dartkid31
05-17 07:56 PM
Qualified_trash,
IV core members have only 24 hours a day to do IV work and their full time jobs. As such, we have to channel our resources in the most productive way possible. Lou Dobbs is the media equivalent of FAIR, NumbersUSA, Tom Tancredo and company [Do get on to Lexis-Nexis and find out more about him.] We are civil in our encounters with the representatives of these groups, but it is not a productive use of our time to engage with them more than this.
As for dealing with lawmakers -- there too we spend our time productively. We haven't been hanging out with Jeff Sessions and James Sensenbrenner. We use other more reasonable lawmakers to work out deals with the anti-immigrant wing.
best,
Berkeleybee
I agree 100 percent. Anyone who believes Lou Dobbs is a friend of LEGAL immigrants probably also believes Tom Tancredo and NumbersUsa Sympathize with legal immigrants. It always ticks me off whenever Tancredo is waxing poetic in the press about how legalizing illegals would be "sending the wrong message to those trying to do it the right way"; when he is actively trying to end all legal immigration. What a tool and hypocrite. Lou Dobbs falls in the same boat. Dont believe their tripe for one second.
IV core members have only 24 hours a day to do IV work and their full time jobs. As such, we have to channel our resources in the most productive way possible. Lou Dobbs is the media equivalent of FAIR, NumbersUSA, Tom Tancredo and company [Do get on to Lexis-Nexis and find out more about him.] We are civil in our encounters with the representatives of these groups, but it is not a productive use of our time to engage with them more than this.
As for dealing with lawmakers -- there too we spend our time productively. We haven't been hanging out with Jeff Sessions and James Sensenbrenner. We use other more reasonable lawmakers to work out deals with the anti-immigrant wing.
best,
Berkeleybee
I agree 100 percent. Anyone who believes Lou Dobbs is a friend of LEGAL immigrants probably also believes Tom Tancredo and NumbersUsa Sympathize with legal immigrants. It always ticks me off whenever Tancredo is waxing poetic in the press about how legalizing illegals would be "sending the wrong message to those trying to do it the right way"; when he is actively trying to end all legal immigration. What a tool and hypocrite. Lou Dobbs falls in the same boat. Dont believe their tripe for one second.
wallpaper of quot;Grown Upsquot; at the
dealsnet
01-06 08:29 PM
Israel is doing this for their safty. They are a soverign country and attacking the terrorist. Hamas don't want cease fire, then why they expect mercy. If they don't want to stop the war, then why other people raise their voice. Mind your business.
They are not occupy any body's land. They live there from thousand of years, which God given to them. When they not recognize the saviour and cruxified, God's wrath fall upon them and they are disperesed. But to fulfil the Holy Bible prophesy, they regain the land and living there. No force in earth to distroy them. They are surrounded by hostile nations. Still they are surviving.
These Arabs during and after the time of Mohammed tried to conquer the lands, and they occupy the land of Jews. They occupy the Constanople, where the biggest church situated, and they anexed to ottaman empire, now Turkey. They slaughtered everybody in that city. They did it in Syria, Egypt in AD1100. They distroy their culture, language etc. They cut the tongue, if anybody speaks the local language Syric in Syria and Coptic in Egypt. You can ask the minority people from these countries or read history. Barbarian Arabs conqured Indian subcontinent and convert the people by force. So Islam is not a religion of peace. It started with violence and end with violence. Every religion, religous people will be pious, but in Islam, they become terrorist. Satan is controlling these people. Sorry to say that. But it is true. In the last days, God punish these evil people. May all wiped out.
See this web site for more detailshttp://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles.htm
They are not occupy any body's land. They live there from thousand of years, which God given to them. When they not recognize the saviour and cruxified, God's wrath fall upon them and they are disperesed. But to fulfil the Holy Bible prophesy, they regain the land and living there. No force in earth to distroy them. They are surrounded by hostile nations. Still they are surviving.
These Arabs during and after the time of Mohammed tried to conquer the lands, and they occupy the land of Jews. They occupy the Constanople, where the biggest church situated, and they anexed to ottaman empire, now Turkey. They slaughtered everybody in that city. They did it in Syria, Egypt in AD1100. They distroy their culture, language etc. They cut the tongue, if anybody speaks the local language Syric in Syria and Coptic in Egypt. You can ask the minority people from these countries or read history. Barbarian Arabs conqured Indian subcontinent and convert the people by force. So Islam is not a religion of peace. It started with violence and end with violence. Every religion, religous people will be pious, but in Islam, they become terrorist. Satan is controlling these people. Sorry to say that. But it is true. In the last days, God punish these evil people. May all wiped out.
See this web site for more detailshttp://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles.htm
gcgonewild
07-28 01:59 PM
Come the November Elections, Dems could lose 10 in Senate..
And we are back to square one.
Dejavu 2007/2008 ;
If this happens, no bill will pass, leave alone Immigration Reform.
Republicans will keep sending bills and Obama will Veto 'em.
I regret the day when Obama became the president, he is just another politician who does not give a damn about EB2,EB3....he is just worried about "re-uniting families" (aka supporter of illegal immigration)
And we are back to square one.
Dejavu 2007/2008 ;
If this happens, no bill will pass, leave alone Immigration Reform.
Republicans will keep sending bills and Obama will Veto 'em.
I regret the day when Obama became the president, he is just another politician who does not give a damn about EB2,EB3....he is just worried about "re-uniting families" (aka supporter of illegal immigration)
2011 salma hayek grown ups black
maddipati1
03-23 03:08 PM
Did you send Seinfeld a royalty? :D
-a
cheers
-a
cheers
more...
chanduv23
09-29 11:00 AM
Obama presidency will be a positive experience or a negative, based on whether Sen. Obama chooses to show Leadership or panders to the extreme left-wing of his party.
Obama has everything to gain from supporting the EB community. An example is the loyal following Pres. Clinton has developed with the Asian community through the passage of recapture in the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act. Passing pro-EB immigration bills will definitely create a pro-Obama community as he gets ready to run for the second term. Though these new Permanent Residents may not be having the vote, they can contribute generously to the Obama campaign legally.
Obama campaign won't be able to bank on 'Hope and Change' for the second term. Contributors will be judging him based on what he has done for their community. As he faces the Republican money-machine these contributions from the grateful former-EB immigrants will create a safe avenue for funding.
Helping EB immigrants will not hurt Obama with the labor unions and left-wing groups. Whatever be their gripes, they will not be voting Republican or contributing Republican for sure. Same cannot be said of EB immigrant community who can by and large go Republican, if they see Obama working to the detriment of their interests and the community. With Asian votes and more importantly being so crucial in NY/NJ and CA, If I were Obama I would think hard before supporting anything that can turn these communities against me, and my party for a long time given the uncertainties of politics. If past trends have been any indication EB immigrant community has always voted solidly Democratic. Last thing any sensible leader or party will do in democracy will be losing thousands of future voters likely to vote for them and/or their party.
Obama can either create a lasting Legacy with this community.Or he can make them angry for life by pandering to the extreme left-wing of his party, who won't even remember the action come the next elections. I hope Obama makes a sensible choice for the greater good. But if the current Democratic party politics is any indication, I am skeptical. It is beyond my understanding why the Democratic party leadership is hell-bent on converting the pro-Democrat EB immigrant community into future reliable Republican voters, by consistently black-balling any bills that could help the community!
Passing anti-EB immigrant measure will NOT help the Dems get any new votes that they already don't have. Dems may lose a few votes for short term -which I highly doubt - by passing Recapture and other pro-EB bills. But that loss will be more than offset by new grateful voters who will vote Democratic for a generation and may be more. I can only hope that common sense prevails, and Obama acts keeping the common interests of his party and EB immigrants in mind while acting on the issue, while getting ready to pack-up for Canada or India, if forced to do so by Sen. Durbins pet policies.
In my opinion, Sen Durbin's stance on EB immigrants would be the cause of concern and like we all know Sen Durbin will make calls on these issues if Sen. Obama becomes the President. Lets see how it unfolds.
Obama has everything to gain from supporting the EB community. An example is the loyal following Pres. Clinton has developed with the Asian community through the passage of recapture in the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act. Passing pro-EB immigration bills will definitely create a pro-Obama community as he gets ready to run for the second term. Though these new Permanent Residents may not be having the vote, they can contribute generously to the Obama campaign legally.
Obama campaign won't be able to bank on 'Hope and Change' for the second term. Contributors will be judging him based on what he has done for their community. As he faces the Republican money-machine these contributions from the grateful former-EB immigrants will create a safe avenue for funding.
Helping EB immigrants will not hurt Obama with the labor unions and left-wing groups. Whatever be their gripes, they will not be voting Republican or contributing Republican for sure. Same cannot be said of EB immigrant community who can by and large go Republican, if they see Obama working to the detriment of their interests and the community. With Asian votes and more importantly being so crucial in NY/NJ and CA, If I were Obama I would think hard before supporting anything that can turn these communities against me, and my party for a long time given the uncertainties of politics. If past trends have been any indication EB immigrant community has always voted solidly Democratic. Last thing any sensible leader or party will do in democracy will be losing thousands of future voters likely to vote for them and/or their party.
Obama can either create a lasting Legacy with this community.Or he can make them angry for life by pandering to the extreme left-wing of his party, who won't even remember the action come the next elections. I hope Obama makes a sensible choice for the greater good. But if the current Democratic party politics is any indication, I am skeptical. It is beyond my understanding why the Democratic party leadership is hell-bent on converting the pro-Democrat EB immigrant community into future reliable Republican voters, by consistently black-balling any bills that could help the community!
Passing anti-EB immigrant measure will NOT help the Dems get any new votes that they already don't have. Dems may lose a few votes for short term -which I highly doubt - by passing Recapture and other pro-EB bills. But that loss will be more than offset by new grateful voters who will vote Democratic for a generation and may be more. I can only hope that common sense prevails, and Obama acts keeping the common interests of his party and EB immigrants in mind while acting on the issue, while getting ready to pack-up for Canada or India, if forced to do so by Sen. Durbins pet policies.
In my opinion, Sen Durbin's stance on EB immigrants would be the cause of concern and like we all know Sen Durbin will make calls on these issues if Sen. Obama becomes the President. Lets see how it unfolds.
amitjoey
08-05 02:27 PM
How about this story:
One Mr. Sunny Surya, and one Mr. XYZ. both landed in the USA in 1998. Mr. Sunny Surya goes to school, works hard and gets his masters in 2000. works for a good reputed company gathers experience and then in 2003 files for labor. PD 2003. Since he does not have experience in the USA (His present experience with the sponsoring company is not counted). He would have to change his job to be considered for EB2. So files in EB3. Mean time MR. XYZ has changed multiple jobs and is suddenly eligible for EB2 and files in JAN 2004. He is current and about to get his GC. Mr. Sunny Surya is contemplating changing his job and he is definately going to qualify for EB2. Mr XYZ tells Mr. Sunny - NO!. You cannot get in the EB2 with older PD. Get a 2008 PD.
One Mr. Sunny Surya, and one Mr. XYZ. both landed in the USA in 1998. Mr. Sunny Surya goes to school, works hard and gets his masters in 2000. works for a good reputed company gathers experience and then in 2003 files for labor. PD 2003. Since he does not have experience in the USA (His present experience with the sponsoring company is not counted). He would have to change his job to be considered for EB2. So files in EB3. Mean time MR. XYZ has changed multiple jobs and is suddenly eligible for EB2 and files in JAN 2004. He is current and about to get his GC. Mr. Sunny Surya is contemplating changing his job and he is definately going to qualify for EB2. Mr XYZ tells Mr. Sunny - NO!. You cannot get in the EB2 with older PD. Get a 2008 PD.
more...
mariner5555
04-15 02:19 PM
Agreed, but then you have no way of knowing if you would have been less happier growing up in a bigger home. For all you know, you may have been more happier.
That is the general line of thinking everyone has including all the people who are posting on this forum. If more money does not equate to a better life, then why are all these people taking the trouble to desert their home land and live in a foreign country? If more money => better lifestyle, then it follows a home can provide a relatively better environment to a child than an apartment.
If all Americans live in rented apartments, drive only used Japanese cars (resale value), furnished their homes with scant used furniture and were focussed on investing their money than spending it, then the American economy will go down to the level of a third world country in less than 10 years.
This does not mean everyone has to run out and buy a home. The point as I said earlier is to see a home as a home and not as an investment.
this maybe your view .. but I can find some faults with it.
yes ..more money is equal to better lifestyle but a bigger house is not necessarily a better lifestyle for everyone. for many tech workers, following this line of reasoning will cause them more problems.
I don't know about you ..but I came here to US for money and for better quality of life (I didnot come here to buy a big house !!). a big house would mean that I have less money as more money goes for property tax / maintenance etc etc
now ..since I save money by renting ..I can afford to put my son in better dayschool, fund his college fund , take him for more freq vacations etc etc.
now this maybe different for some people ..maybe those earning more than 125 K or with double income.
also ..do you mean people should pay more for a house than it is worth ??
I agree with yr last points ...that not everyone has to run ..and thats what I am saying.
once you get GC and have a stable job and get a good offer on a house ...buy ..else wait. In other words ..as you are implying ..if you can afford a big house without making heavy sacrifices ..then go for it.
(but many people that I know ..buy big houses ..then try to save money on air conditioning, restaurants etc).
the other main problem with H1/ EAD is that you become immobile ..esp if you have to move for various reasons (since you have to worry about your legal status too ..).
btw ..if all americans stayed in rental (or smaller homes ) and drove japanese fuel eff cars ..then the world would have been a better place with lower gas prices :)
That is the general line of thinking everyone has including all the people who are posting on this forum. If more money does not equate to a better life, then why are all these people taking the trouble to desert their home land and live in a foreign country? If more money => better lifestyle, then it follows a home can provide a relatively better environment to a child than an apartment.
If all Americans live in rented apartments, drive only used Japanese cars (resale value), furnished their homes with scant used furniture and were focussed on investing their money than spending it, then the American economy will go down to the level of a third world country in less than 10 years.
This does not mean everyone has to run out and buy a home. The point as I said earlier is to see a home as a home and not as an investment.
this maybe your view .. but I can find some faults with it.
yes ..more money is equal to better lifestyle but a bigger house is not necessarily a better lifestyle for everyone. for many tech workers, following this line of reasoning will cause them more problems.
I don't know about you ..but I came here to US for money and for better quality of life (I didnot come here to buy a big house !!). a big house would mean that I have less money as more money goes for property tax / maintenance etc etc
now ..since I save money by renting ..I can afford to put my son in better dayschool, fund his college fund , take him for more freq vacations etc etc.
now this maybe different for some people ..maybe those earning more than 125 K or with double income.
also ..do you mean people should pay more for a house than it is worth ??
I agree with yr last points ...that not everyone has to run ..and thats what I am saying.
once you get GC and have a stable job and get a good offer on a house ...buy ..else wait. In other words ..as you are implying ..if you can afford a big house without making heavy sacrifices ..then go for it.
(but many people that I know ..buy big houses ..then try to save money on air conditioning, restaurants etc).
the other main problem with H1/ EAD is that you become immobile ..esp if you have to move for various reasons (since you have to worry about your legal status too ..).
btw ..if all americans stayed in rental (or smaller homes ) and drove japanese fuel eff cars ..then the world would have been a better place with lower gas prices :)
2010 makeup salma hayek grown ups.
abracadabra102
12-30 09:48 AM
at the risk of adding to this "no longer relevant" thread - there is a huge difference between US and India gaining independence.....in case of the former - it was some Britishers now settled in America fighting other Britishers (loyalists to the throne) for autonomy and independence......
India was perhaps the first successful example of natives gaining independence from a colonial European power....
also - to brush up on some more history - India was not occupied in 1600 - actually East India Company was established in that year.....the real establishment and consolidation of territorial control happened between two historical events (Battle of Plassey in 1757 and Sepoy Mutiny in 1857).....if we consider the 1757 date as start of colonization in true earnest - then India was independent in 190 years (1947 - 1757) against your calculation of 189 years for USA (as per your post - 1789-1600) - so not bad for a mostly non-violent struggle :-)
Also - one of the reasons Atlee thought it was too expensive to maintain colonies was because of all the Quit India and Civil Disobedience type regular movements -these movements took much political and military bandwidth that Britain simply did not have after the war.....if maitaining a colony was easy sailing - i doubt Britain would have given it up easily and we have to credit the non-violent movements for helping India becoming a pain in the neck for Britain......
1600 was the time Britishers set foot in US and India. You are right that the actual consolidation of power (in India) started around 1750s in India. At the same time, the actual American revolution started in 1775 and is over effectively by 1781 when George Washington's army defeated Lord Cornwallis at Yorktown. (This Cornwallis bloke returned to UK with his tail between his legs and was appointed as Governor General of India and he was very successful there. As usual we made a tiger out of a mouse :-) ). After Sepoy revolt of 1857, we had to whine for a good 90 years for our independence. Americans started it in 1775/76 and is over by 1783, in just 8 years. Before 1775/76, Americans were willing subjects of British crown, but Indians were not.
India was perhaps the first successful example of natives gaining independence from a colonial European power....
also - to brush up on some more history - India was not occupied in 1600 - actually East India Company was established in that year.....the real establishment and consolidation of territorial control happened between two historical events (Battle of Plassey in 1757 and Sepoy Mutiny in 1857).....if we consider the 1757 date as start of colonization in true earnest - then India was independent in 190 years (1947 - 1757) against your calculation of 189 years for USA (as per your post - 1789-1600) - so not bad for a mostly non-violent struggle :-)
Also - one of the reasons Atlee thought it was too expensive to maintain colonies was because of all the Quit India and Civil Disobedience type regular movements -these movements took much political and military bandwidth that Britain simply did not have after the war.....if maitaining a colony was easy sailing - i doubt Britain would have given it up easily and we have to credit the non-violent movements for helping India becoming a pain in the neck for Britain......
1600 was the time Britishers set foot in US and India. You are right that the actual consolidation of power (in India) started around 1750s in India. At the same time, the actual American revolution started in 1775 and is over effectively by 1781 when George Washington's army defeated Lord Cornwallis at Yorktown. (This Cornwallis bloke returned to UK with his tail between his legs and was appointed as Governor General of India and he was very successful there. As usual we made a tiger out of a mouse :-) ). After Sepoy revolt of 1857, we had to whine for a good 90 years for our independence. Americans started it in 1775/76 and is over by 1783, in just 8 years. Before 1775/76, Americans were willing subjects of British crown, but Indians were not.
more...
willgetgc2005
08-11 01:36 PM
YADABA,
CAn you please send me the link where you found that CNN has applied for H1B. I would like to write in to Lou (which i think is useless.
He is a rabid man).
But more importatanly, I want to write to soemone else in CNN.
I want to ask this.
If CNN is so anti H1, I believe its progrmas reflect what it stands for, then why does it file for H1?
Pappu, if u put in cable news network and state = Georgia...it will pull up 15 records of h1b applications made by CNN in 2005. maybe someone needs to tell dobbs that. 9 H1 B for fox
CAn you please send me the link where you found that CNN has applied for H1B. I would like to write in to Lou (which i think is useless.
He is a rabid man).
But more importatanly, I want to write to soemone else in CNN.
I want to ask this.
If CNN is so anti H1, I believe its progrmas reflect what it stands for, then why does it file for H1?
Pappu, if u put in cable news network and state = Georgia...it will pull up 15 records of h1b applications made by CNN in 2005. maybe someone needs to tell dobbs that. 9 H1 B for fox
hair tattoo grown ups black dress
nojoke
04-14 01:14 PM
People who have bought houses are advocating buying one and who are renting are defending their decisions to rent... I think buying a multiplex i.e. 2 single family homes 3/1.5 bath in 450K each in California (sunnyvale/cupertino) makes a lot of sense...don't you think!
These same duplex were selling for 150K a few years back? Aren't they inflated as well? How is it different from buying a house? Are you saying that the loss is minimized?
These same duplex were selling for 150K a few years back? Aren't they inflated as well? How is it different from buying a house? Are you saying that the loss is minimized?
more...
krishna
02-21 12:45 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.
hot premiere of quot;Grown Upsquot; at
niklshah
07-13 09:29 PM
I hope you get your GC soon. As for me its 'wait until dark'. It'll come some day.
And NO I am not an IT EB2. I am a non-STEM MBA in Finance who does not pratice engineering anymore.
you did not get my post...last thing we want is silly argument regarding EB2 and EB3................
And NO I am not an IT EB2. I am a non-STEM MBA in Finance who does not pratice engineering anymore.
you did not get my post...last thing we want is silly argument regarding EB2 and EB3................
more...
house boy. salma hayek grown ups
Macaca
08-01 08:24 PM
House Votes 411-8 to Pass Ethics Overhaul (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/31/AR2007073100200.html) Far-Reaching Measure Faces Senate Hurdles By Jonathan Weisman Washington Post Staff Writer, August 1, 2007
The House gave final and overwhelming approval yesterday to a landmark bill that would tighten ethics and lobbying rules for Congress, forcing lawmakers to more fully detail how their campaigns are funded and how they direct government spending.
The new lobbying bill would, for the first time, require lawmakers to disclose small campaign contributions that are "bundled" into large packages by lobbyists. It would require lobbyists to detail their own campaign contributions, as well as payments to presidential libraries, inaugural committees and charities controlled by lawmakers. The proposal would also put new disclosure requirements on special spending measures for pet projects, known as "earmarks."
"What we did today was momentous," declared House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). "It's historic."
The bill is the most far-reaching attempt at ethics reform since Watergate, although it is not as aggressive as some legislators wanted in restricting the use of earmarks and in requiring the disclosure of donation bundling. The legislation, which had been stalled until negotiators worked out a deal in recent days to get it passed before the August recess, is a priority for Democrats, who won control of Congress in part because they had decried what they called "a culture of corruption" under Republicans.
Although it passed the House 411 to 8, the bill could face hurdles in the Senate, which is under a new ethics cloud after the FBI raid Monday on Sen. Ted Stevens's house. Last night, a group of Republican senators prevented Democrats from bringing up the bill, forcing the scheduling of a vote tomorrow to break the filibuster. Still, senators from both parties predicted easy passage by week's end.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) all but dared Republicans to try to block the proposal when it comes to a vote as early as tomorrow. "With that resounding vote in the House, 411-8, I think people ought to be concerned about voting against it," he said yesterday.
But in a closed-door lunch with fellow Republican senators yesterday, Stevens (R-Alaska) himself threatened to block the measure, objecting that the legislation's new restrictions on lawmakers' use of corporate jets would unfairly penalize members of Congress who live in distant states, such as himself.
The legislation would end secret "holds" in the Senate, which allow a single senator to block action without disclosing that he or she has done so. Members of Congress would no longer be allowed to attend lavish parties thrown in their honor at political conventions. Gifts, meals and travel funded by lobbyists would be banned, and travel on corporate jets would be restricted. Lobbyists would have to disclose their activities more often and on the Internet. And lawmakers convicted of bribery, perjury and other crimes would be denied their congressional pensions.
"These are big-time fundamental reforms," said Fred Wertheimer, president of the open-government group Democracy 21.
Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), who failed to get ethics legislation enacted last year, noted that the final bill's disclosure rules are considerably less tough on the "bundling" of small campaign contributions into large donations by lobbyists. The original ethics bill would have required the disclosure of bundled contributions over $5,000 every three months. Under the final bill, lawmakers would have to report every six months any bundled contributions from lobbyists totaling more than $15,000. In one year, a single lobbyist could funnel nearly $30,000 to a candidate or campaign committee without any of those actions having to be disclosed.
House negotiators also refused to lengthen the current one-year "cooling-off" period, during which former House members are prohibited from becoming lobbyists.
Some conservatives latched on to the weakening of earmark disclosure rules that had passed the Senate in January. An explicit prohibition on trading earmarks for votes was dropped by House and Senate Democratic negotiators. A prohibition on any earmark that would financially benefit lawmakers, their immediate families, their staff or their staff's immediate families was altered to say that the ban would apply to any earmark that advances a lawmaker's "pecuniary interest." Critics say that would mean the benefit would have to be direct for the measure to be prohibited, and that the ban would not apply to a project that would benefit a larger community, including the lawmaker.
House members are covered by earmark rules, passed earlier this year, that are tougher than the legislation, which would apply only to senators.
"Earmarks have been the currency of corruption and, unfortunately, this lobbying reform bill does not adequately address that problem," declared Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), a longtime critic of earmarks.
Reform groups and Democrats accused opponents of using the earmark issue as a pretext to block the other rule changes. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who has blocked the legislation in the past, confirmed that he remains uncomfortable with the broader bill's mandates on lobbying disclosures and gift bans.
"You could've done nothing, or some staff member could have made an innocent mistake, and now you're defending yourself in a court of law," he said. "It's nuts."
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), another critic, had single-handedly blocked the calling of a formal House-Senate conference to negotiate the final deal, forcing Democrats to hammer out the compromise on their own. The House passed it under fast-track procedures that prohibit amendments but require a two-thirds majority for approval -- a threshold that was easily met.
Now, Reid must get the bill through the Senate without any amendment, using a parliamentary tactic that has been roundly criticized by Republicans in the past as strong-arming. But in this case, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has given his tacit assent, laying the blame squarely on his own conservative hard-liners.
"In a sense, we made it difficult on ourselves," McConnell said.
It may be even more difficult for Republicans to block the measure while their senior senator, Stevens, is under a cloud of suspicion. FBI agents raided the powerful lawmaker's house Monday, looking for evidence in a long-running investigation of an Alaska energy firm, Veco, and its alleged efforts to bribe Alaska lawmakers.
And yesterday, the House ethics committee indicated that it may consider an inquiry into whether Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.) violated rules by calling a federal prosecutor about a pending investigation. The committee's staff interviewed the prosecutor, former U.S. attorney David C. Iglesias, yesterday.
At least eight lawmakers -- six Republicans and two Democrats -- are under federal investigation. Earlier this year, the homes and business interests of Reps. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) and John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.) were searched, and Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) was indicted on corruption charges.
The House gave final and overwhelming approval yesterday to a landmark bill that would tighten ethics and lobbying rules for Congress, forcing lawmakers to more fully detail how their campaigns are funded and how they direct government spending.
The new lobbying bill would, for the first time, require lawmakers to disclose small campaign contributions that are "bundled" into large packages by lobbyists. It would require lobbyists to detail their own campaign contributions, as well as payments to presidential libraries, inaugural committees and charities controlled by lawmakers. The proposal would also put new disclosure requirements on special spending measures for pet projects, known as "earmarks."
"What we did today was momentous," declared House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). "It's historic."
The bill is the most far-reaching attempt at ethics reform since Watergate, although it is not as aggressive as some legislators wanted in restricting the use of earmarks and in requiring the disclosure of donation bundling. The legislation, which had been stalled until negotiators worked out a deal in recent days to get it passed before the August recess, is a priority for Democrats, who won control of Congress in part because they had decried what they called "a culture of corruption" under Republicans.
Although it passed the House 411 to 8, the bill could face hurdles in the Senate, which is under a new ethics cloud after the FBI raid Monday on Sen. Ted Stevens's house. Last night, a group of Republican senators prevented Democrats from bringing up the bill, forcing the scheduling of a vote tomorrow to break the filibuster. Still, senators from both parties predicted easy passage by week's end.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) all but dared Republicans to try to block the proposal when it comes to a vote as early as tomorrow. "With that resounding vote in the House, 411-8, I think people ought to be concerned about voting against it," he said yesterday.
But in a closed-door lunch with fellow Republican senators yesterday, Stevens (R-Alaska) himself threatened to block the measure, objecting that the legislation's new restrictions on lawmakers' use of corporate jets would unfairly penalize members of Congress who live in distant states, such as himself.
The legislation would end secret "holds" in the Senate, which allow a single senator to block action without disclosing that he or she has done so. Members of Congress would no longer be allowed to attend lavish parties thrown in their honor at political conventions. Gifts, meals and travel funded by lobbyists would be banned, and travel on corporate jets would be restricted. Lobbyists would have to disclose their activities more often and on the Internet. And lawmakers convicted of bribery, perjury and other crimes would be denied their congressional pensions.
"These are big-time fundamental reforms," said Fred Wertheimer, president of the open-government group Democracy 21.
Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), who failed to get ethics legislation enacted last year, noted that the final bill's disclosure rules are considerably less tough on the "bundling" of small campaign contributions into large donations by lobbyists. The original ethics bill would have required the disclosure of bundled contributions over $5,000 every three months. Under the final bill, lawmakers would have to report every six months any bundled contributions from lobbyists totaling more than $15,000. In one year, a single lobbyist could funnel nearly $30,000 to a candidate or campaign committee without any of those actions having to be disclosed.
House negotiators also refused to lengthen the current one-year "cooling-off" period, during which former House members are prohibited from becoming lobbyists.
Some conservatives latched on to the weakening of earmark disclosure rules that had passed the Senate in January. An explicit prohibition on trading earmarks for votes was dropped by House and Senate Democratic negotiators. A prohibition on any earmark that would financially benefit lawmakers, their immediate families, their staff or their staff's immediate families was altered to say that the ban would apply to any earmark that advances a lawmaker's "pecuniary interest." Critics say that would mean the benefit would have to be direct for the measure to be prohibited, and that the ban would not apply to a project that would benefit a larger community, including the lawmaker.
House members are covered by earmark rules, passed earlier this year, that are tougher than the legislation, which would apply only to senators.
"Earmarks have been the currency of corruption and, unfortunately, this lobbying reform bill does not adequately address that problem," declared Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), a longtime critic of earmarks.
Reform groups and Democrats accused opponents of using the earmark issue as a pretext to block the other rule changes. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who has blocked the legislation in the past, confirmed that he remains uncomfortable with the broader bill's mandates on lobbying disclosures and gift bans.
"You could've done nothing, or some staff member could have made an innocent mistake, and now you're defending yourself in a court of law," he said. "It's nuts."
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), another critic, had single-handedly blocked the calling of a formal House-Senate conference to negotiate the final deal, forcing Democrats to hammer out the compromise on their own. The House passed it under fast-track procedures that prohibit amendments but require a two-thirds majority for approval -- a threshold that was easily met.
Now, Reid must get the bill through the Senate without any amendment, using a parliamentary tactic that has been roundly criticized by Republicans in the past as strong-arming. But in this case, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has given his tacit assent, laying the blame squarely on his own conservative hard-liners.
"In a sense, we made it difficult on ourselves," McConnell said.
It may be even more difficult for Republicans to block the measure while their senior senator, Stevens, is under a cloud of suspicion. FBI agents raided the powerful lawmaker's house Monday, looking for evidence in a long-running investigation of an Alaska energy firm, Veco, and its alleged efforts to bribe Alaska lawmakers.
And yesterday, the House ethics committee indicated that it may consider an inquiry into whether Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.) violated rules by calling a federal prosecutor about a pending investigation. The committee's staff interviewed the prosecutor, former U.S. attorney David C. Iglesias, yesterday.
At least eight lawmakers -- six Republicans and two Democrats -- are under federal investigation. Earlier this year, the homes and business interests of Reps. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) and John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.) were searched, and Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) was indicted on corruption charges.
tattoo hot salma hayek grown ups
NKR
07-14 09:48 AM
Eb2- I people are wrong when they think any steps taken by EB3-I are because of jealousy.
I am an EB2 I applicant and my PD became current this month. If I do not care, I wouldn�t even be checking out this thread. I understand your pain and frustration, I was stuck too for a long time in the old labor process before perm came.
EB2 I people do not think EB3 I people are jealous. I do not think Rolling Flood is from India, let alone being an EB2 I applicant. He just rolled in thinking he can open a flood gate of arguments and counter-arguments, let�s just prove him wrong.
I am an EB2 I applicant and my PD became current this month. If I do not care, I wouldn�t even be checking out this thread. I understand your pain and frustration, I was stuck too for a long time in the old labor process before perm came.
EB2 I people do not think EB3 I people are jealous. I do not think Rolling Flood is from India, let alone being an EB2 I applicant. He just rolled in thinking he can open a flood gate of arguments and counter-arguments, let�s just prove him wrong.
more...
pictures salma hayek grown ups black
sledge_hammer
03-24 02:44 PM
Okay, sorry if I wrote H-1B. But the "perm" job requirement is for GC.
I kind of mixed the H-1B requirement and GC requirement.
But, the question remains and USCIS needs to clarify what is perm and temp jobs for the purpose of GREEN CARD.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=bac7d92e8003f010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=1847c9ee2f82b010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
Q : What is an H-1B?
The H-1B is a nonimmigrant classification used by an alien who will be employed temporarily in a specialty occupation or as a fashion model of distinguished merit and ability.
As per USCIS, H1B is for temporary job
I kind of mixed the H-1B requirement and GC requirement.
But, the question remains and USCIS needs to clarify what is perm and temp jobs for the purpose of GREEN CARD.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=bac7d92e8003f010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=1847c9ee2f82b010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
Q : What is an H-1B?
The H-1B is a nonimmigrant classification used by an alien who will be employed temporarily in a specialty occupation or as a fashion model of distinguished merit and ability.
As per USCIS, H1B is for temporary job
dresses images salma hayek grown ups
HawaldarNaik
12-26 08:44 PM
However crude the last statement may sound, it is very effective and 2 the point.
I now beilive that some world powers are willing to work to gether to get this 'headache' resolved in some way (as most of them have now been bit by it one way or the other....though they were first sympathetic to the cause blah blah.....now they have been stung...so have woken up)
one thing is certain as i specified above, we have to make sure that we put an end to this..and SOON.....otherwise the horror has just begun and they will really be encouraged to attack again...and this time it could be much worse (as u have seen it has progressively got worse)...so time is running out...
Even if we target the terror camps, i think most of the world powers will not raise a hue and cry...... for that i must say hats off to our chief ('sardar'...means chief), he has really handled this with a lot of calm and composure at the same time effectively....got the world intelligence agencies to come down and validate what we have all along been saying.....and making the whole investigation transparent to the global powers.......NOW it is the time to act....and NAIL it to the opposite camp.........
And i used to think he was the best finance minister we had....he has proved me wrong cause he could just end up being the best finance cum prime miinister for me
I now beilive that some world powers are willing to work to gether to get this 'headache' resolved in some way (as most of them have now been bit by it one way or the other....though they were first sympathetic to the cause blah blah.....now they have been stung...so have woken up)
one thing is certain as i specified above, we have to make sure that we put an end to this..and SOON.....otherwise the horror has just begun and they will really be encouraged to attack again...and this time it could be much worse (as u have seen it has progressively got worse)...so time is running out...
Even if we target the terror camps, i think most of the world powers will not raise a hue and cry...... for that i must say hats off to our chief ('sardar'...means chief), he has really handled this with a lot of calm and composure at the same time effectively....got the world intelligence agencies to come down and validate what we have all along been saying.....and making the whole investigation transparent to the global powers.......NOW it is the time to act....and NAIL it to the opposite camp.........
And i used to think he was the best finance minister we had....he has proved me wrong cause he could just end up being the best finance cum prime miinister for me
more...
makeup Salma Hayek Premieres #39;Grown
xyzgc
12-24 01:43 PM
Granted there are loose canons in every community, yet some evils are encouraged by doctrine in religion such as below:
http://living.oneindia.in/kamasutra/spheres-of-life/religious-prostitution-partii.html
.. and simply you are down in mud pool doesnt mean whole world is like you!
I think everyone should check this out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izUv-ywBeg4
This is not western/Indian/Hindu propaganda! It comes from an Arabic woman.
And this is also applicable to educated women, not just ignorant, impoverished, illiterate masses because this lady says in Saudi Arabia women don't have the right to drive.
Sexual abuse of a child permitted by religion...I'm shocked beyond words, till date I thought it was all western and israeli propaganda!
Another eye-opener about Islamicn bad practices! Again from an Arab!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SP-YcsOSco
http://living.oneindia.in/kamasutra/spheres-of-life/religious-prostitution-partii.html
.. and simply you are down in mud pool doesnt mean whole world is like you!
I think everyone should check this out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izUv-ywBeg4
This is not western/Indian/Hindu propaganda! It comes from an Arabic woman.
And this is also applicable to educated women, not just ignorant, impoverished, illiterate masses because this lady says in Saudi Arabia women don't have the right to drive.
Sexual abuse of a child permitted by religion...I'm shocked beyond words, till date I thought it was all western and israeli propaganda!
Another eye-opener about Islamicn bad practices! Again from an Arab!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SP-YcsOSco
girlfriend in Grown ups salma hayek
lfwf
08-05 06:35 PM
Dude..if the rules for EB2 eligibility were followed to the T, most of the EB2 jobs would fall back to EB3. Stop the holier-than-thou postings, it is your first post. you were able to apply in EB2 good for you, you might dissaprove the post bit that is ok with me. you want to file a lawsuit sure go ahead, i also want a file a lawsuit with the FBI for messing up my name check, easier said than done.
I have been in this mess since 2001, i have seen cases where jobs are modified to suit the resume and resumes are modified to suit the job and most of those guys have GCs by now.
Here we go again. EB2 is fraud, they are all really EB3, but guess what? All the bright EB3s are really EB2, they are all suffering needlesly. Right?
Here's my take (I don't even believe it but I think you deserve to hear it)- I think EB3s like you are the real frauds. If immigration law were followed to the T, plenty of EB3s would never get a GC. So many Americans with basic skills that can do silly coding - hell a monkey can do it. So enjoy what you have.
How did you like the sound of that pal? If it felt wrong and offensive, then first shut your own gob and stop posting crap about "most EB2s".
Just fyi I have been here loger than you- by quite a lot. So if that's the qualification, I have "seen" a lot too.
I have been in this mess since 2001, i have seen cases where jobs are modified to suit the resume and resumes are modified to suit the job and most of those guys have GCs by now.
Here we go again. EB2 is fraud, they are all really EB3, but guess what? All the bright EB3s are really EB2, they are all suffering needlesly. Right?
Here's my take (I don't even believe it but I think you deserve to hear it)- I think EB3s like you are the real frauds. If immigration law were followed to the T, plenty of EB3s would never get a GC. So many Americans with basic skills that can do silly coding - hell a monkey can do it. So enjoy what you have.
How did you like the sound of that pal? If it felt wrong and offensive, then first shut your own gob and stop posting crap about "most EB2s".
Just fyi I have been here loger than you- by quite a lot. So if that's the qualification, I have "seen" a lot too.
hairstyles girlfriend salma hayek grown
rsdang
08-11 04:55 PM
:D1) Did you fart? Cuz you just blew me away.
2) Are yer parents retarded? Cuz ya sure are special.
3) My Love fer you is like diarrhea, I can't hold it in!
4) Do you have a library card? Cuz I'd like to check you out.
5) Is there a mirror in yer pants? Cuz I can see myself in em.
6) If you was a tree and I were a Squirrel, I'd store my nuts in yer hole.
7) You might not be the best lookin girl here, but beauty's only a light switch away.
8) Fat Penguin................... Sorry, I just wanted to say something that would break the ice.
9) I know I'm not no Fred Flintstone, but I bet I can make yer bed-rock.
10) I can't find my puppy , can you help me find him? I Think he went into this cheap motel room.
11) Yer eyes are as blue as window cleaner.
12) If yer gunna regret this in the mornin', we kin sleep Til afternoon.
13) Yer face reminds me of a wrench, every time I think of it my nuts tighten up
And.... The best for last!
14) I may not be Mr. Right, but I'll damn sure hump ya' till he comes along...
2) Are yer parents retarded? Cuz ya sure are special.
3) My Love fer you is like diarrhea, I can't hold it in!
4) Do you have a library card? Cuz I'd like to check you out.
5) Is there a mirror in yer pants? Cuz I can see myself in em.
6) If you was a tree and I were a Squirrel, I'd store my nuts in yer hole.
7) You might not be the best lookin girl here, but beauty's only a light switch away.
8) Fat Penguin................... Sorry, I just wanted to say something that would break the ice.
9) I know I'm not no Fred Flintstone, but I bet I can make yer bed-rock.
10) I can't find my puppy , can you help me find him? I Think he went into this cheap motel room.
11) Yer eyes are as blue as window cleaner.
12) If yer gunna regret this in the mornin', we kin sleep Til afternoon.
13) Yer face reminds me of a wrench, every time I think of it my nuts tighten up
And.... The best for last!
14) I may not be Mr. Right, but I'll damn sure hump ya' till he comes along...
gcisadawg
12-31 04:55 PM
Do you realize that
a) Hitler did not export terror. He invaded and occupied countries. Non-state actors trying to kill Pakistanis, and Indians, and trying to start a war between India and Pakistan, are not the same as one country invading another.
b) That was before the atomic bomb,
Alisa,
Look, the Pakistani military/Govt. is not capable of dealing with these 'non-state' actors. Your logic that it is going to take several years to neutralize and India has to wait for that period to pass is simply dumb.
Would you allow a thief to rob your own home over and over again? Depending on your logic, it looks like you wait for several thefts to pass before taking action against the thief.
Looks like most of Pakistan doesn't want to grow up.
Thanks,
G
a) Hitler did not export terror. He invaded and occupied countries. Non-state actors trying to kill Pakistanis, and Indians, and trying to start a war between India and Pakistan, are not the same as one country invading another.
b) That was before the atomic bomb,
Alisa,
Look, the Pakistani military/Govt. is not capable of dealing with these 'non-state' actors. Your logic that it is going to take several years to neutralize and India has to wait for that period to pass is simply dumb.
Would you allow a thief to rob your own home over and over again? Depending on your logic, it looks like you wait for several thefts to pass before taking action against the thief.
Looks like most of Pakistan doesn't want to grow up.
Thanks,
G
Macaca
07-23 07:48 PM
Big Labor flexes its muscles in Congress � with mixed results (http://thehill.com/business--lobby/big-labor-flexes-its-muscles-in-congress--with-mixed-results-2007-07-24.html) By Ian Swanson, July 24, 2007
The day after voters returned Democrats to power in the House and Senate last year, the AFL-CIO held a press conference at its Washington headquarters to announce that union members had come to the polls in large numbers to vote Democratic.
They also promised to remind the new rulers of Congress that labor put them there, and that unions would be back in 2007 looking for support. So far, all indications show Democrats in Congress have been happy to oblige one of their most loyal constituencies.
Legislation backed by labor that was left on the shelves when the House was under Republican rule has been dusted off by Democrats and moved to the floor. This includes so-called card-check legislation approved by the House earlier this year, which was the subject of a huge lobbying fight between labor and business.
By contrast, free-trade agreements opposed by labor and negotiated by the Bush administration have been delayed, some apparently until after the 2008 election.
�There�s been a dramatic change since January,� said Bill Samuel, a top lobbyist for the AFL-CIO who is in frequent communication with Democratic leaders. �Issues that have been long ignored are now getting the attention they deserve.�
�I think they�ve done a fair job in recognizing what our priorities are and addressing them,� agreed Fred McLuckie, legislative director of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
House Republican Conference Chairman Adam Putnam (R-Fla.) agreed with the labor leaders, but put a different spin on the changing tides.
�The brazenness with which they�ve paid back Big Labor is astonishing,� said Putnam, who thinks the loyalty will come back to haunt Democrats next year, particularly since labor unions now represent less than 8 percent of the nation�s private workforce.
Putnam said the shifting fortunes for labor reflect �a blatant return to the old stereotype of Big Labor bosses pulling the strings of Democrats.�
Few Democrats, however, seem to think helping labor will hurt them. For example, only two House Democrats voted against the card-check legislation despite intense lobbying by business groups and negative advertisements in some districts. In the Senate, every Democrat voted in favor of card-check on the floor, as did Republican Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.).
Pro-business Democratic Rep. Adam Smith (Wash.) said he has some differences with unions on trade. But he has no problem supporting card-check or other pro-union bills that he sees as helping low- and middle-income workers get a share of the economic pie.
While card-check legislation, formally known as the Employee Free Choice Act, received the lion�s share of headlines over the first half of the year, dozens of other measures designed to help the labor movement have been inching forward.
For example, lawmakers have attached to several bills language requiring that workers be paid a prevailing wage � and the tactic has helped highlight divisions within the Republican Party. Fifty House Republicans voted to keep prevailing-wage language in a water-resources bill earlier this year.
In addition, the Teamsters and the International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers won a provision in the House Federal Aviation Administration bill that makes it easier for employees of Federal Express to form unions, which could be a boon to the Teamsters and the machinists union. A second provision backed by labor would force the administration back to the negotiating table with air traffic controllers.
And just last week, the House approved a bill providing collective-bargaining rights for firefighters and other first responders in all 50 states. The lower chamber also passed a Department of Labor funding bill that offers increased dollars for workplace enforcement offices like the Wage and Hour Division, which looks into claims that overtime is not being paid, while cutting funds for an office that investigates union corruption.
In the second half of 2007, the AFL-CIO expects to push for bankruptcy law reforms as well as legislation overturning a National Labor Relations Board ruling that broadly defined workers considered to be supervisors. Overturning the decision could allow many more workers to qualify for collective bargaining rights.
Furthermore, the Teamsters will continue to press Democrats to prevent the administration from carrying out plans to allow Mexican trucks access to U.S. roads, McLuckie said.
Meanwhile, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which split from the AFL-CIO a few years ago, is lobbying aggressively on several broad policy issues, including an expansion of the State Children�s Health Insurance Program, according to Secretary-Treasurer Anna Burger.
The debate over ending the war in Iraq is also a top priority for SEIU members, who are even more anti-war than the rest of the nation, Burger said, explaining that the SEIU sees the Iraq war as diverting funds that could be used to provide universal healthcare and other priorities.
Still, while union proposals have won momentum, only one union priority � an increase in the minimum wage � has actually become law. Other measures have been held up in the Senate by Republican-led filibusters or are threatened by presidential vetoes.
While the AFL-CIO�s Samuel admits that moving from a defensive posture to offense has been exciting, he said there is frustration that labor issues have been held up in the Senate. And he insists Democrats have not given labor a blank check, even though he and his colleagues are spending more time in the offices of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) in this Congress. �You still have to argue your case on its merits,� he said.
�For the last 12 years we were for the most part on the defensive,� Samuel continued. �It was other people who were making decisions which we were reacting to. I think now we are able to make decisions, to decide what issues to promote.�
AFL-CIO officials meet weekly to decide which issues to push for. They are also in frequent contact with other labor leaders, who say there�s no evidence that Democratic leaders are playing favorites among the sometimes-fractious labor movement.
SEIU and the Teamsters left the AFL-CIO a few years ago and formed the Change to Win coalition. But McLuckie said he hadn�t heard any complaints within the Change to Win coalition about access to Democrats.
For their part, Republicans hope to use labor�s successes to portray Democrats as too compliant with union demands. For example, the National Republican Senate Committee is already trying to raise money from small businesses spooked by the card-check bill.
It has produced an ominously scored video featuring grainy footage of Senate Democrats rallying for the card-check legislation to convince businesses to donate to the GOP next year. In the video, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) tells the crowd, �We have a majority in the U.S. Senate because of you.� Meanwhile, the figure $1,389,489 flashes on the screen to reflect the contributions Reid has received from �Big Labor.�
The video closes with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) promising to sign the bill into law when she is president, and notes Republicans need only two seats to regain control of the Senate.
While unions are holding off on their presidential endorsements for now, the video reflects their long-term plan for card check. In 2009, labor hopes to have a Democratic president and a larger majority in the Senate, which would make business-backed filibusters more difficult.
�I think it will be easier next time,� said Samuel, who thinks the labor agenda in Congress will help Democrats in next year�s elections. �I think these measures are generally very popular.�
The day after voters returned Democrats to power in the House and Senate last year, the AFL-CIO held a press conference at its Washington headquarters to announce that union members had come to the polls in large numbers to vote Democratic.
They also promised to remind the new rulers of Congress that labor put them there, and that unions would be back in 2007 looking for support. So far, all indications show Democrats in Congress have been happy to oblige one of their most loyal constituencies.
Legislation backed by labor that was left on the shelves when the House was under Republican rule has been dusted off by Democrats and moved to the floor. This includes so-called card-check legislation approved by the House earlier this year, which was the subject of a huge lobbying fight between labor and business.
By contrast, free-trade agreements opposed by labor and negotiated by the Bush administration have been delayed, some apparently until after the 2008 election.
�There�s been a dramatic change since January,� said Bill Samuel, a top lobbyist for the AFL-CIO who is in frequent communication with Democratic leaders. �Issues that have been long ignored are now getting the attention they deserve.�
�I think they�ve done a fair job in recognizing what our priorities are and addressing them,� agreed Fred McLuckie, legislative director of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
House Republican Conference Chairman Adam Putnam (R-Fla.) agreed with the labor leaders, but put a different spin on the changing tides.
�The brazenness with which they�ve paid back Big Labor is astonishing,� said Putnam, who thinks the loyalty will come back to haunt Democrats next year, particularly since labor unions now represent less than 8 percent of the nation�s private workforce.
Putnam said the shifting fortunes for labor reflect �a blatant return to the old stereotype of Big Labor bosses pulling the strings of Democrats.�
Few Democrats, however, seem to think helping labor will hurt them. For example, only two House Democrats voted against the card-check legislation despite intense lobbying by business groups and negative advertisements in some districts. In the Senate, every Democrat voted in favor of card-check on the floor, as did Republican Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.).
Pro-business Democratic Rep. Adam Smith (Wash.) said he has some differences with unions on trade. But he has no problem supporting card-check or other pro-union bills that he sees as helping low- and middle-income workers get a share of the economic pie.
While card-check legislation, formally known as the Employee Free Choice Act, received the lion�s share of headlines over the first half of the year, dozens of other measures designed to help the labor movement have been inching forward.
For example, lawmakers have attached to several bills language requiring that workers be paid a prevailing wage � and the tactic has helped highlight divisions within the Republican Party. Fifty House Republicans voted to keep prevailing-wage language in a water-resources bill earlier this year.
In addition, the Teamsters and the International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers won a provision in the House Federal Aviation Administration bill that makes it easier for employees of Federal Express to form unions, which could be a boon to the Teamsters and the machinists union. A second provision backed by labor would force the administration back to the negotiating table with air traffic controllers.
And just last week, the House approved a bill providing collective-bargaining rights for firefighters and other first responders in all 50 states. The lower chamber also passed a Department of Labor funding bill that offers increased dollars for workplace enforcement offices like the Wage and Hour Division, which looks into claims that overtime is not being paid, while cutting funds for an office that investigates union corruption.
In the second half of 2007, the AFL-CIO expects to push for bankruptcy law reforms as well as legislation overturning a National Labor Relations Board ruling that broadly defined workers considered to be supervisors. Overturning the decision could allow many more workers to qualify for collective bargaining rights.
Furthermore, the Teamsters will continue to press Democrats to prevent the administration from carrying out plans to allow Mexican trucks access to U.S. roads, McLuckie said.
Meanwhile, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which split from the AFL-CIO a few years ago, is lobbying aggressively on several broad policy issues, including an expansion of the State Children�s Health Insurance Program, according to Secretary-Treasurer Anna Burger.
The debate over ending the war in Iraq is also a top priority for SEIU members, who are even more anti-war than the rest of the nation, Burger said, explaining that the SEIU sees the Iraq war as diverting funds that could be used to provide universal healthcare and other priorities.
Still, while union proposals have won momentum, only one union priority � an increase in the minimum wage � has actually become law. Other measures have been held up in the Senate by Republican-led filibusters or are threatened by presidential vetoes.
While the AFL-CIO�s Samuel admits that moving from a defensive posture to offense has been exciting, he said there is frustration that labor issues have been held up in the Senate. And he insists Democrats have not given labor a blank check, even though he and his colleagues are spending more time in the offices of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) in this Congress. �You still have to argue your case on its merits,� he said.
�For the last 12 years we were for the most part on the defensive,� Samuel continued. �It was other people who were making decisions which we were reacting to. I think now we are able to make decisions, to decide what issues to promote.�
AFL-CIO officials meet weekly to decide which issues to push for. They are also in frequent contact with other labor leaders, who say there�s no evidence that Democratic leaders are playing favorites among the sometimes-fractious labor movement.
SEIU and the Teamsters left the AFL-CIO a few years ago and formed the Change to Win coalition. But McLuckie said he hadn�t heard any complaints within the Change to Win coalition about access to Democrats.
For their part, Republicans hope to use labor�s successes to portray Democrats as too compliant with union demands. For example, the National Republican Senate Committee is already trying to raise money from small businesses spooked by the card-check bill.
It has produced an ominously scored video featuring grainy footage of Senate Democrats rallying for the card-check legislation to convince businesses to donate to the GOP next year. In the video, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) tells the crowd, �We have a majority in the U.S. Senate because of you.� Meanwhile, the figure $1,389,489 flashes on the screen to reflect the contributions Reid has received from �Big Labor.�
The video closes with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) promising to sign the bill into law when she is president, and notes Republicans need only two seats to regain control of the Senate.
While unions are holding off on their presidential endorsements for now, the video reflects their long-term plan for card check. In 2009, labor hopes to have a Democratic president and a larger majority in the Senate, which would make business-backed filibusters more difficult.
�I think it will be easier next time,� said Samuel, who thinks the labor agenda in Congress will help Democrats in next year�s elections. �I think these measures are generally very popular.�
No comments:
Post a Comment