail capacity at a time of consumer-led recession. So, I expect [a commercial real estate] collapse will occur in the next few quarters.
Q. How bad will things get?
A. I would argue this is the worst financial crisis the U.S. has had since the Great Depression. We haven't seen this type of real financial turmoil for the last 70 years. Of course, it's not going to be as bad as the Great Depression. But this isn't your typical run-of-the-mill recession that in the last two episodes lasted only eight months with a minor contraction in output. This is going to last at least 12 months and more likely 18 months, which is something we haven't seen in decades.
Q. So you expect the economy to start turning around in mid-2009?
A. The real economic activity, yes. But some parts of the system are going to be in a severe contraction for much longer; home prices are going to keep falling for another three years, in my view. And the financial mess is going to take years to clean up.
-----------------------------
dresses of Superbad and Forgetting
somegchuh
03-24 07:33 PM
Ok, so everytime I see a rent vs buy discussion I see apartment living compared with living in a house. This may not apply to a lot of other places but here's how it goes in SF Bay Area:
Rental
Apartment: Decent sized 2 Bed/2 Bath --- $1600 pm
House : Decent sized 3 bed/2.5 bath --- $2000 pm
Mortgage:
House : Decent sized 3 bed/2.5 bath --- $3500 pm
So, is additional 1500 pm worth the money? Why not rent a house? What's the point of trying to get into a sliding market when even Greenspan can't say where the bottom is?
I am in a decent sized apartment right now and if I have to upgrade its a rental house. Buying in a sliding real estate market doesn't make sense to me.
Rental
Apartment: Decent sized 2 Bed/2 Bath --- $1600 pm
House : Decent sized 3 bed/2.5 bath --- $2000 pm
Mortgage:
House : Decent sized 3 bed/2.5 bath --- $3500 pm
So, is additional 1500 pm worth the money? Why not rent a house? What's the point of trying to get into a sliding market when even Greenspan can't say where the bottom is?
I am in a decent sized apartment right now and if I have to upgrade its a rental house. Buying in a sliding real estate market doesn't make sense to me.
more...
makeup Superbad Comrade - Disturbia
logiclife
02-21 12:52 PM
Lou dobbs, Pat Buchanan and people of that kind are full of vanity. It is wise to tune out such guys and make sure that they do not affect policy decisions in congress. I dont think policy makers care for his rant on TV.
Pat Buchanan atleast ran for President for a couple of times. He has a lot of wrong ideas especially about immigration but he wanted to do something about whatever he believed in. And he actually did work in public service in the seventies in the Nixon White House.
This guy Dobbs, claims to know everything that's wrong with congress, the laws, the trade agreements, and all he does is preach. Why doesnt he run for congress and fix things he thinks are so easy to fix. If he is so smart and able, then he should really run for congress and do what he thinks his right.
The reality is... the chamber of House is no CNN studio. If a trust-fund, Preppie kid like him went to Congress, he wouldnt last a week.
Pat Buchanan atleast ran for President for a couple of times. He has a lot of wrong ideas especially about immigration but he wanted to do something about whatever he believed in. And he actually did work in public service in the seventies in the Nixon White House.
This guy Dobbs, claims to know everything that's wrong with congress, the laws, the trade agreements, and all he does is preach. Why doesnt he run for congress and fix things he thinks are so easy to fix. If he is so smart and able, then he should really run for congress and do what he thinks his right.
The reality is... the chamber of House is no CNN studio. If a trust-fund, Preppie kid like him went to Congress, he wouldnt last a week.
girlfriend Superbad - Movie Reviews
gapala
06-23 10:28 PM
Lot of folks talk about tax credit of 8000 in several threads, But, understand that a lot of us in this forum may not even get a dime in credit. There are income limits. Married and income above 170000 will get nothing.. nada. If the income is 165000, you will receive a mere 2000 and so on. Married with less than 150000 will receive 8000. For a single, the limit is 75K.
If both husband and wife works in tech sector.. income will easily cross the limits and you will be considered too rich to buy a home and get credit... May be car credit might work for us as limits are higher... it only applies to sales tax charged on the first $49,500 of your purchase The income limit is high enough that nearly everyone will qualify. The credit starts to phase out at $125,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples. Once you reach $135,000 and $260,000, respectively, you no longer qualify for car credit.
If both husband and wife works in tech sector.. income will easily cross the limits and you will be considered too rich to buy a home and get credit... May be car credit might work for us as limits are higher... it only applies to sales tax charged on the first $49,500 of your purchase The income limit is high enough that nearly everyone will qualify. The credit starts to phase out at $125,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples. Once you reach $135,000 and $260,000, respectively, you no longer qualify for car credit.
hairstyles With the movie coming out over
DSJ
05-17 02:43 PM
Come on man don't preach here. Your so called paid *permanent job* is to do work at your office, not spend time in this forum to post lengthy text.
Do you think what you are doing is legal or illegal to your company.
Reality is, being a 'consultant' on the bench is illegal.
Do you think what you are doing is legal or illegal to your company.
Reality is, being a 'consultant' on the bench is illegal.
Ahimsa
11-13 06:37 PM
Just watched Lou Dobbs tonight.
Lou tried his usual tactic of calling politicians "powerful".
He said "Next guest is the most powerful chairman, likely chairman, of the ways and means committee in the senate, Charlie Rangel".
Charlie rebutted immediately "I don't know what you mean by that. You can call powerful or whatever, but what we think will matter is how to get things done by working together..."
Lou will never change his course...
Lou tried his usual tactic of calling politicians "powerful".
He said "Next guest is the most powerful chairman, likely chairman, of the ways and means committee in the senate, Charlie Rangel".
Charlie rebutted immediately "I don't know what you mean by that. You can call powerful or whatever, but what we think will matter is how to get things done by working together..."
Lou will never change his course...
boreal
08-30 11:28 PM
This is hilarious........
http://odeo.com/episodes/7076453
Funny...But this is so so made up..first of all this guy doesnt have an "Indian accent"..it is so "appu"..and every Indian can recognize an Indian accent from a mile! (and "raj" - how original!!)..and second - the woman's accent..it doesnt like that of someone who came from India only 3 yrs back (even counting those who start putting on an accent as soon as they land here)....I guess some ABCD ( no offense ) trying to make a funny clip...funny alright..but most probably made up...
http://odeo.com/episodes/7076453
Funny...But this is so so made up..first of all this guy doesnt have an "Indian accent"..it is so "appu"..and every Indian can recognize an Indian accent from a mile! (and "raj" - how original!!)..and second - the woman's accent..it doesnt like that of someone who came from India only 3 yrs back (even counting those who start putting on an accent as soon as they land here)....I guess some ABCD ( no offense ) trying to make a funny clip...funny alright..but most probably made up...
No comments:
Post a Comment