burnt
04-01 02:24 PM
Hello burnt
From my own experience USCIS actually called me directly . So don't be surprised USCIS calling your attorney. The best thing about the call was the immigration officer, verified all my info and notified on my 485 approval and my wife on that same call. It was hard to believe it , since even infopass couldn't confirm my approval. And I recieved my card in just 3 business days after the approval. So chill out , its a good thing that USCIS is trying to resolve your case. nothing to be worried about
cheers
Thanks For replying!. Just a little surprised as I was expecting an RFE for medicals, but the fact that USCIS personally calling my attorney just surprises me.
From my own experience USCIS actually called me directly . So don't be surprised USCIS calling your attorney. The best thing about the call was the immigration officer, verified all my info and notified on my 485 approval and my wife on that same call. It was hard to believe it , since even infopass couldn't confirm my approval. And I recieved my card in just 3 business days after the approval. So chill out , its a good thing that USCIS is trying to resolve your case. nothing to be worried about
cheers
Thanks For replying!. Just a little surprised as I was expecting an RFE for medicals, but the fact that USCIS personally calling my attorney just surprises me.
wallpaper Physical Map of Central Asia
senthil1
05-16 11:33 PM
Behave like a high skilled person. Do not use bad words just because someone is against your opinion. Again if you use everything is appilcable to you. That means you are losing track and you do not have valid argument. You do not have sense that this thread is not for discussion for gc. This thread is about the H1b issue and Durbin bill. This my last reply for you. I will ignore you hereafter if you behave like this. I wasted my time for replying you. So you also do not reply my arguments.
The greater danger in life is not that we set our aims too high and fail, but we set them too low and still do � Michelangelo
Your aim is to not get fired. You want to buy an insurance policy to a secure job as if you are the only one entitled to have a job. This is a lower aim so you are bound to fail i.e. lose your job.
And how do you define �replacing some American workers�. There is a plant in Yuma, AZ manufacturing aircrafts for Kingfisher airlines in India. Doesn�t this mean that someone in India is being replaced by American worker???? Maybe we should stop all trade and we should have all needs of one country fill within its borders. Maybe we should say � from now on no one is going to do any business, collaboration, partnership and place orders to companies outside of the borders of the country where you live.
The best argument of restrictionist is either talk about no H-1B or green cards or talk about unlimited H-1Bs and green cards as if the extremes make the only reality in this world. Have you ever seen numbers like 290,000 or maybe 450,000. These are called whole numbers in mathematics and reside somewhere between ZERO and INFINITY/UNLIMITED.
Stop bickering in the name of American people. More than 99% Americans don�t even know what is H-1B visa or employment based green card. And one more thing, people�s opinion is the most foolish thing to look at when making a decision. Do you remember the % of people in favor of Iraq war in 2002? - More than 70%
Do you know how many people are in favor of pulling out of Iraq now, putting all the blame on the Administration? � around 70%
Do you know the % of �American people� saying that they screwed up by supporting the war in 2002? � 0%
No one would come out to say the nations and millions of people got screwed up due to "MY" twisted ideology in 2002. So let�s keep this argument of �American People� out of this debate.
In free market and capitalist economy, the measure of productivity doesn�t come from some lawmaker who is out of sink with reality or from the ideology of orgs like IEEE-USA or from posters like you. The measure of productivity comes from the employers and the companies. If employees on H-1Bs were unproductive then why are employers asking for more H-1Bs. I am sure my employer is not in love with me to give me check every two weeks. And if that is how it works best for the competitiveness and for the economy, society and the nation, then so be it. That is the reason why this society is more advanced. You may be afraid of such a situations/competitions but I am not scared of a scenario where someone who can perform a better job, either a citizen or someone on H-1B, takes my job. And I assure you that I won't whine about it. But that is ok, your way of thinking is all based on the premises that every one out is going to get you and some how you have to eliminate this competition at the soonest.
You have used the argument of abuse, productivity, economy, outsourcing, country of origin and the color of Dick Morris� underwear - to argue against H-1B and against green card number increase. Time and again I have said that this is not about H-1B. We, the people on this forum, want to discuss about GREEN CARD BACKLOGS. But you want to keep the discussion away from green card backlog and want the discussion be in the arena of H-1B. I must share with you that I have received atleast 7 different private messages telling me to �not waste my time with idiot like yourself�.
Like you ass, you keep your views and your opinions with yourself. Don�t poke your ass and your views into a place where they don�t belong. And please stop worrying about being displaced by someone else on H-1B. You have not even gotten green card and you have already turned into a restrictionist. Please wait for sometime and there will be enough time and opportunity for you to join the ranks of IEEE-USA. This makes me to think that there are 2 possibilities:
1.) You have very low self esteem and you have a low opinion about yourself. Thus you are scared of the competition
2.) You are not capable enough or you are not technically sound to compete with others around you. And just like IEEE-USA, you are looking for ways to eliminate your future probable competition using words/phrases like �displacement of US workers�.
The greater danger in life is not that we set our aims too high and fail, but we set them too low and still do � Michelangelo
Your aim is to not get fired. You want to buy an insurance policy to a secure job as if you are the only one entitled to have a job. This is a lower aim so you are bound to fail i.e. lose your job.
And how do you define �replacing some American workers�. There is a plant in Yuma, AZ manufacturing aircrafts for Kingfisher airlines in India. Doesn�t this mean that someone in India is being replaced by American worker???? Maybe we should stop all trade and we should have all needs of one country fill within its borders. Maybe we should say � from now on no one is going to do any business, collaboration, partnership and place orders to companies outside of the borders of the country where you live.
The best argument of restrictionist is either talk about no H-1B or green cards or talk about unlimited H-1Bs and green cards as if the extremes make the only reality in this world. Have you ever seen numbers like 290,000 or maybe 450,000. These are called whole numbers in mathematics and reside somewhere between ZERO and INFINITY/UNLIMITED.
Stop bickering in the name of American people. More than 99% Americans don�t even know what is H-1B visa or employment based green card. And one more thing, people�s opinion is the most foolish thing to look at when making a decision. Do you remember the % of people in favor of Iraq war in 2002? - More than 70%
Do you know how many people are in favor of pulling out of Iraq now, putting all the blame on the Administration? � around 70%
Do you know the % of �American people� saying that they screwed up by supporting the war in 2002? � 0%
No one would come out to say the nations and millions of people got screwed up due to "MY" twisted ideology in 2002. So let�s keep this argument of �American People� out of this debate.
In free market and capitalist economy, the measure of productivity doesn�t come from some lawmaker who is out of sink with reality or from the ideology of orgs like IEEE-USA or from posters like you. The measure of productivity comes from the employers and the companies. If employees on H-1Bs were unproductive then why are employers asking for more H-1Bs. I am sure my employer is not in love with me to give me check every two weeks. And if that is how it works best for the competitiveness and for the economy, society and the nation, then so be it. That is the reason why this society is more advanced. You may be afraid of such a situations/competitions but I am not scared of a scenario where someone who can perform a better job, either a citizen or someone on H-1B, takes my job. And I assure you that I won't whine about it. But that is ok, your way of thinking is all based on the premises that every one out is going to get you and some how you have to eliminate this competition at the soonest.
You have used the argument of abuse, productivity, economy, outsourcing, country of origin and the color of Dick Morris� underwear - to argue against H-1B and against green card number increase. Time and again I have said that this is not about H-1B. We, the people on this forum, want to discuss about GREEN CARD BACKLOGS. But you want to keep the discussion away from green card backlog and want the discussion be in the arena of H-1B. I must share with you that I have received atleast 7 different private messages telling me to �not waste my time with idiot like yourself�.
Like you ass, you keep your views and your opinions with yourself. Don�t poke your ass and your views into a place where they don�t belong. And please stop worrying about being displaced by someone else on H-1B. You have not even gotten green card and you have already turned into a restrictionist. Please wait for sometime and there will be enough time and opportunity for you to join the ranks of IEEE-USA. This makes me to think that there are 2 possibilities:
1.) You have very low self esteem and you have a low opinion about yourself. Thus you are scared of the competition
2.) You are not capable enough or you are not technically sound to compete with others around you. And just like IEEE-USA, you are looking for ways to eliminate your future probable competition using words/phrases like �displacement of US workers�.
willwin
07-13 12:38 PM
Again - want to continue a healthy debate, but as per the law, EB2 is more skilled than an EB3 and therefore gets precedence regardless of the date. If we split up the spill over 75/25 between EB2 and EB3 then what answer do we have to the more skilled EB2 candidate who did not get a visa number because a less skilled EB3 took the number based on an arbitrary split up (75/25) and because the EB3 has an earlier PD. Does it meet the meritocracy test which is the intent of the law.
I may sound plain and harsh but thats the categorization as per existing law not my personal opinion.
Split up of 75-25 definitely covers interest of both parties. I don't think an EB2 with PD 2007 will have grudge over an EB3 PD 2002 getting his/her GC before. As a matter of fact, as you said, looking through the eyes of governance, I don't think it is illogical. EB3 has lower preference as compared to EB2 but not zero preference! So, an EB3 2002 getting his GC before EB2 2007 is not insane, again, per my belief. You cannot say 100-0 is justice - come on!
I may sound plain and harsh but thats the categorization as per existing law not my personal opinion.
Split up of 75-25 definitely covers interest of both parties. I don't think an EB2 with PD 2007 will have grudge over an EB3 PD 2002 getting his/her GC before. As a matter of fact, as you said, looking through the eyes of governance, I don't think it is illogical. EB3 has lower preference as compared to EB2 but not zero preference! So, an EB3 2002 getting his GC before EB2 2007 is not insane, again, per my belief. You cannot say 100-0 is justice - come on!
2011 WHAT IS PHYSICAL RELIEF MAP
abracadabra102
01-02 11:39 AM
Non-state actors are mentioned a lot here. Who are these non-state actors and who is responsible for acts of these non-state actors? If a few Pakistani citizens cross over and strike Indian cities at random and disappear back into Pakistan, what are India's options? Just to pray that in some 30-50 years into future all Pakistani terrorists will somehow realize their folly and turn into saints?
We are also missing the elephant in the room. India has 150 million muslims and we have our share of Hindu fundamentalists. These Hindu fundamentalist groups have been trying for a long time to equate terrorism to Islam (targeting Indian muslims) and Indian public at large rejected this notion so far (rightly so) and that may change in future and it may not be long before a Narendra Modi becomes Prime Minister. It will be a shame if a few terrorists destroyed that very tenet of India - "Unity in Diversity".
We are also missing the elephant in the room. India has 150 million muslims and we have our share of Hindu fundamentalists. These Hindu fundamentalist groups have been trying for a long time to equate terrorism to Islam (targeting Indian muslims) and Indian public at large rejected this notion so far (rightly so) and that may change in future and it may not be long before a Narendra Modi becomes Prime Minister. It will be a shame if a few terrorists destroyed that very tenet of India - "Unity in Diversity".
more...
puddonhead
06-07 06:22 PM
I think it really is a matter of personal choice. A house is much more than a mere investment. For people like us it adds another layer of complications
due to our status (or rather...lack of status).
We are in Bay Area (San Jose Metro area) and were paying around $2000 in rent. We just bought a condo where our payments (mortgage + Taxes + HoA) are going
to be around 2300. Hopefully we will be getting back around 400-500 in taxes and this makes it a good deal. However only 15 days after moving into our
new house, I was laid off and now our biggest concern is if I am not able to get a job in next few weeks and if we have to go back we will be almost
80k down the hole.
Personally I would wait till 2012 beginning to consider getting into Cali, Las Vegas, Florida markets. The neg-am/interest-only bubble (BusinessWeek Article (http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/jun2008/bw2008065_526168.htm?campaign_id=yhoo)) is just beginning to burst with their interest rates resetting, and wont peak until late 2011. This bubble is just as big as the sub-prime one (in terms of dollar value - around USD 0.5 - 1.5 Trillion) and will probably have much higher default rate (north of 50% by all estimates I have seen so far). These loans were originated to make the high priced homes in these area affordable. So it will hit the middle class to aspirational neighborhoods the most - unlike the sub-primes, which mostly hit the lower income areas.
I don't mean to sound disheartening - just want to provide info and interpretation as I see it so that people can avoid getting into this trap.
Personally, I am also surprised/uncomfortable that the prices in the NY Metro Area has not come down so much even though all the indicators (rent/price ratio, affordability) are way off base and getting worse with rents heading south. I don't know how these ratios will correct themselves (the neg-am mess is unlikely to hit this area too much) - but my intuition tells me that it has to. If anybody more knowledgeable can add more insights then that will be great.
due to our status (or rather...lack of status).
We are in Bay Area (San Jose Metro area) and were paying around $2000 in rent. We just bought a condo where our payments (mortgage + Taxes + HoA) are going
to be around 2300. Hopefully we will be getting back around 400-500 in taxes and this makes it a good deal. However only 15 days after moving into our
new house, I was laid off and now our biggest concern is if I am not able to get a job in next few weeks and if we have to go back we will be almost
80k down the hole.
Personally I would wait till 2012 beginning to consider getting into Cali, Las Vegas, Florida markets. The neg-am/interest-only bubble (BusinessWeek Article (http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/jun2008/bw2008065_526168.htm?campaign_id=yhoo)) is just beginning to burst with their interest rates resetting, and wont peak until late 2011. This bubble is just as big as the sub-prime one (in terms of dollar value - around USD 0.5 - 1.5 Trillion) and will probably have much higher default rate (north of 50% by all estimates I have seen so far). These loans were originated to make the high priced homes in these area affordable. So it will hit the middle class to aspirational neighborhoods the most - unlike the sub-primes, which mostly hit the lower income areas.
I don't mean to sound disheartening - just want to provide info and interpretation as I see it so that people can avoid getting into this trap.
Personally, I am also surprised/uncomfortable that the prices in the NY Metro Area has not come down so much even though all the indicators (rent/price ratio, affordability) are way off base and getting worse with rents heading south. I don't know how these ratios will correct themselves (the neg-am mess is unlikely to hit this area too much) - but my intuition tells me that it has to. If anybody more knowledgeable can add more insights then that will be great.
Bpositive
01-06 04:50 PM
"They win people like you who would support killing on innocent civilians and school kids. "
You must be kidding me!!
You must be kidding me!!
more...
arunmohan
03-25 04:48 PM
www.ushomeauction.com
2010 tattoo makeup physical map of
lfwf
08-06 04:19 PM
I thought you ported pascal's id :)
:D
:D
more...
logiclife
05-31 05:25 PM
The congress, the president and everyone is crazy. Except Lou Dobbs. Lou Dobbs is the only one who is doing the sane talk.
Read the smart Einstein-like man's column here:
The whole world is crazy except me (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/30/dobbs.May31/index.html)
I will post my own editorial on his editorial on CNN, once I get a minute. In the mean time, seriously, take a drink or two before you read this contribution from Lou Dobbs.
Read the smart Einstein-like man's column here:
The whole world is crazy except me (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/30/dobbs.May31/index.html)
I will post my own editorial on his editorial on CNN, once I get a minute. In the mean time, seriously, take a drink or two before you read this contribution from Lou Dobbs.
hair physical map of turkmenistan.
Eternal_Hope
03-29 09:15 AM
I was watching Lou Dobbs yesterday he was discussing STRIVE act being introduced in house,
He pulled out a slide which says they bring 2 million legals every year and part of which said 400,000 H1Bs every year,
Where does he get this number when anual quota is only 65K, can some one verify this
I have seen him do this earlier also. I think he adds the dependants too. So, what he is saying is that with every H-1B comes 5 or 6 dependants!!!!
He pulled out a slide which says they bring 2 million legals every year and part of which said 400,000 H1Bs every year,
Where does he get this number when anual quota is only 65K, can some one verify this
I have seen him do this earlier also. I think he adds the dependants too. So, what he is saying is that with every H-1B comes 5 or 6 dependants!!!!
more...
pitha
09-26 06:24 PM
Barack Obama the socialist with his protectionist\restrictionist measures will not create jobs but will destroy the capitalist america. In addition to "creating" jobs by stopping "JOBS BEING SHIPPED OVERSEAS", he will also "create" jobs by kicking you and me out of USA. Lookout for draconian H1b restrictions, points based system, removal of AC21 and amnesty for illegals by obama-kennedy-durbin CIR. Not sure MCcain would do anything for us but one thing for sure he wont be anti to eb folks. Just like Bush who might not have done anything for us but atleast during the july 2007 visa bulletin fiasco his administration (chertof, rice ) atleast reversed the July bulletin after the flower campaign. Durbin-obama would thrown the flowers on our face and kick us out.
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.
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.
hot Nicaragua Watershed Map
Macaca
10-14 11:06 AM
Getting Around Rules on Lobbying: Despite New Law, Firms Find Ways To Ply Politicians (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/13/AR2007101301275.html?hpid=topnews) By Elizabeth Williamson | Washington Post Staff Writer, October 14, 2007
In recent days, about 100 members of Congress and hundreds of Hill staffers attended two black-tie galas, many of them as guests of corporations and lobbyists that paid as much as $2,500 per ticket.
Because accepting such gifts from special interests is now illegal, the companies did not hand the tickets directly to lawmakers or staffers. Instead, the companies donated the tickets back to the charity sponsors, with the names of recipients they wanted to see and sit with at the galas.
The arrangement was one of the most visible efforts, but hardly the only one, to get around new rules passed by Congress this summer limiting meals, travel, gifts and campaign contributions from lobbyists and companies that employ them.
Last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and Republican leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) found bipartisan agreement on maintaining one special privilege. Together they put language into a defense appropriations bill that would keep legal the practice of some senators of booking several flights on days they return home, keeping the most convenient reservation and dumping the rest without paying cancellation fees -- a practice some airlines say could violate the new law.
Senators also have granted themselves a grace period on requirements that they pay pricey charter rates for private jet travel. Lobbyists continue to bundle political contributions to lawmakers but are now making sure the totals do not trigger new public reporting rules. And with presidential nominating conventions coming next summer, lawmakers and lobbyists are working together to save another tradition endangered by the new rules: the convention party feting one lawmaker.
"You can't have a party honoring a specific member. It's clear to me -- but it's not clear to everybody," said Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairman of the Senate ethics committee. She said the committee is getting "these questions that surround the edges -- 'If it's midnight the night before,' 'If I wear one shoe and not the other.' "
Democrats touted the new ethics law as the most thorough housecleaning since Watergate, and needed after a host of scandals during 12 years of Republican rule. Prompted by disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff's wheeling and dealing and the jailing of three members of Congress on corruption charges in recent years, the law, signed by President Bush on Sept. 14, was heralded by congressional leaders as a real change in Washington's influence game.
But the changes have prompted anxiety about what perks are still permissible. In recent months, the House and Senate ethics committees have fielded more than 1,000 questions from lobbyists and congressional staffers seeking guidance -- or an outright waiver -- for rules banning weekend trips and pricey wedding gifts, five-course dinners and backstage passes.
Looking for ways to keep spreading freebies legally, hundreds of lobbyists have been attending seminars at Washington law firms to learn the ins and outs of the new law.
At a recent American League of Lobbyists briefing, Cleta Mitchell of the Foley & Lardner law firm said that while the law bans lobbyists from buying lawmakers or staffers a meal, it is silent on picking up bar tabs. A woman in the third row asked hopefully, "You can buy them as many drinks as you want, as often as you want?"
No, Mitchell said, not unless the drinkers are the lobbyist's personal friends, and she pays from her own pocket.
If that rule was clear to some, two charity dinners allowed hazier interpretations.
Most of the 40 lawmakers dining on red snapper ceviche and beef tenderloin at the recent Hispanic Caucus Institute gala at the Washington Convention Center got their tickets from corporations, said Paul Brathwaite, a principal with the Podesta Group lobbying firm.
Brathwaite said about a dozen of Podesta's corporate clients bought tables of 10 for $5,000 to $25,000 for the Hispanic dinner and the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation gala over the past three weeks. The companies then gave the tickets back to the foundations -- along with lists of lawmakers and staff members they wanted to invite. Some lawmakers did buy their own tickets, Brathwaite said, but many did not.
The rules require that charity sponsors do the inviting and decide who sits where. But "at the end of the night, everyone is happy," said Hispanic Caucus Institute spokesman Scott Gunderson Rosa.
"The corporate folks want us at their tables, of course," said Rep. Raul M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.), who sat at a Fannie Mae-sponsored table at the Hispanic dinner.
Another provision of the new ethics law bans House members from flying on corporate jets. But senators, including the half-dozen presidential candidates among them, can still do so. Previously they were required to reimburse plane owners the equivalent of a first-class ticket, but now they must pay charter rates, which can increase travel costs tenfold.
The Senate ethics committee decided not to enforce that rule for at least 60 days after it took effect Sept. 14, citing "the lack of experience in many offices in determining 'charter rates.' "
The decision surprised some Senate staffers, Mitchell said, one of whom e-mailed her to say, "Welcome to the world of skirting around the rules we pass."
"Breathtaking. . . . In my view, they're not complying with the plain language of the law," Mitchell said. "I think it should be easier for members of Congress to travel, not harder. But what I don't appreciate as a citizen is Congress passing something but then interpreting it so it doesn't mean what the law clearly says."
The law has dragged into view several such perks that members long enjoyed but didn't reveal -- until they sought exemptions to the new rules.
Lawmakers for years have booked several flights for a day when they plan to leave town. When they finish work, they take the most convenient flight and cancel the rest without paying fees, a privilege denied others. But after the new law passed, some airlines stopped the practice, worried that it violates the gift ban.
Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah) appealed to the Senate ethics committee to allow multiple bookings. Then Reid and McConnell added language to the defense bill that, if it passes, would extend the perk to staffers, too.
New bans on corporate-paid fun could hit hardest at the 2008 presidential nominating conventions. The law prohibits parties honoring a lawmaker on convention days; some lobbyists say the wording means such parties before or after those days are okay. House and Senate members have asked the ethics committees for guidance.
"That's one of the issues that's going to need some clarification," said Senate ethics panelist Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), whose home state will host the Democrats in August.
Meanwhile, lobbyists are booking up Denver's trendy warehouse district and Minnesota's Mall of America, near the GOP convention site in Minneapolis-St. Paul, for the pre-convention weekends. Host committees for both conventions say they will honor state delegations, including members of Congress who take part.
"I think you'll see a lot of umbrella invitations," said Patrick Murphy, lobbyist for mCapitol Management, who is planning Democratic convention parties. "Invite 'Friends of Montana' and see who shows up."
One of the most fought-over parts of the law requires that lobbyists who bundle multiple campaign contributions totaling more than $15,000 file reports every six months. But lawyers say that a fundraiser for Hillary Rodham Clinton signals a way to avoid public reporting when that rule kicks in Jan. 1.
Female politicos have been e-mailing each other a slick online invitation to "Make History With Hillary," a summit and fundraiser on Wednesday. The invitation encourages women to bundle for Clinton by promising them online credit for each ticket they sell. Women who have already donated their legal individual limit of $2,300 cannot attend unless they bring in another $4,000.
"It's a universe of junior bundlers under the radar screen," said Kenneth Gross, a campaign finance lawyer at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. For the lobbyists among them, the amounts are so small that "you don't have to worry about tracking them, and it would add up to a material sum over time" -- but less than the $15,000 limit.
If a lobbyist asked his advice on the practice, Gross said, "I'd say 'Go for it.' "
In recent days, about 100 members of Congress and hundreds of Hill staffers attended two black-tie galas, many of them as guests of corporations and lobbyists that paid as much as $2,500 per ticket.
Because accepting such gifts from special interests is now illegal, the companies did not hand the tickets directly to lawmakers or staffers. Instead, the companies donated the tickets back to the charity sponsors, with the names of recipients they wanted to see and sit with at the galas.
The arrangement was one of the most visible efforts, but hardly the only one, to get around new rules passed by Congress this summer limiting meals, travel, gifts and campaign contributions from lobbyists and companies that employ them.
Last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and Republican leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) found bipartisan agreement on maintaining one special privilege. Together they put language into a defense appropriations bill that would keep legal the practice of some senators of booking several flights on days they return home, keeping the most convenient reservation and dumping the rest without paying cancellation fees -- a practice some airlines say could violate the new law.
Senators also have granted themselves a grace period on requirements that they pay pricey charter rates for private jet travel. Lobbyists continue to bundle political contributions to lawmakers but are now making sure the totals do not trigger new public reporting rules. And with presidential nominating conventions coming next summer, lawmakers and lobbyists are working together to save another tradition endangered by the new rules: the convention party feting one lawmaker.
"You can't have a party honoring a specific member. It's clear to me -- but it's not clear to everybody," said Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairman of the Senate ethics committee. She said the committee is getting "these questions that surround the edges -- 'If it's midnight the night before,' 'If I wear one shoe and not the other.' "
Democrats touted the new ethics law as the most thorough housecleaning since Watergate, and needed after a host of scandals during 12 years of Republican rule. Prompted by disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff's wheeling and dealing and the jailing of three members of Congress on corruption charges in recent years, the law, signed by President Bush on Sept. 14, was heralded by congressional leaders as a real change in Washington's influence game.
But the changes have prompted anxiety about what perks are still permissible. In recent months, the House and Senate ethics committees have fielded more than 1,000 questions from lobbyists and congressional staffers seeking guidance -- or an outright waiver -- for rules banning weekend trips and pricey wedding gifts, five-course dinners and backstage passes.
Looking for ways to keep spreading freebies legally, hundreds of lobbyists have been attending seminars at Washington law firms to learn the ins and outs of the new law.
At a recent American League of Lobbyists briefing, Cleta Mitchell of the Foley & Lardner law firm said that while the law bans lobbyists from buying lawmakers or staffers a meal, it is silent on picking up bar tabs. A woman in the third row asked hopefully, "You can buy them as many drinks as you want, as often as you want?"
No, Mitchell said, not unless the drinkers are the lobbyist's personal friends, and she pays from her own pocket.
If that rule was clear to some, two charity dinners allowed hazier interpretations.
Most of the 40 lawmakers dining on red snapper ceviche and beef tenderloin at the recent Hispanic Caucus Institute gala at the Washington Convention Center got their tickets from corporations, said Paul Brathwaite, a principal with the Podesta Group lobbying firm.
Brathwaite said about a dozen of Podesta's corporate clients bought tables of 10 for $5,000 to $25,000 for the Hispanic dinner and the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation gala over the past three weeks. The companies then gave the tickets back to the foundations -- along with lists of lawmakers and staff members they wanted to invite. Some lawmakers did buy their own tickets, Brathwaite said, but many did not.
The rules require that charity sponsors do the inviting and decide who sits where. But "at the end of the night, everyone is happy," said Hispanic Caucus Institute spokesman Scott Gunderson Rosa.
"The corporate folks want us at their tables, of course," said Rep. Raul M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.), who sat at a Fannie Mae-sponsored table at the Hispanic dinner.
Another provision of the new ethics law bans House members from flying on corporate jets. But senators, including the half-dozen presidential candidates among them, can still do so. Previously they were required to reimburse plane owners the equivalent of a first-class ticket, but now they must pay charter rates, which can increase travel costs tenfold.
The Senate ethics committee decided not to enforce that rule for at least 60 days after it took effect Sept. 14, citing "the lack of experience in many offices in determining 'charter rates.' "
The decision surprised some Senate staffers, Mitchell said, one of whom e-mailed her to say, "Welcome to the world of skirting around the rules we pass."
"Breathtaking. . . . In my view, they're not complying with the plain language of the law," Mitchell said. "I think it should be easier for members of Congress to travel, not harder. But what I don't appreciate as a citizen is Congress passing something but then interpreting it so it doesn't mean what the law clearly says."
The law has dragged into view several such perks that members long enjoyed but didn't reveal -- until they sought exemptions to the new rules.
Lawmakers for years have booked several flights for a day when they plan to leave town. When they finish work, they take the most convenient flight and cancel the rest without paying fees, a privilege denied others. But after the new law passed, some airlines stopped the practice, worried that it violates the gift ban.
Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah) appealed to the Senate ethics committee to allow multiple bookings. Then Reid and McConnell added language to the defense bill that, if it passes, would extend the perk to staffers, too.
New bans on corporate-paid fun could hit hardest at the 2008 presidential nominating conventions. The law prohibits parties honoring a lawmaker on convention days; some lobbyists say the wording means such parties before or after those days are okay. House and Senate members have asked the ethics committees for guidance.
"That's one of the issues that's going to need some clarification," said Senate ethics panelist Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), whose home state will host the Democrats in August.
Meanwhile, lobbyists are booking up Denver's trendy warehouse district and Minnesota's Mall of America, near the GOP convention site in Minneapolis-St. Paul, for the pre-convention weekends. Host committees for both conventions say they will honor state delegations, including members of Congress who take part.
"I think you'll see a lot of umbrella invitations," said Patrick Murphy, lobbyist for mCapitol Management, who is planning Democratic convention parties. "Invite 'Friends of Montana' and see who shows up."
One of the most fought-over parts of the law requires that lobbyists who bundle multiple campaign contributions totaling more than $15,000 file reports every six months. But lawyers say that a fundraiser for Hillary Rodham Clinton signals a way to avoid public reporting when that rule kicks in Jan. 1.
Female politicos have been e-mailing each other a slick online invitation to "Make History With Hillary," a summit and fundraiser on Wednesday. The invitation encourages women to bundle for Clinton by promising them online credit for each ticket they sell. Women who have already donated their legal individual limit of $2,300 cannot attend unless they bring in another $4,000.
"It's a universe of junior bundlers under the radar screen," said Kenneth Gross, a campaign finance lawyer at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. For the lobbyists among them, the amounts are so small that "you don't have to worry about tracking them, and it would add up to a material sum over time" -- but less than the $15,000 limit.
If a lobbyist asked his advice on the practice, Gross said, "I'd say 'Go for it.' "
more...
house house Nicaragua Political Map
Macaca
05-18 05:15 PM
How the Middle East’s uprisings affect China’s foreign relations (http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/05/17/how-the-middle-east-s-uprisings-affect-china-s-foreign-relations/) By Shi Yinhong | Renmin University of China
The recent uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and elsewhere in the Middle East have important consequences for China’s foreign relations.
With Washington becoming increasingly preoccupied with the Middle East, it will have less opportunity to focus on China. At the same time, the return of a US policy aimed at promoting democratisation could have a destabilising effect on Sino–US relations. China might reassess how it shapes its relations with highly repressive regimes, and it will have to take into account that Western countries are now better positioned to push resolutions aimed at intervening in certain types of countries through the UN Security Council (UNSC).
The uprisings run counter to assumptions that the predominant struggle in Middle Eastern politics is between US-backed authoritarian regimes and Islamic fundamentalism. Instead, the recent revolts involve a third force — the ‘urban underdogs.’ These popular movements are largely disorganised, have no leaders and are not based on clearly defined ideas. The uprisings are the outcome of poor economic conditions, the authoritarian suppression of fundamental liberties, and the highly corrupt nature of the ruling elite. Situational factors also play a role: the spill over effect from revolts in one country to the next; the availability of modern forms of communication to enable mobilisation; the use of symbolic places for mass gathering (in the case of Tahrir Square in Cairo); overwhelming attention from the West; and the policy inclinations of the US and European governments.
As the Arab world transforms, becoming more tumultuous along the way, Washington will face new dilemmas, and the fight against terror will no longer be overwhelmingly dominant. ‘Pushing democracy’ has returned as a major foreign policy theme in Washington as the uprisings partially restore the West’s self-confidence, battered from the financial crisis.
All of this has major implications for China’s foreign relations. Washington’s deeper involvement in the Middle East is favourable to Beijing, reducing Washington’s ability to place focused attention and pressure on China. But, conversely, the partial return of the push for democracy is not to the benefit of China or stable Sino–US relations. China may need to reconsider its quite amicable relationships with regimes that are repressive, corrupt and have little popular support. Beijing is insufficiently prepared to deal with dramatic political changes in such countries, clearly shown in the past when China’s relations with Iran (1979), Romania (1989) and Serbia (1999) were severely affected. This happened more recently in Zimbabwe, and now also in Egypt and Sudan. Other countries where similar developments could take place are Burma, North Korea and perhaps also Pakistan.
The Middle Eastern turmoil is also relevant to China’s domestic stability. Some activists in and outside China are hoping for a ‘Chinese jasmine revolution.’ Beijing overreacted somewhat, particularly in the early days, by taking strong domestic security precautions despite no signs of widespread activism in China. This may have been the activists’ immediate purpose: to embarrass the Chinese government and to show its lack of self-confidence to the world and the Chinese public. This in turn could make Beijing more hesitant about deepening economic and political reforms.
The uprisings are also affecting China’s international position with regard to the issue of intervention. Beijing probably believed they had no choice other than to allow the UNSC to adopt Resolution 1973, which gave the international community the authority to establish a no-fly zone over Libya. It was clear that the US, France and the UK were resolutely determined to launch a military strike, and certain Arab and African countries supported and even intended to join the intervention. Had Beijing vetoed the resolution, China’s relations with both the West and the Arab countries involved would have been severely strained — and the West would have still launched their attack anyway. This was a hard decision for China: Resolution 1973 could form a dangerous precedent in international law, as previous norms have been revised in favour of armed intervention in a domestic conflict. In the future, the US and its allies might reapply this, potentially to the detriment of China’s interests.
China’s hope for stable Sino–US relations following the state visit of Chinese President Hu Jintao to the US in January 2011, and China’s important relationship with Saudi Arabia, had induced Beijing to abstain from using its veto in the UNSC. Moreover, if a similar case does occur in the foreseeable future, it seems rather unlikely that China or Russia would use their veto in order to protect the principle of non-interference. Consequently, the US and its associates in the UNSC might very well see an opportunity to act resolutely in the coming years, with the aim of effecting intervention in other countries, comparable to Libya, a country first of all not allied with them and far distant from them. This is an opportunity that has likely not escaped Washington’s attention.
Shi Yinhong is Professor of International Relations and Director of the Center on American Studies at Renmin University of China in Beijing
Ferguson vs. Kissinger on the future of China, and what it means for the rest of us (http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/05/17/ferguson_vs_kissinger_on_the_future_of_china_and_w hat_it_means_for_the_rest_of_us) By Thomas E. Ricks | Foreign Policy
Getting China Ready to Go Abroad
Companies need to revamp management structures and customer service before they can compete globally. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703509104576328842793701106.html)
By KEVIN TAYLOR | Wall Street Journal
Chinese Spreading Wealth Make Vancouver Homes Pricier Than NYC (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-16/chinese-spreading-wealth-make-vancouver-homes-pricier-than-nyc.html) By Yu and Donville | Bloomberg
China shafts Philippine mines (http://atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/ME19Ae01.html) By Joel D Adriano | Asia Times
Is This the China that Can't? (http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3200&Itemid=422) By John Berthelsen | Asia Sentinel
China's Bold New Plan for Economic Domination (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/05/chinas-bold-new-plan-for-economic-domination/239041/) By Abraham & Ludlow | The Atlantic
The recent uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and elsewhere in the Middle East have important consequences for China’s foreign relations.
With Washington becoming increasingly preoccupied with the Middle East, it will have less opportunity to focus on China. At the same time, the return of a US policy aimed at promoting democratisation could have a destabilising effect on Sino–US relations. China might reassess how it shapes its relations with highly repressive regimes, and it will have to take into account that Western countries are now better positioned to push resolutions aimed at intervening in certain types of countries through the UN Security Council (UNSC).
The uprisings run counter to assumptions that the predominant struggle in Middle Eastern politics is between US-backed authoritarian regimes and Islamic fundamentalism. Instead, the recent revolts involve a third force — the ‘urban underdogs.’ These popular movements are largely disorganised, have no leaders and are not based on clearly defined ideas. The uprisings are the outcome of poor economic conditions, the authoritarian suppression of fundamental liberties, and the highly corrupt nature of the ruling elite. Situational factors also play a role: the spill over effect from revolts in one country to the next; the availability of modern forms of communication to enable mobilisation; the use of symbolic places for mass gathering (in the case of Tahrir Square in Cairo); overwhelming attention from the West; and the policy inclinations of the US and European governments.
As the Arab world transforms, becoming more tumultuous along the way, Washington will face new dilemmas, and the fight against terror will no longer be overwhelmingly dominant. ‘Pushing democracy’ has returned as a major foreign policy theme in Washington as the uprisings partially restore the West’s self-confidence, battered from the financial crisis.
All of this has major implications for China’s foreign relations. Washington’s deeper involvement in the Middle East is favourable to Beijing, reducing Washington’s ability to place focused attention and pressure on China. But, conversely, the partial return of the push for democracy is not to the benefit of China or stable Sino–US relations. China may need to reconsider its quite amicable relationships with regimes that are repressive, corrupt and have little popular support. Beijing is insufficiently prepared to deal with dramatic political changes in such countries, clearly shown in the past when China’s relations with Iran (1979), Romania (1989) and Serbia (1999) were severely affected. This happened more recently in Zimbabwe, and now also in Egypt and Sudan. Other countries where similar developments could take place are Burma, North Korea and perhaps also Pakistan.
The Middle Eastern turmoil is also relevant to China’s domestic stability. Some activists in and outside China are hoping for a ‘Chinese jasmine revolution.’ Beijing overreacted somewhat, particularly in the early days, by taking strong domestic security precautions despite no signs of widespread activism in China. This may have been the activists’ immediate purpose: to embarrass the Chinese government and to show its lack of self-confidence to the world and the Chinese public. This in turn could make Beijing more hesitant about deepening economic and political reforms.
The uprisings are also affecting China’s international position with regard to the issue of intervention. Beijing probably believed they had no choice other than to allow the UNSC to adopt Resolution 1973, which gave the international community the authority to establish a no-fly zone over Libya. It was clear that the US, France and the UK were resolutely determined to launch a military strike, and certain Arab and African countries supported and even intended to join the intervention. Had Beijing vetoed the resolution, China’s relations with both the West and the Arab countries involved would have been severely strained — and the West would have still launched their attack anyway. This was a hard decision for China: Resolution 1973 could form a dangerous precedent in international law, as previous norms have been revised in favour of armed intervention in a domestic conflict. In the future, the US and its allies might reapply this, potentially to the detriment of China’s interests.
China’s hope for stable Sino–US relations following the state visit of Chinese President Hu Jintao to the US in January 2011, and China’s important relationship with Saudi Arabia, had induced Beijing to abstain from using its veto in the UNSC. Moreover, if a similar case does occur in the foreseeable future, it seems rather unlikely that China or Russia would use their veto in order to protect the principle of non-interference. Consequently, the US and its associates in the UNSC might very well see an opportunity to act resolutely in the coming years, with the aim of effecting intervention in other countries, comparable to Libya, a country first of all not allied with them and far distant from them. This is an opportunity that has likely not escaped Washington’s attention.
Shi Yinhong is Professor of International Relations and Director of the Center on American Studies at Renmin University of China in Beijing
Ferguson vs. Kissinger on the future of China, and what it means for the rest of us (http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/05/17/ferguson_vs_kissinger_on_the_future_of_china_and_w hat_it_means_for_the_rest_of_us) By Thomas E. Ricks | Foreign Policy
Getting China Ready to Go Abroad
Companies need to revamp management structures and customer service before they can compete globally. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703509104576328842793701106.html)
By KEVIN TAYLOR | Wall Street Journal
Chinese Spreading Wealth Make Vancouver Homes Pricier Than NYC (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-16/chinese-spreading-wealth-make-vancouver-homes-pricier-than-nyc.html) By Yu and Donville | Bloomberg
China shafts Philippine mines (http://atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/ME19Ae01.html) By Joel D Adriano | Asia Times
Is This the China that Can't? (http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3200&Itemid=422) By John Berthelsen | Asia Sentinel
China's Bold New Plan for Economic Domination (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/05/chinas-bold-new-plan-for-economic-domination/239041/) By Abraham & Ludlow | The Atlantic
tattoo makeup Nicaragua Political Map
greenguru
04-08 02:17 AM
I was discussing the same with a friend of mine...
what will be done next is ...
Have 49 employees and start a sister concern ( New firm ) after that ..
what will be done next is ...
Have 49 employees and start a sister concern ( New firm ) after that ..
more...
pictures Chile - physical geography
Macaca
05-16 08:04 AM
Democrats Under Scrutiny As They Shape Lobbying Bill (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/14/AR2007051402086.html) By Elizabeth Williamson (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/elizabeth+williamson/) Washington Post Staff Writer, Tuesday, May 15, 2007
House Democratic leaders yesterday discussed key elements of a long-awaited lobbying reform bill, which has been seen as a signal test of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's pledge to bring unprecedented transparency to the Democratic-led institution.
While the legislation would open congressional lobbying to greater public scrutiny, its contours hint at a behind-the-scenes battle by the leadership to retain its most sweeping new measures.
The bill will be unveiled today at a Democratic caucus meeting, where more changes will be discussed. At the meeting last night, party leaders debated the proposal's three most important provisions, which appear headed for varying fates.
Watchdog groups and freshman members who rode into Congress on promises of ethics reform see as most critical a section imposing stricter reporting guidelines on the practice of "bundling," in which lobbyists gather and deliver bundles of contribution checks to a member. In an effort to prevent opponents of that measure from killing the entire bill, Democrats may address bundling in a separate bill or amendment, to be introduced in tandem with the main legislation.
The House bill is likely to drop a second key provision, requiring that lobbyists who orchestrate grass-roots letter-writing and telephoning campaigns disclose their involvement.
The third new element -- a "revolving door" measure doubling, to two years, the time members must wait after leaving Congress before lobbying former colleagues -- is expected to be included in the final bill.
Other provisions impose disclosure requirements on lobbyist-paid meetings and parties, contributions to charities, and other sponsored activities. Disclosure records would be posted online, in a searchable format.
The House Judiciary Committee is expected to formally draft the bill Thursday, with a vote anticipated before the Memorial Day recess.
"I believe that the voters are going to be watching carefully to see whether we address this issue," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), sponsor of the bundling measure. "We are letting our members know that this is an important issue for the Democratic agenda. . . . We're very focused on getting this done."
Sponsors and watchdogs had hoped the House lobbying reform bill would go further than the Senate's version, passed with great fanfare in the opening days of the new Congress. Instead, it appears to closely track the Senate bill, which also did not include restrictions on grass-roots lobbying. In recent weeks, according to several people close to the talks, the Senate had been pushing the House to narrow the bundling restrictions in its version, by limiting reporting requirements to clearly defined fundraising agreements between lobbyists and members. The House bill as discussed would do that.
Passage of a weaker bill -- chiefly, one without bundling rules -- would disappoint watchdogs, who have waged a lobbying campaign of their own for the new law.
"I am sensing a fading of enthusiasm for lobbying and ethics reform, which is why we have to get this done as soon as we can," said Craig Holman of advocacy group Public Citizen. "The longer we wait, the weaker this bill seems to get." Holman said he is lining up legislators to introduce, as amendments, any major portions of the lobbying bill eliminated in this week's discussions.
Democrats' promise to end the "culture of corruption" they said developed in Washington under Republican rule helped propel the party into the majority in November elections. They quickly tightened the rules over travel, meals and gifts from lobbyists, and improved disclosure rules for earmarks -- the pet projects that lawmakers tuck into legislation.
But a task force appointed by Pelosi (D-Calif.) to look into creating an independent entity to investigate ethics charges against lawmakers has missed its May 1 deadline for issuing recommendations, amid foot-dragging by members opposed to the idea.
House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) said the party's leadership considers ethics reform "an obligation."
"We as a party successfully talked about a culture of corruption, and one of the pledges we made was to change that," he said. To do so, he added, "you've got to change the laws, and people's attitudes."
House Democratic leaders yesterday discussed key elements of a long-awaited lobbying reform bill, which has been seen as a signal test of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's pledge to bring unprecedented transparency to the Democratic-led institution.
While the legislation would open congressional lobbying to greater public scrutiny, its contours hint at a behind-the-scenes battle by the leadership to retain its most sweeping new measures.
The bill will be unveiled today at a Democratic caucus meeting, where more changes will be discussed. At the meeting last night, party leaders debated the proposal's three most important provisions, which appear headed for varying fates.
Watchdog groups and freshman members who rode into Congress on promises of ethics reform see as most critical a section imposing stricter reporting guidelines on the practice of "bundling," in which lobbyists gather and deliver bundles of contribution checks to a member. In an effort to prevent opponents of that measure from killing the entire bill, Democrats may address bundling in a separate bill or amendment, to be introduced in tandem with the main legislation.
The House bill is likely to drop a second key provision, requiring that lobbyists who orchestrate grass-roots letter-writing and telephoning campaigns disclose their involvement.
The third new element -- a "revolving door" measure doubling, to two years, the time members must wait after leaving Congress before lobbying former colleagues -- is expected to be included in the final bill.
Other provisions impose disclosure requirements on lobbyist-paid meetings and parties, contributions to charities, and other sponsored activities. Disclosure records would be posted online, in a searchable format.
The House Judiciary Committee is expected to formally draft the bill Thursday, with a vote anticipated before the Memorial Day recess.
"I believe that the voters are going to be watching carefully to see whether we address this issue," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), sponsor of the bundling measure. "We are letting our members know that this is an important issue for the Democratic agenda. . . . We're very focused on getting this done."
Sponsors and watchdogs had hoped the House lobbying reform bill would go further than the Senate's version, passed with great fanfare in the opening days of the new Congress. Instead, it appears to closely track the Senate bill, which also did not include restrictions on grass-roots lobbying. In recent weeks, according to several people close to the talks, the Senate had been pushing the House to narrow the bundling restrictions in its version, by limiting reporting requirements to clearly defined fundraising agreements between lobbyists and members. The House bill as discussed would do that.
Passage of a weaker bill -- chiefly, one without bundling rules -- would disappoint watchdogs, who have waged a lobbying campaign of their own for the new law.
"I am sensing a fading of enthusiasm for lobbying and ethics reform, which is why we have to get this done as soon as we can," said Craig Holman of advocacy group Public Citizen. "The longer we wait, the weaker this bill seems to get." Holman said he is lining up legislators to introduce, as amendments, any major portions of the lobbying bill eliminated in this week's discussions.
Democrats' promise to end the "culture of corruption" they said developed in Washington under Republican rule helped propel the party into the majority in November elections. They quickly tightened the rules over travel, meals and gifts from lobbyists, and improved disclosure rules for earmarks -- the pet projects that lawmakers tuck into legislation.
But a task force appointed by Pelosi (D-Calif.) to look into creating an independent entity to investigate ethics charges against lawmakers has missed its May 1 deadline for issuing recommendations, amid foot-dragging by members opposed to the idea.
House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) said the party's leadership considers ethics reform "an obligation."
"We as a party successfully talked about a culture of corruption, and one of the pledges we made was to change that," he said. To do so, he added, "you've got to change the laws, and people's attitudes."
dresses physical map of burundi.
senthil1
12-19 01:34 PM
It is possible that India may be loser for some extent in short time. But in case of war India will come out winner if India can win decesively similar to Bangladesh war. The parliment attack or Mumbai attack deserves some military action if India is able to destroy some of Terrorist camps. But by the time India preparing for attack the terrorists will move away from their camps and success rate depends on accuracy of timing and intelligence.
Actually for the past 20 years Terrorists(and Pakistan) lost battle as they acheived nothing by killing innocents. India became superior and biggest development in last 100 years.That is the main reason for changing tactis. Terrorists supported indirectly by Pak ISI or army tried commando attack. But still Terrorists lost battle as India somehow got some sympathy from USA and other Western Countries. I would tell Pak got frustrated as Terrorists got tired. That is the reason Pak army became reckless and indulging in Mumbai Like attacks. Everything including Kargil Pak got failure. As usual Pakistan media is patriotic to their country and they wrote one side analysis. But their media well aware that Geography of India will be huge advantage to India
Eventually India has to try to attack Pak with international force(Similar to 9/11) if there will be another major Terrorist attack. I sincerely hope and pray God no such attacks will happen in future.
good article..
but i always believed, if there is a war between these countries, India will be the loser as pakistan has nothing to lose right now..we will go 10-15 yrs behind compared to other developing countires..
The war between 2 countries is that the terrorists really want, so they get a bigger grip on pakistan and they can recruit more people into them showing this..
Europen countries doesnt have much of a problem if they want to attack pak..
They will bomb and just go..India will have to deal with a destabilised country and people after tht..may be for decades
Actually for the past 20 years Terrorists(and Pakistan) lost battle as they acheived nothing by killing innocents. India became superior and biggest development in last 100 years.That is the main reason for changing tactis. Terrorists supported indirectly by Pak ISI or army tried commando attack. But still Terrorists lost battle as India somehow got some sympathy from USA and other Western Countries. I would tell Pak got frustrated as Terrorists got tired. That is the reason Pak army became reckless and indulging in Mumbai Like attacks. Everything including Kargil Pak got failure. As usual Pakistan media is patriotic to their country and they wrote one side analysis. But their media well aware that Geography of India will be huge advantage to India
Eventually India has to try to attack Pak with international force(Similar to 9/11) if there will be another major Terrorist attack. I sincerely hope and pray God no such attacks will happen in future.
good article..
but i always believed, if there is a war between these countries, India will be the loser as pakistan has nothing to lose right now..we will go 10-15 yrs behind compared to other developing countires..
The war between 2 countries is that the terrorists really want, so they get a bigger grip on pakistan and they can recruit more people into them showing this..
Europen countries doesnt have much of a problem if they want to attack pak..
They will bomb and just go..India will have to deal with a destabilised country and people after tht..may be for decades
more...
makeup physical map of lithuania.
my2cents
04-13 09:56 PM
i can not speak for everybody but
i bought in east coast in 2004 for $330K. it peaked to $425K in 2006 and now it is somewhere $350K. it may go even go down to $300K
I will break even if i stay for another 3 years. (total 7 years)
If renting then : 110K in rent with no benefits for 7 years.
Good Side:
- Tax benefits with dual income. ( proabably $300 per month)
- Bigger house
Bad Side:
Maintenance
IF i have to sell now then will be loss for me for sure so key is location and how long u stay.
i bought in east coast in 2004 for $330K. it peaked to $425K in 2006 and now it is somewhere $350K. it may go even go down to $300K
I will break even if i stay for another 3 years. (total 7 years)
If renting then : 110K in rent with no benefits for 7 years.
Good Side:
- Tax benefits with dual income. ( proabably $300 per month)
- Bigger house
Bad Side:
Maintenance
IF i have to sell now then will be loss for me for sure so key is location and how long u stay.
girlfriend Physical Map of Nicaragua
Macaca
05-11 05:19 PM
Obama Recasts Border Issue (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703730804576315531789204212.html) By Laura Meckler | Wall Street Journal
President Barack Obama on Tuesday tried a new tack on immigration, saying that beefed-up security along the U.S.-Mexico border has proved effective enough that it should draw Republican support for an overhaul of the nation's naturalization system.
Mr. Obama said his administration had met the concerns of Republicans by increasing law-enforcement manpower to record levels and installing new surveillance technology and fencing.
"We have strengthened border security beyond what many believed was possible," he said at the Chamizal National Memorial, as a giant Mexican flag waved across the Rio Grande river.
The president cited several statistics to back up his assertion of tightened borders, including a nearly 40% decrease in arrests at the border, to about 463,000 in 2010. The administration says that is a sign that fewer people are attempting to illegally cross from Mexico.
Mr. Obama didn't mention that deportations hit record levels last year�a trend that has drawn fire from some Hispanic advocates.
The speech was aimed in part at reassuring voters who are worried about border security, and in part at renewing support among Hispanic voters he needs to boost his re-election campaign, particularly in Rocky Mountain states.
He offered no new policy proposals Tuesday, and set no timetable for legislation. Instead, he called for those who support his proposals to build pressure for congressional action from outside Washington.
The president said the new border-control measures will prevent another wave of illegal immigrants from flowing into the country if those already here are allowed to stay.
Some prominent unions including the AFL-CIO have opposed immigration legislation in the past, concerned that new arrivals would pose competition for their members. Senators trying to craft an overhaul have said one of the obstacles has been coming up with a guest-worker program unions and business can support.
Mr. Obama's legislative goals haven't changed since he spoke on immigration last summer, including a path to citizenship for the 10.8 million people already in the U.S. illegally, a program many Republicans oppose as a reward for lawbreaking. Mr. Obama also supports a guest-worker program and making it easier for foreign students educated in the U.S. to stay.
There is virtually no GOP support in Congress for the legislation Mr. Obama wants, though some Republicans have embraced these ideas in the past.
Mr. Obama predicted that no matter what he does, some Republican foes of his approach will demand more. "Maybe they'll need a moat," he said. "Maybe they'll want alligators in the moat."
Arizona Republican Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl have crafted a $4 billion, 10-point plan that calls for double fencing where there is now single fencing and another 5,000 Border Patrol agents, on top of the 20,700 now in place.
"We hear from our constituents on a daily basis, and, while some progress has been made in some areas, they do not believe the border is secure," Messrs. McCain and Kyl said in a statement Tuesday.
They also pointed to a Government Accountability Office report that found the U.S. has "operational control" of 44% of the Southwest border with Mexico, meaning it has the ability to detect, respond and interdict illegal activity.The administration says that isn't a good measure and officials are working on a better one.
Republicans face pressure within their party to keep the focus on tougher immigration enforcement. But some GOP leaders say the party also needs to improve its standing with Hispanics, the fastest-growing voter group in the U.S.
But the president faces skepticism even from supporters heading into this latest push.
"The moment to use pressure is gone. You missed it. The train left the station," said Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D., Ill.). "I want to be honest with my constituents and with the American people. I don't want to rev them up for something that doesn't have any possibilities of success."
President Obama at the Border (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/opinion/11wed1.html) New York Times Editorial
A Question of Decency (http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/magazine/87878/immigration-reform-dream-act-border-security) The New Republic Editorial
Immigration reform and border security: Obama's standards (http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2011/0510/Immigration-reform-and-border-security-Obama-s-standards) The Christian Science Monitor Editorial
Hideously diverse Britain: a passage from India (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/may/10/hideously-diverse-britain-passage-india) By Hugh Muir | Guardian
Britain's got (foreign) talent (http://www.economist.com/node/18648783) The Economist
The Dark Night of Islam
The revolutionary events shaking the Islamic world will not change an intolerant and obscurantist culture (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/266778/dark-night-islam-michael-knox-beran)
By Michael Knox Beran | National Review
Obama�s border visit renews focus on immigration policy (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obamas-border-visit-renews-focus-on-immigration-policy/2011/05/09/AF7cPMcG_story.html) By Peter Wallsten and Perry Bacon Jr. | The Washington Post
New Call in Albany to Quit U.S. Immigration Program (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/10/nyregion/albany-lawmakers-protest-giving-immigrant-data-to-us.html) By KIRK SEMPLE | New York Times
Obama�s El Paso coup (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/obamas-el-paso-coup/2011/05/10/AFaBXOjG_blog.html) By Lee Hockstader | The Washington Post
In Border City Talk, Obama Urges G.O.P. to Help Overhaul Immigration Law (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/us/politics/11obama.html) By JACKIE CALMES | New York Times
Securing the border with semantics (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/10/securing-the-border-with-semantics/) The Washington Times Editorial
The Immigration Paradox (http://nationaljournal.com/politics/the-immigration-paradox-20110511) By Ron Brownstein | National Journal
The demographic politics of immigration (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/05/immigration_reform_0) The Economist
Moving away from the border (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/05/immigration_reform) The Economist
President Barack Obama on Tuesday tried a new tack on immigration, saying that beefed-up security along the U.S.-Mexico border has proved effective enough that it should draw Republican support for an overhaul of the nation's naturalization system.
Mr. Obama said his administration had met the concerns of Republicans by increasing law-enforcement manpower to record levels and installing new surveillance technology and fencing.
"We have strengthened border security beyond what many believed was possible," he said at the Chamizal National Memorial, as a giant Mexican flag waved across the Rio Grande river.
The president cited several statistics to back up his assertion of tightened borders, including a nearly 40% decrease in arrests at the border, to about 463,000 in 2010. The administration says that is a sign that fewer people are attempting to illegally cross from Mexico.
Mr. Obama didn't mention that deportations hit record levels last year�a trend that has drawn fire from some Hispanic advocates.
The speech was aimed in part at reassuring voters who are worried about border security, and in part at renewing support among Hispanic voters he needs to boost his re-election campaign, particularly in Rocky Mountain states.
He offered no new policy proposals Tuesday, and set no timetable for legislation. Instead, he called for those who support his proposals to build pressure for congressional action from outside Washington.
The president said the new border-control measures will prevent another wave of illegal immigrants from flowing into the country if those already here are allowed to stay.
Some prominent unions including the AFL-CIO have opposed immigration legislation in the past, concerned that new arrivals would pose competition for their members. Senators trying to craft an overhaul have said one of the obstacles has been coming up with a guest-worker program unions and business can support.
Mr. Obama's legislative goals haven't changed since he spoke on immigration last summer, including a path to citizenship for the 10.8 million people already in the U.S. illegally, a program many Republicans oppose as a reward for lawbreaking. Mr. Obama also supports a guest-worker program and making it easier for foreign students educated in the U.S. to stay.
There is virtually no GOP support in Congress for the legislation Mr. Obama wants, though some Republicans have embraced these ideas in the past.
Mr. Obama predicted that no matter what he does, some Republican foes of his approach will demand more. "Maybe they'll need a moat," he said. "Maybe they'll want alligators in the moat."
Arizona Republican Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl have crafted a $4 billion, 10-point plan that calls for double fencing where there is now single fencing and another 5,000 Border Patrol agents, on top of the 20,700 now in place.
"We hear from our constituents on a daily basis, and, while some progress has been made in some areas, they do not believe the border is secure," Messrs. McCain and Kyl said in a statement Tuesday.
They also pointed to a Government Accountability Office report that found the U.S. has "operational control" of 44% of the Southwest border with Mexico, meaning it has the ability to detect, respond and interdict illegal activity.The administration says that isn't a good measure and officials are working on a better one.
Republicans face pressure within their party to keep the focus on tougher immigration enforcement. But some GOP leaders say the party also needs to improve its standing with Hispanics, the fastest-growing voter group in the U.S.
But the president faces skepticism even from supporters heading into this latest push.
"The moment to use pressure is gone. You missed it. The train left the station," said Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D., Ill.). "I want to be honest with my constituents and with the American people. I don't want to rev them up for something that doesn't have any possibilities of success."
President Obama at the Border (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/opinion/11wed1.html) New York Times Editorial
A Question of Decency (http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/magazine/87878/immigration-reform-dream-act-border-security) The New Republic Editorial
Immigration reform and border security: Obama's standards (http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2011/0510/Immigration-reform-and-border-security-Obama-s-standards) The Christian Science Monitor Editorial
Hideously diverse Britain: a passage from India (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/may/10/hideously-diverse-britain-passage-india) By Hugh Muir | Guardian
Britain's got (foreign) talent (http://www.economist.com/node/18648783) The Economist
The Dark Night of Islam
The revolutionary events shaking the Islamic world will not change an intolerant and obscurantist culture (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/266778/dark-night-islam-michael-knox-beran)
By Michael Knox Beran | National Review
Obama�s border visit renews focus on immigration policy (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obamas-border-visit-renews-focus-on-immigration-policy/2011/05/09/AF7cPMcG_story.html) By Peter Wallsten and Perry Bacon Jr. | The Washington Post
New Call in Albany to Quit U.S. Immigration Program (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/10/nyregion/albany-lawmakers-protest-giving-immigrant-data-to-us.html) By KIRK SEMPLE | New York Times
Obama�s El Paso coup (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/obamas-el-paso-coup/2011/05/10/AFaBXOjG_blog.html) By Lee Hockstader | The Washington Post
In Border City Talk, Obama Urges G.O.P. to Help Overhaul Immigration Law (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/us/politics/11obama.html) By JACKIE CALMES | New York Times
Securing the border with semantics (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/10/securing-the-border-with-semantics/) The Washington Times Editorial
The Immigration Paradox (http://nationaljournal.com/politics/the-immigration-paradox-20110511) By Ron Brownstein | National Journal
The demographic politics of immigration (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/05/immigration_reform_0) The Economist
Moving away from the border (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/05/immigration_reform) The Economist
hairstyles tattoo Map of Nicaragua
truthinspector
01-07 06:55 PM
HAMAS fired 20 rockets into Israel as soon as the 3-hr humanitarian truce was over .
Do you at least get it now? The real problem is HAMAS. For any Islamic conflict there is only one policy the Islamic radicals have, "Our Way or Suicide Bomb Way"..Guess what , every government in the world is not as spineless as Indian government. There are some like Israel who are going to stand up for themselves and rightfully so.
Before blaming muslims try to understand the fact and know atleast a little history. When you have time just read this.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-palestine
news article written by Oxford professor of international relations Avi Shlaim served in the Israeli army.
Do you at least get it now? The real problem is HAMAS. For any Islamic conflict there is only one policy the Islamic radicals have, "Our Way or Suicide Bomb Way"..Guess what , every government in the world is not as spineless as Indian government. There are some like Israel who are going to stand up for themselves and rightfully so.
Before blaming muslims try to understand the fact and know atleast a little history. When you have time just read this.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-palestine
news article written by Oxford professor of international relations Avi Shlaim served in the Israeli army.
Macaca
12-28 07:39 PM
All India Radia (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/edit-page/All-India-Radia/articleshow/7179711.cms) By Jug Suraiya | Times of India
Far from subverting democracy lobbyists help to promote it
Niira Radia should be given the Padma Shrimati next year. As each new tranche of the leaked tapes of Radiagate are made public it becomes increasingly clear that, far from sabotaging India's democracy, the lobbyist was actually furthering its cause.
Though Radia's method of operation - which reportedly involves large-scale hawala transactions - was often dubious, there is nothing wrong with her broad strategy to influence public policy by inducing media people and other opinion makers to get A Raja the telecom portfolio. That his appointment - at least partly engineered by Radia - led to the 2G scam is another matter.
Lobbying - or what is often called public advocacy - is a perfectly legitimate, and indeed necessary, component of any democracy. In the US, for example, it is considered to be a high-profile and respectable profession made use of by everyone who would like to have a say in the framing of official policy. New Delhi has often employed US lobbyists to try and influence Washington's policies vis-a-vis Pakistan and Kashmir, among other things. In the US, there are accredited lobbyists for all manner of issues and individuals, from the right to bear arms to candidates for Senate seats.
If looked at in its broadest sense, what does lobbying boil down to? Nothing more, or less, than trying to get people to see your, or your client's view. All public relations exercises - be they for business interests or causes like animal welfare or AIDS prevention - are examples of lobbying: they are attempts to get the members of the public to change their ways of thought and action in particular spheres of interest or concern.
Similarly, all forms of advertising - and no media product, including this newspaper, could remain economically viable were it not for advertisements - are lobbying by another name. Advertisements try to persuade you to buy a particular product or service. A successful ad, a lobbying exercise that has worked, is one that makes the maximum amount of money for the advertiser, the client of the lobbyist, in this case the advertising agency. The most successful ads - the ones that have been most persuasive in changing public behaviour and thinking - are annually honoured by receiving awards given by the industry.
All politics, and not just at election time, is nothing but lobbying in its most blatant form. In a democracy, it is expected of all political parties to shape or transform public policy through competitive lobbying of the electorate via election manifestos and professed agendas. The voter is seduced, persuaded, bribed by all sorts of promised inducements, often in the form of cash subsidies or tax breaks, to support this or that party or candidate. There is the Election Commission to see there is no hanky-panky or rigging at the time of polling. But no Election Commission can compel a political party or candidate to make good on election promises - i.e., bribes in one form or another - once the balloting is over.
If politics is unadulterated lobbying, and it is, so is the media. All reporters and commentators - in the press, or on TV or radio, even those considered too insignificant to have been approached by Radia - try to shape public opinion, and through that try to influence official policy by having public pressure put on it, according to their own views, opinions and interests, or those of the organisations that employ them.
Indeed, democracy with all its components - media, market and elective politics - is a vast enterprise in lobbying, a never-ending argument between competing interest groups to change public policy to suit their own ends.
Radia's only fault was getting caught. But for having forced us, however unwittingly, to take a long hard look at our democracy and what it really means, she needs a commendation. Padma Shrimati? Heck, make her Woman of the Year. She deserves it. Or rather, we deserve her.
An inconvenient truth (http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Masquerader/entry/an-inconvenient-truth) By Anoop Kohli | Times of India
Far from subverting democracy lobbyists help to promote it
Niira Radia should be given the Padma Shrimati next year. As each new tranche of the leaked tapes of Radiagate are made public it becomes increasingly clear that, far from sabotaging India's democracy, the lobbyist was actually furthering its cause.
Though Radia's method of operation - which reportedly involves large-scale hawala transactions - was often dubious, there is nothing wrong with her broad strategy to influence public policy by inducing media people and other opinion makers to get A Raja the telecom portfolio. That his appointment - at least partly engineered by Radia - led to the 2G scam is another matter.
Lobbying - or what is often called public advocacy - is a perfectly legitimate, and indeed necessary, component of any democracy. In the US, for example, it is considered to be a high-profile and respectable profession made use of by everyone who would like to have a say in the framing of official policy. New Delhi has often employed US lobbyists to try and influence Washington's policies vis-a-vis Pakistan and Kashmir, among other things. In the US, there are accredited lobbyists for all manner of issues and individuals, from the right to bear arms to candidates for Senate seats.
If looked at in its broadest sense, what does lobbying boil down to? Nothing more, or less, than trying to get people to see your, or your client's view. All public relations exercises - be they for business interests or causes like animal welfare or AIDS prevention - are examples of lobbying: they are attempts to get the members of the public to change their ways of thought and action in particular spheres of interest or concern.
Similarly, all forms of advertising - and no media product, including this newspaper, could remain economically viable were it not for advertisements - are lobbying by another name. Advertisements try to persuade you to buy a particular product or service. A successful ad, a lobbying exercise that has worked, is one that makes the maximum amount of money for the advertiser, the client of the lobbyist, in this case the advertising agency. The most successful ads - the ones that have been most persuasive in changing public behaviour and thinking - are annually honoured by receiving awards given by the industry.
All politics, and not just at election time, is nothing but lobbying in its most blatant form. In a democracy, it is expected of all political parties to shape or transform public policy through competitive lobbying of the electorate via election manifestos and professed agendas. The voter is seduced, persuaded, bribed by all sorts of promised inducements, often in the form of cash subsidies or tax breaks, to support this or that party or candidate. There is the Election Commission to see there is no hanky-panky or rigging at the time of polling. But no Election Commission can compel a political party or candidate to make good on election promises - i.e., bribes in one form or another - once the balloting is over.
If politics is unadulterated lobbying, and it is, so is the media. All reporters and commentators - in the press, or on TV or radio, even those considered too insignificant to have been approached by Radia - try to shape public opinion, and through that try to influence official policy by having public pressure put on it, according to their own views, opinions and interests, or those of the organisations that employ them.
Indeed, democracy with all its components - media, market and elective politics - is a vast enterprise in lobbying, a never-ending argument between competing interest groups to change public policy to suit their own ends.
Radia's only fault was getting caught. But for having forced us, however unwittingly, to take a long hard look at our democracy and what it really means, she needs a commendation. Padma Shrimati? Heck, make her Woman of the Year. She deserves it. Or rather, we deserve her.
An inconvenient truth (http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Masquerader/entry/an-inconvenient-truth) By Anoop Kohli | Times of India
michelle88
07-13 02:15 PM
the better way is to mention: 1) eb3 with earlier PD (before the end of 2005), the prevailing wage category was set higher, i.e, salary $60K fell in eb3 in 2004 but could be in eb2 in 2006. 2) LC based eb3 should be processed before perm based eb2, as the processing time for this step should be weighted to be evaluated in a bit fair way.
Very good point by alterego.
This letter has a very striking problem in it.. one that can cause a huge problem for the people signing it.
How can one say that they wanted to apply in EB2, but their lawyer said they should apply in EB3?
As pointed out by pappu, Category is determined by job requirements and not the summary qualifications of the beneficiary.
If you sign and say that the lawyer said you should apply in EB3/EB2/whatever, you are essentially stating that lawyers were involved in fabricating the job requirements. This is the same problem that is causing Fragomen clients to be investigated/audited.
This is just an advice. I am prepared to support IV and the members in whatever we decide to follow.
Very good point by alterego.
This letter has a very striking problem in it.. one that can cause a huge problem for the people signing it.
How can one say that they wanted to apply in EB2, but their lawyer said they should apply in EB3?
As pointed out by pappu, Category is determined by job requirements and not the summary qualifications of the beneficiary.
If you sign and say that the lawyer said you should apply in EB3/EB2/whatever, you are essentially stating that lawyers were involved in fabricating the job requirements. This is the same problem that is causing Fragomen clients to be investigated/audited.
This is just an advice. I am prepared to support IV and the members in whatever we decide to follow.
No comments:
Post a Comment