Macaca
11-29 08:39 PM
Trade groups question new lobbying law (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/trade-groups-question-new-lobbying-law-2007-11-28.html) By Jim Snyder | The Hill, November 28, 2007
Trade groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce say a new lobbying law could require the release of their member lists, violating freedom of association protections granted by the Constitution.
The Chamber, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the American Society of Association Executives wrote Senate Secretary Nancy Erickson and House Clerk Lorraine Miller on Wednesday asking for clarification in how the new law will be applied.
The potential problem relates to a section in the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 that would impose new lobbying disclosure rules.
The trade groups said Congress wrote the section of the law to shine light on so-called �stealth coalitions� that often use innocuous-sounding names to anonymously represent specific industries.
But the imprecision of lobbying definitions in the law could mean disclosure requirements would fall on a variety of trade groups, the groups said in the letter.
Groups that fail to accurately disclose their lobbying activities now will face criminal penalties, the letter also notes.
�The price for being wrong is extremely high,� said Steven Law, senior vice president and chief legal officer for the Chamber.
The letter was signed by Law; Jim Clarke, senior vice president of public policy for the American Society of Association Executives; and Jan Amundson, senior vice president and general counsel at NAM.
The lobbying law, passed in response to scandals surrounding Jack Abramoff and ex-Rep. Randy �Duke� Cunningham (R-Calif.), would require disclosure of any organization or entity that �actively participates in the planning, supervision, or control� in lobbying activities and contributes more than $5,000 per quarter for those efforts.
The �breadth and vagueness of the provision� require further clarification in how the new law will be applied, the letter stated.
The groups noted Supreme Court rulings that they say prohibit the government from forcing groups to disclose their membership without a compelling government interest in doing so.
�We take seriously the constitutional rights of our members to associate freely without government looking over our shoulders,� Law said.
Brett Kappel, a campaign finance and government ethics lawyer, said Congress wrote the provision to target ad-hoc associations that are formed to lobby on a particular issue.
�These typically spring up when there is legislation that would have a major economic impact on a small number of companies from a specific segment of the economy. That�s when they form the Coalition for Apple Pie and Motherhood and lobby against it,� said Kappel, who practices at the firm Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease.
The new law �wasn�t designed to get at trade associations,� he said.
Law said the lobbying law gives the clerk and the secretary broad powers in implementing the new requirements. He said he expected further guidance from those offices by Dec. 10.
Trade groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce say a new lobbying law could require the release of their member lists, violating freedom of association protections granted by the Constitution.
The Chamber, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the American Society of Association Executives wrote Senate Secretary Nancy Erickson and House Clerk Lorraine Miller on Wednesday asking for clarification in how the new law will be applied.
The potential problem relates to a section in the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 that would impose new lobbying disclosure rules.
The trade groups said Congress wrote the section of the law to shine light on so-called �stealth coalitions� that often use innocuous-sounding names to anonymously represent specific industries.
But the imprecision of lobbying definitions in the law could mean disclosure requirements would fall on a variety of trade groups, the groups said in the letter.
Groups that fail to accurately disclose their lobbying activities now will face criminal penalties, the letter also notes.
�The price for being wrong is extremely high,� said Steven Law, senior vice president and chief legal officer for the Chamber.
The letter was signed by Law; Jim Clarke, senior vice president of public policy for the American Society of Association Executives; and Jan Amundson, senior vice president and general counsel at NAM.
The lobbying law, passed in response to scandals surrounding Jack Abramoff and ex-Rep. Randy �Duke� Cunningham (R-Calif.), would require disclosure of any organization or entity that �actively participates in the planning, supervision, or control� in lobbying activities and contributes more than $5,000 per quarter for those efforts.
The �breadth and vagueness of the provision� require further clarification in how the new law will be applied, the letter stated.
The groups noted Supreme Court rulings that they say prohibit the government from forcing groups to disclose their membership without a compelling government interest in doing so.
�We take seriously the constitutional rights of our members to associate freely without government looking over our shoulders,� Law said.
Brett Kappel, a campaign finance and government ethics lawyer, said Congress wrote the provision to target ad-hoc associations that are formed to lobby on a particular issue.
�These typically spring up when there is legislation that would have a major economic impact on a small number of companies from a specific segment of the economy. That�s when they form the Coalition for Apple Pie and Motherhood and lobby against it,� said Kappel, who practices at the firm Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease.
The new law �wasn�t designed to get at trade associations,� he said.
Law said the lobbying law gives the clerk and the secretary broad powers in implementing the new requirements. He said he expected further guidance from those offices by Dec. 10.
wallpaper Nascar Alabama Flag Mom.
mariner5555
03-28 04:45 PM
correct.
Bharatpremi - Thanks for yr earlier reply and for yr optimistic EB3 (I) predictions in other threads.
--------
here are the details about housing demand ..now that the bubble has burst with huge inventory still remaining ..it is difficult to see from where the (genuine) demand will come ..speculators and flippers are badly burnt ..This is from MSN money.
--
this country's median income of roughly $49,000 can hardly be expected to service the debt of the median home price of $234,000, up from approximately $160,000 in 2000.
Let's do a little math. Forty-nine thousand dollars in yearly income leaves approximately $35,000 in after-tax dollars. Call it $3,000 a month. A 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage would cost approximately $1,500 per month. That leaves only $1,500 a month for a family to pay for everything else! (Of course, in many communities the math is even less tenable.) This is the crux of the problem, and the government cannot fix it.
Housing prices, thanks to the bubble and inflation, have risen well past the point where the median (or typical middle-class) family can afford them. Either income must rise -- which seems unlikely on an inflated-adjusted basis -- or home prices must come down.
Bharatpremi - Thanks for yr earlier reply and for yr optimistic EB3 (I) predictions in other threads.
--------
here are the details about housing demand ..now that the bubble has burst with huge inventory still remaining ..it is difficult to see from where the (genuine) demand will come ..speculators and flippers are badly burnt ..This is from MSN money.
--
this country's median income of roughly $49,000 can hardly be expected to service the debt of the median home price of $234,000, up from approximately $160,000 in 2000.
Let's do a little math. Forty-nine thousand dollars in yearly income leaves approximately $35,000 in after-tax dollars. Call it $3,000 a month. A 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage would cost approximately $1,500 per month. That leaves only $1,500 a month for a family to pay for everything else! (Of course, in many communities the math is even less tenable.) This is the crux of the problem, and the government cannot fix it.
Housing prices, thanks to the bubble and inflation, have risen well past the point where the median (or typical middle-class) family can afford them. Either income must rise -- which seems unlikely on an inflated-adjusted basis -- or home prices must come down.
desi3933
08-06 09:33 AM
Rolling floods,
What is your PD ? EB2-India is Jun2006. It is just 2 years back. So I am guessing your PD is even less than 2 years and you are getting so restless that your are seeking to get more rulings done in place where 2000 thousand unnecessary laws & rulings exist for a 'could be an easy' process. I think instead of talking to lawyers you need to see a doctor...
But doctor asked him to see a lawyer. :D
What is your PD ? EB2-India is Jun2006. It is just 2 years back. So I am guessing your PD is even less than 2 years and you are getting so restless that your are seeking to get more rulings done in place where 2000 thousand unnecessary laws & rulings exist for a 'could be an easy' process. I think instead of talking to lawyers you need to see a doctor...
But doctor asked him to see a lawyer. :D
2011 Nascar Alabama Flag Mom.
reedandbamboo
06-07 12:23 PM
I don't know where you can find 5% interest p.a. investment today but for the sake of argument that I found one, I think I can't get the $60k at the end of 10th yr.
5% per month is easily attainable with some options strategies. But not everyone has the temperament/stomach/psyche for active trading.
5% per month is easily attainable with some options strategies. But not everyone has the temperament/stomach/psyche for active trading.
more...
abracadabra102
07-14 07:28 PM
We are old horses fo IV and dont have an agenda against any particular groups or category..all that we are trying to highlight is that our situation since 01..that's it...that having said the people will who are have been objecting to this will get thier GC's this time and will be gone ...and we in EB-3 2002 have to wait for another 2-3 years to get out turn..Can you imagine our situation..So please support this initiative...send out the letters...
God bless us all!
pani,
This is what you have in the draft letter.
"Let me take you back to the situation in 2001-2003 when a lot of current (EB3) applicants were qualified under EB2 and RIR category(many of whom had masters degrees from Top US universities) our green card labors applications were sent back from DOL saying that the economy was slow and hence cant apply in EB-2. So we were forced to apply in EB3 NON- RIR categories, but when the economy improved in 04-05 you introduced the PERM system and most people applied in EB2 and got their Labors cleared in few months time while the folks who applied in 2001-2004 were stuck at the backlog centers for 3 plus years."
Do you have any evidence/reference to back this up?
God bless us all!
pani,
This is what you have in the draft letter.
"Let me take you back to the situation in 2001-2003 when a lot of current (EB3) applicants were qualified under EB2 and RIR category(many of whom had masters degrees from Top US universities) our green card labors applications were sent back from DOL saying that the economy was slow and hence cant apply in EB-2. So we were forced to apply in EB3 NON- RIR categories, but when the economy improved in 04-05 you introduced the PERM system and most people applied in EB2 and got their Labors cleared in few months time while the folks who applied in 2001-2004 were stuck at the backlog centers for 3 plus years."
Do you have any evidence/reference to back this up?
bajrangbali
06-05 11:33 AM
Good analysis there dude!
While no one can predict future, the least we could do is prepare ourselves for good and bad times.
IMO people should look at purchasing only if these conditions apply:
1) Current rent payment is more than mortgage+prop tax+other monthly fees for new home
2) Homes in relatively stable areas (where unemployment is not too high, diversity of job opportunities)
3) Homes whose prices have not risen significantly in the past 5yrs (anything > 40% since 2001..please stay away)
4) Planning to stay in the house for a MIN 2yrs
One would argue why buy now if it might go lower...
if above conditions are met..it would be a relatively safe buy and aboveall...people remember... time does not wait for anyone...we grow older everyday..make a decision regarding what we need for us and our family within the reasonable limits...go for it and enjoy it..
an old friend of mine always says...live life..love life...be life
and i believe she is right..
While no one can predict future, the least we could do is prepare ourselves for good and bad times.
IMO people should look at purchasing only if these conditions apply:
1) Current rent payment is more than mortgage+prop tax+other monthly fees for new home
2) Homes in relatively stable areas (where unemployment is not too high, diversity of job opportunities)
3) Homes whose prices have not risen significantly in the past 5yrs (anything > 40% since 2001..please stay away)
4) Planning to stay in the house for a MIN 2yrs
One would argue why buy now if it might go lower...
if above conditions are met..it would be a relatively safe buy and aboveall...people remember... time does not wait for anyone...we grow older everyday..make a decision regarding what we need for us and our family within the reasonable limits...go for it and enjoy it..
an old friend of mine always says...live life..love life...be life
and i believe she is right..
more...
desi3933
08-06 02:00 PM
red dot for this post.... are you nuts or someone touched a raw nerve or you have lots of spare time to create controversies:confused:
Just gave you a green.
Have a good day!
Just gave you a green.
Have a good day!
2010 Nascar Alabama Flag Mom.
gk_2000
07-29 05:51 PM
100 thousand is not for a president to worry about. But 11-12 Million is a different story..
more...
sri
04-07 09:15 AM
Where is it mentioned that they will not renew the H-1Bs?
Green card is for convenience � H-1B status is for survival!!!!
As you already know that anti-H1B lobby has introduced a bill that is designed to put most H-1B dependent employers out of business and most H-1B employees out of the country. This bill is designed to slow bleed H-1B program and systematically purge H-1B employees from the country.
If we cannot stay in the US on H-1, then there is no possibility of a green card.
Details of the discriminatory and impractical Senate bill
Here is the link to bill summary:
http://immigrationvoice.org/media/forums/Analysis_S1035.pdf
Please see section 2(e) and section 2(f)
Here is the link to bill test:
http://immigrationvoice.org/media/forums/Durbin_Grassley_bill.pdf
The original intent of Senate bill S.1035 seems to be to put in checks and balances on H-1B and L-1 program, with inclusion of some good provisions to empower H-1B/L-1 employees. Immigration Voice supports provisions to empower H-1B/L-1 employees. However, S.1035 is discriminatory against H-1B employees and H-1B dependent employers. The bill is designed to render H-1B program useless and impractical to follow. As an example: Even after going through the process of making sure that no able, qualified and willing person in US is available to do the specific job, �the best and the brightest� H-1B employees will not be allowed to do any Consulting!!!!
Further, US business will not be bale to have more than 50% of their employees on H-1B. Some of these companies to very specialized research, development and consulting work. In effect, Senate bill S.1035 is forcing the companies manufacturing baby soap, tissue paper etc to drop their core competency to become experts in the sectors/areas where consultants provide their expertise to assist companies to successes.
This discriminatory bill will have following effects:
1.) This bill will hurt all sectors of the US economy, directly and indirectly.
2.) In the short term, most H-1B employees (including medical doctors, research scientist, IT engineers and other highly skilled immigrants) providing consulting services will have to leave the country, thereby taking all the institutional knowledge to other countries.
3.) In the long term, the bill is designed to promote outsourcing as most employers will be left with no other option but to look outside to find much needed human capital and talent. So this bill hurts competitiveness and is bad for US innovation and economy.
Timeline and Urgency of this massive issue
This bill is a VERY REAL threat. It is designed to be made part of the compressive immigration reform bill (CIR). We have learnt that CIR is on the US Senate schedule for the last two weeks of May and, in the House schedule for the month of July. So if we do not educate the lawmakers about this very real threat to the core concept of competitiveness and innovation, this discriminatory bill could become law as early as August of this year.
What we have to do
1.) This bill is discriminatory and puts unworkable restrictions on H-1B program. Please join Immigration Voice to oppose this bill in its current form.
2.) Join Immigration Voice's efforts to oppose the bill S.1035 and educate the lawmakers to pass meaningful comprehensive immigration reform containing the provisions to end the massive employment based green card backlog.
3.) If you are employee, employer or a lawyer, please take this threat very seriously and inform your organization, employer, colleagues, friends or anybody whom you feel should know about this discriminatory bill. Please request everybody to visit www.ImmigrationVoice.org (http://www.ImmigrationVoice.org) frequently for the latest action items and updates.
4.) Please contribute to Immigration Voice TODAY and please send out SOS message to you friends, colleagues and employers to contribute and support Immigration Voice. We have very limited resources and desperately need everybody�s support.
Please standby for more information and action items.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clarification
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is going to be no difference whether you ...
1. Renew your H1 at the same company by filing an extension,
2. Transfer your H1 to another company by filing a transfer or
3. File a brand-new cap-subject H1 for someone who has never been on H1.
ALL OF THE 3 WILL BE AFFECTED.
For all 3, you have to file the same form I-129 and you get the same 2 forms in return from USCIS : I-797 (and I-94 too unless its an H1 for someone outside USA).
The first 2 ways are cap exempt, and the last one (brand new) H1 is cap subject.
But the process is the same. Paperwork is the same. You have to file LCA that shows the address/location of work, nature of work, title, salary etc. So even if you are working at same company, when you file for extension, you have to file a new LCA, that has all information and all that information will DISQUALIFY you if the new law passed and those rules of "consulting is illegal, outplacement at client site is illegal" apply.
Hopefully, this will answer some of the questions.
Green card is for convenience � H-1B status is for survival!!!!
As you already know that anti-H1B lobby has introduced a bill that is designed to put most H-1B dependent employers out of business and most H-1B employees out of the country. This bill is designed to slow bleed H-1B program and systematically purge H-1B employees from the country.
If we cannot stay in the US on H-1, then there is no possibility of a green card.
Details of the discriminatory and impractical Senate bill
Here is the link to bill summary:
http://immigrationvoice.org/media/forums/Analysis_S1035.pdf
Please see section 2(e) and section 2(f)
Here is the link to bill test:
http://immigrationvoice.org/media/forums/Durbin_Grassley_bill.pdf
The original intent of Senate bill S.1035 seems to be to put in checks and balances on H-1B and L-1 program, with inclusion of some good provisions to empower H-1B/L-1 employees. Immigration Voice supports provisions to empower H-1B/L-1 employees. However, S.1035 is discriminatory against H-1B employees and H-1B dependent employers. The bill is designed to render H-1B program useless and impractical to follow. As an example: Even after going through the process of making sure that no able, qualified and willing person in US is available to do the specific job, �the best and the brightest� H-1B employees will not be allowed to do any Consulting!!!!
Further, US business will not be bale to have more than 50% of their employees on H-1B. Some of these companies to very specialized research, development and consulting work. In effect, Senate bill S.1035 is forcing the companies manufacturing baby soap, tissue paper etc to drop their core competency to become experts in the sectors/areas where consultants provide their expertise to assist companies to successes.
This discriminatory bill will have following effects:
1.) This bill will hurt all sectors of the US economy, directly and indirectly.
2.) In the short term, most H-1B employees (including medical doctors, research scientist, IT engineers and other highly skilled immigrants) providing consulting services will have to leave the country, thereby taking all the institutional knowledge to other countries.
3.) In the long term, the bill is designed to promote outsourcing as most employers will be left with no other option but to look outside to find much needed human capital and talent. So this bill hurts competitiveness and is bad for US innovation and economy.
Timeline and Urgency of this massive issue
This bill is a VERY REAL threat. It is designed to be made part of the compressive immigration reform bill (CIR). We have learnt that CIR is on the US Senate schedule for the last two weeks of May and, in the House schedule for the month of July. So if we do not educate the lawmakers about this very real threat to the core concept of competitiveness and innovation, this discriminatory bill could become law as early as August of this year.
What we have to do
1.) This bill is discriminatory and puts unworkable restrictions on H-1B program. Please join Immigration Voice to oppose this bill in its current form.
2.) Join Immigration Voice's efforts to oppose the bill S.1035 and educate the lawmakers to pass meaningful comprehensive immigration reform containing the provisions to end the massive employment based green card backlog.
3.) If you are employee, employer or a lawyer, please take this threat very seriously and inform your organization, employer, colleagues, friends or anybody whom you feel should know about this discriminatory bill. Please request everybody to visit www.ImmigrationVoice.org (http://www.ImmigrationVoice.org) frequently for the latest action items and updates.
4.) Please contribute to Immigration Voice TODAY and please send out SOS message to you friends, colleagues and employers to contribute and support Immigration Voice. We have very limited resources and desperately need everybody�s support.
Please standby for more information and action items.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clarification
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is going to be no difference whether you ...
1. Renew your H1 at the same company by filing an extension,
2. Transfer your H1 to another company by filing a transfer or
3. File a brand-new cap-subject H1 for someone who has never been on H1.
ALL OF THE 3 WILL BE AFFECTED.
For all 3, you have to file the same form I-129 and you get the same 2 forms in return from USCIS : I-797 (and I-94 too unless its an H1 for someone outside USA).
The first 2 ways are cap exempt, and the last one (brand new) H1 is cap subject.
But the process is the same. Paperwork is the same. You have to file LCA that shows the address/location of work, nature of work, title, salary etc. So even if you are working at same company, when you file for extension, you have to file a new LCA, that has all information and all that information will DISQUALIFY you if the new law passed and those rules of "consulting is illegal, outplacement at client site is illegal" apply.
Hopefully, this will answer some of the questions.
hair Birmingham Alabama Protest#39;s
amitjoey
08-05 01:29 PM
I am an EB3 2003. I think I did qualify for EB2, but the job position did not require me to be in that category, moreover EB2 & Eb3 were both current and various other factors were considered and they decided to apply in EB3.
NOW: It was my bad that I got stuck in the stupid BEC. A fellow I know with lesser qualifications applied in EB3 in 2004, then changed jobs, applied in EB2 in 2004 and has a green card already.
DO YOU MEAN TO SAY: THAT YOU ARE GOING TO DENY ME MY 2003 PD IF I APPLY IN EB2. FORGET THINKING ABOUT IT! Not that it is easy or I am doing it. As a matter of fact, I am not interested!.
NOW: It was my bad that I got stuck in the stupid BEC. A fellow I know with lesser qualifications applied in EB3 in 2004, then changed jobs, applied in EB2 in 2004 and has a green card already.
DO YOU MEAN TO SAY: THAT YOU ARE GOING TO DENY ME MY 2003 PD IF I APPLY IN EB2. FORGET THINKING ABOUT IT! Not that it is easy or I am doing it. As a matter of fact, I am not interested!.
more...
SunnySurya
12-21 09:00 AM
SOLIDARITY DEMONSTRATION
Sunday, December 21, 2008 1.00 - 3.00 P. M.
Dag Hammarskjold Plaza (East 47th Street between 1st Ave. and 2nd Ave.) Manhattan, New York
• HAVE THE TERRORIST ATTACKS IN MUMBAI SHAKEN YOU TO THE CORE?
• ARE YOU SICK TO YOUR STOMACH WITH THE PUSSYFOOTING OF COWARDLY LEADERS?
• DO YOU WANT TO PROCLAIM TO THE WORLD PAKISTAN’S INVOVLEMENT IN THESE ATTACKS?
• DOES YOUR HEART GRIEVE FOR THE TORTURED JEWISH PEOPLE OF CHABAD LUBAVITCH?
• DO YOU SHED TEARS FOR 200 PEOPLE MASSACRED IN COLD BLOOD AND 400 INJURED?
• DOES THE LOSS OF SOME OF THE BRAVEST AND FINEST OF THE POLICE & NSG BOTHER YOU?
• HAVE YOU HAD ENOUGH WITH ONE AFTER ANOTHER TERRORIST ATTACKS?
• DO YOU WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THE CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY?
• IS “ENOUGH IS ENOUGH” FOR YOU? DO YOU WANT TO DO SOMETHING?
If you answered YES to any one of the above, then
Come Rain, Snow or Cold, JOIN
TRI-STATE INDIANS on SUNDAY, DECEMBER 21 at 1:00 P. M.
The latest Pakistan sponsored terrorist attacks have traumatized the nation and left deep scars on its psyche. Property worth millions of dollars is destroyed and the economy is affected adversely. Safety of the people and security of the nation is compromised
Who will set the things right? WE THE CONCERNED PEOPLE...
TRISTATE INDIANS: Supporting Organizations
Aligarh Muslim University Engineering Alumni Association of North America
Afghan Hindu Association, Inc
Arsha Bodha Center
Art of Living Foundation, USA
Baba Balak Nath Temple, New York
Bangladeshi Hindus of America, New York
Bangladesh Minority Forum, USA
Bunt Association of North America
Ekal Vidyalaya Foundation of USA
Federation of Indian Associations
Friends of India Society, International
Hindi Samiti of USA
Hindu Center, New York
Hindu Collective Initiative of North America (HCINA)
Hindu Human Rights Watch
Hindu International Council Against Defamation (HICAD)
Hindu Right Action Force (HINDRAF)
Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh
Indian American Intellectual Forum
Kanchi Kamkoti Foundation USA
Kannada Koota
Malyali Hindu Mandalam of North America
Marathi Vishwa
Nataraja Mandir (WSFC)
Om Temple of Garden State
Overseas Friends of BJP
Overseas Sindhu Sabha, New York
Panchvati Ashram, New York
Phagwah Parade & Festival Committee
Punjabi Darbar Religious & Cultural Society
Sadhanalaya Dance, Inc.
Samskrita Bharati
Satya Narayan Mandir, Elmhurst
Save Temples in India
Shree Trimurthi Bhavan
Sindhi Circle, New York
The Caribbean Voice
The South Asian Times
Vishwa Hindu Parishad of America
and many more …
Sunday, December 21, 2008 1.00 - 3.00 P. M.
Dag Hammarskjold Plaza (East 47th Street between 1st Ave. and 2nd Ave.) Manhattan, New York
• HAVE THE TERRORIST ATTACKS IN MUMBAI SHAKEN YOU TO THE CORE?
• ARE YOU SICK TO YOUR STOMACH WITH THE PUSSYFOOTING OF COWARDLY LEADERS?
• DO YOU WANT TO PROCLAIM TO THE WORLD PAKISTAN’S INVOVLEMENT IN THESE ATTACKS?
• DOES YOUR HEART GRIEVE FOR THE TORTURED JEWISH PEOPLE OF CHABAD LUBAVITCH?
• DO YOU SHED TEARS FOR 200 PEOPLE MASSACRED IN COLD BLOOD AND 400 INJURED?
• DOES THE LOSS OF SOME OF THE BRAVEST AND FINEST OF THE POLICE & NSG BOTHER YOU?
• HAVE YOU HAD ENOUGH WITH ONE AFTER ANOTHER TERRORIST ATTACKS?
• DO YOU WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THE CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY?
• IS “ENOUGH IS ENOUGH” FOR YOU? DO YOU WANT TO DO SOMETHING?
If you answered YES to any one of the above, then
Come Rain, Snow or Cold, JOIN
TRI-STATE INDIANS on SUNDAY, DECEMBER 21 at 1:00 P. M.
The latest Pakistan sponsored terrorist attacks have traumatized the nation and left deep scars on its psyche. Property worth millions of dollars is destroyed and the economy is affected adversely. Safety of the people and security of the nation is compromised
Who will set the things right? WE THE CONCERNED PEOPLE...
TRISTATE INDIANS: Supporting Organizations
Aligarh Muslim University Engineering Alumni Association of North America
Afghan Hindu Association, Inc
Arsha Bodha Center
Art of Living Foundation, USA
Baba Balak Nath Temple, New York
Bangladeshi Hindus of America, New York
Bangladesh Minority Forum, USA
Bunt Association of North America
Ekal Vidyalaya Foundation of USA
Federation of Indian Associations
Friends of India Society, International
Hindi Samiti of USA
Hindu Center, New York
Hindu Collective Initiative of North America (HCINA)
Hindu Human Rights Watch
Hindu International Council Against Defamation (HICAD)
Hindu Right Action Force (HINDRAF)
Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh
Indian American Intellectual Forum
Kanchi Kamkoti Foundation USA
Kannada Koota
Malyali Hindu Mandalam of North America
Marathi Vishwa
Nataraja Mandir (WSFC)
Om Temple of Garden State
Overseas Friends of BJP
Overseas Sindhu Sabha, New York
Panchvati Ashram, New York
Phagwah Parade & Festival Committee
Punjabi Darbar Religious & Cultural Society
Sadhanalaya Dance, Inc.
Samskrita Bharati
Satya Narayan Mandir, Elmhurst
Save Temples in India
Shree Trimurthi Bhavan
Sindhi Circle, New York
The Caribbean Voice
The South Asian Times
Vishwa Hindu Parishad of America
and many more …
hot the checkered flag during
Macaca
12-20 08:07 AM
Key Setbacks Dim Luster of Democrats' Year (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/19/AR2007121902643.html?hpid=topnews) By Jonathan Weisman and Paul Kane | Washington Post, Dec 20, 2007
The first Democratic-led Congress in a dozen years limped out of Washington last night with a lengthy list of accomplishments, from the first increase in fuel-efficiency standards in a generation to the first minimum-wage hike in a decade.
But Democrats' failure to address the central issues that swept them to power left even the most partisan of them dissatisfied and Congress mired at a historic low in public esteem.
Handed control of Congress last year after making promises to end the war in Iraq, restore fiscal discipline in Washington and check President Bush's powers, Democrats instead closed the first session of the 110th Congress yesterday with House votes that sent Bush $70 billion in war funding, with no strings attached, and a $50 billion alternative-minimum-tax measure that shattered their pledge not to add to the federal budget deficit.
"I'm not going to let a lot of hard work go unnoticed, but I'm not going to hand out party hats, either," said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.).
On Iraq, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said yesterday: "Nobody is more disappointed with the fact that we couldn't change that than I am." But Pelosi was not about to accept Republican assertions that her first year as speaker has been unsuccessful, saying: "Almost everything we've done has been historic."
Unable to garner enough votes from their own party, House Democratic leaders had to turn to Republicans to win passage of a $555 billion domestic spending bill after the Senate appended $70 billion to it for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The war funding passed 272 to 142, with Democrats voting 141 to 78 against it.
The Democratic leaders again had to appeal to Republicans to win passage of a measure to stave off the growth of the alternative minimum tax, because fiscally conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats were in open revolt and refused to go along. The Blue Dogs insisted that the Senate offset the bill's cost with tax increases on hedge-fund and private-equity managers.
Needing two-thirds of the House to pass under fast-track rules, the tax measure was approved 352 to 64, with all 64 "no" votes coming from Democrats standing by their pledge not to support any tax cut or mandatory spending increase that would expand the national debt.
The year's finale angered the entire spectrum of the Democratic coalition, from the antiwar left to new Southern conservatives who helped bring Democrats to power last year.
"This is a blank check," said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.). "The new money in this bill represents one cave-in too many. It is an endorsement of George Bush's policy of endless war."
Still, the Democrats delivered much of what they promised last year. Of the six initiatives on the their "Six for '06" agenda, congressional Democrats sent five to the president and got his signature on four: a minimum-wage increase, implementation of the homeland security recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, college cost reduction, and an energy measure that requires conservation and the expanded use of renewable sources of energy.
Federal funding for stem cell research was vetoed by Bush.
Congress also boosted spending on veterans' needs. Just yesterday, Democrats unveiled a proposal to create the first nonpartisan ethics review panel in House history and passed the most significant gun-control legislation since the early 1990s, tightening the instant background-check process.
Beyond those, Democrats secured the biggest overhaul of ethics and lobbying rules since the Watergate scandal. And they passed a slew of measures that have received little notice, such as more money for math and science teachers who earn more credentials in their field, tax relief for homeowners in foreclosure, a doubling of basic research funding, and reclamation projects for the hurricane-devastated Gulf Coast.
With the exception of the new energy law, Pelosi characterized most of the year's accomplishments as a cleanup after years of Republican neglect or congressional gridlock.
But the long-awaited showdown with Bush on the federal budget fizzled this week into an uncomfortable draw. The president got his war funding, while Democrats -- using "emergency" funding designations -- broke through his spending limit by $11 billion, the amount they had promised to add after Republicans rejected a proposed $22 billion increase in domestic spending.
Remarkably, House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) praised the final omnibus spending bill in glowing terms, while Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) called keeping federal spending at Bush's preferred level "an extraordinary success."
"Our work on holding the line on spending gave us an omnibus that is better than I've seen in my 17 years here," Boehner said yesterday. Twelve of those years were spent under Republican rule.
But the disappointments have dominated the news, in large part because Democrats failed on some of the issues that they had put front and center, and that their key constituents value most.
The military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, remains open. Bush's warrantless surveillance program was actually codified and expanded on the Democrats' watch. Lawmakers were unable to eliminate the use of harsh interrogation tactics by the CIA.
Democratic leaders also could not overcome the president's vetoes on an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, despite winning over large numbers of Republicans. Policies that liberals thought would be swept aside under the Democratic majority remain untouched, including a prohibition on U.S. funding for international family-planning organizations that offer abortions.
Efforts to change Bush's Iraq policies took on the look of Pickett's charge at Gettysburg. From the first days of the 110th Congress to its last hours this week, Bush prevailed on every Iraq-related fight, beginning with February's nonbinding resolution opposing the winter troop buildup and ending with this week's granting of $70 billion in unrestricted war funds. Emanuel tried to call the $70 billion funding a partial Democratic victory because it was the first time the president did not get everything he sought for the war. Bush had requested $200 billion.
Some senior Democrats have grown so distraught that they do not expect any significant change in Iraq policy unless a Democrat wins the White House in 2008. "It's unfortunate that we may have to wait till the elections," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.) said yesterday.
This has left many Democrats resorting to openly political arguments, picking up a theme that Republicans hurled at them -- obstructionism -- during their many years in the minority. Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) conceded that it is time for Democrats to forget about trumpeting accomplishments that voters will never give them credit for -- and time to change the message to a starkly political one: If you want change, elect more Democrats.
Sen. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), the Senate Democratic whip tasked with trying to find 60 votes for a filibuster-proof majority, acknowledged this week that Democrats' biggest failure stemmed from expecting "more Republicans to take an independent stance" on Iraq. Instead, most of them stood with Bush.
"Many of them will have to carry that with them into the election," Durbin said.
The first Democratic-led Congress in a dozen years limped out of Washington last night with a lengthy list of accomplishments, from the first increase in fuel-efficiency standards in a generation to the first minimum-wage hike in a decade.
But Democrats' failure to address the central issues that swept them to power left even the most partisan of them dissatisfied and Congress mired at a historic low in public esteem.
Handed control of Congress last year after making promises to end the war in Iraq, restore fiscal discipline in Washington and check President Bush's powers, Democrats instead closed the first session of the 110th Congress yesterday with House votes that sent Bush $70 billion in war funding, with no strings attached, and a $50 billion alternative-minimum-tax measure that shattered their pledge not to add to the federal budget deficit.
"I'm not going to let a lot of hard work go unnoticed, but I'm not going to hand out party hats, either," said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.).
On Iraq, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said yesterday: "Nobody is more disappointed with the fact that we couldn't change that than I am." But Pelosi was not about to accept Republican assertions that her first year as speaker has been unsuccessful, saying: "Almost everything we've done has been historic."
Unable to garner enough votes from their own party, House Democratic leaders had to turn to Republicans to win passage of a $555 billion domestic spending bill after the Senate appended $70 billion to it for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The war funding passed 272 to 142, with Democrats voting 141 to 78 against it.
The Democratic leaders again had to appeal to Republicans to win passage of a measure to stave off the growth of the alternative minimum tax, because fiscally conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats were in open revolt and refused to go along. The Blue Dogs insisted that the Senate offset the bill's cost with tax increases on hedge-fund and private-equity managers.
Needing two-thirds of the House to pass under fast-track rules, the tax measure was approved 352 to 64, with all 64 "no" votes coming from Democrats standing by their pledge not to support any tax cut or mandatory spending increase that would expand the national debt.
The year's finale angered the entire spectrum of the Democratic coalition, from the antiwar left to new Southern conservatives who helped bring Democrats to power last year.
"This is a blank check," said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.). "The new money in this bill represents one cave-in too many. It is an endorsement of George Bush's policy of endless war."
Still, the Democrats delivered much of what they promised last year. Of the six initiatives on the their "Six for '06" agenda, congressional Democrats sent five to the president and got his signature on four: a minimum-wage increase, implementation of the homeland security recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, college cost reduction, and an energy measure that requires conservation and the expanded use of renewable sources of energy.
Federal funding for stem cell research was vetoed by Bush.
Congress also boosted spending on veterans' needs. Just yesterday, Democrats unveiled a proposal to create the first nonpartisan ethics review panel in House history and passed the most significant gun-control legislation since the early 1990s, tightening the instant background-check process.
Beyond those, Democrats secured the biggest overhaul of ethics and lobbying rules since the Watergate scandal. And they passed a slew of measures that have received little notice, such as more money for math and science teachers who earn more credentials in their field, tax relief for homeowners in foreclosure, a doubling of basic research funding, and reclamation projects for the hurricane-devastated Gulf Coast.
With the exception of the new energy law, Pelosi characterized most of the year's accomplishments as a cleanup after years of Republican neglect or congressional gridlock.
But the long-awaited showdown with Bush on the federal budget fizzled this week into an uncomfortable draw. The president got his war funding, while Democrats -- using "emergency" funding designations -- broke through his spending limit by $11 billion, the amount they had promised to add after Republicans rejected a proposed $22 billion increase in domestic spending.
Remarkably, House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) praised the final omnibus spending bill in glowing terms, while Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) called keeping federal spending at Bush's preferred level "an extraordinary success."
"Our work on holding the line on spending gave us an omnibus that is better than I've seen in my 17 years here," Boehner said yesterday. Twelve of those years were spent under Republican rule.
But the disappointments have dominated the news, in large part because Democrats failed on some of the issues that they had put front and center, and that their key constituents value most.
The military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, remains open. Bush's warrantless surveillance program was actually codified and expanded on the Democrats' watch. Lawmakers were unable to eliminate the use of harsh interrogation tactics by the CIA.
Democratic leaders also could not overcome the president's vetoes on an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, despite winning over large numbers of Republicans. Policies that liberals thought would be swept aside under the Democratic majority remain untouched, including a prohibition on U.S. funding for international family-planning organizations that offer abortions.
Efforts to change Bush's Iraq policies took on the look of Pickett's charge at Gettysburg. From the first days of the 110th Congress to its last hours this week, Bush prevailed on every Iraq-related fight, beginning with February's nonbinding resolution opposing the winter troop buildup and ending with this week's granting of $70 billion in unrestricted war funds. Emanuel tried to call the $70 billion funding a partial Democratic victory because it was the first time the president did not get everything he sought for the war. Bush had requested $200 billion.
Some senior Democrats have grown so distraught that they do not expect any significant change in Iraq policy unless a Democrat wins the White House in 2008. "It's unfortunate that we may have to wait till the elections," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.) said yesterday.
This has left many Democrats resorting to openly political arguments, picking up a theme that Republicans hurled at them -- obstructionism -- during their many years in the minority. Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) conceded that it is time for Democrats to forget about trumpeting accomplishments that voters will never give them credit for -- and time to change the message to a starkly political one: If you want change, elect more Democrats.
Sen. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), the Senate Democratic whip tasked with trying to find 60 votes for a filibuster-proof majority, acknowledged this week that Democrats' biggest failure stemmed from expecting "more Republicans to take an independent stance" on Iraq. Instead, most of them stood with Bush.
"Many of them will have to carry that with them into the election," Durbin said.
more...
house Alabama Maps
vinabath
03-26 09:59 AM
If I make money from a due to a piece of information or knowledge directly obtained from biggerpockets, I'll buy you a beer! :D
Atleast I could sqeeze a beer from you ;)
Atleast I could sqeeze a beer from you ;)
tattoo in Birmingham Alabama: The
unitednations
08-08 04:24 PM
Because I do not remember which address I used on the visa application, and how I translated my employer's name in home country. In China, at least those days, everyone had a residence record showing your address. We had ours at my in-law's address, while living in a new development. We might used one of those two addresses. Same thing with company names, merging, name changing etc was common.
According to Crystal and Milind70, I am a bit relieved as my visa application was a long time ago. So I may not need to worry about it. Thanks everyone.
check out immigration-law; breaking news. he even says not to rely on this because the procedural manual is outdated.
According to Crystal and Milind70, I am a bit relieved as my visa application was a long time ago. So I may not need to worry about it. Thanks everyone.
check out immigration-law; breaking news. he even says not to rely on this because the procedural manual is outdated.
more...
pictures Birmingham ,Alabama photo
nojoke
04-17 04:13 PM
http://dqnews.com/News/California/Bay-Area/RRBay080417.aspx
It is down by 100K compared to last year. Just like I said, every year it is going to be 100K down for 2 more years.:D
It is down by 100K compared to last year. Just like I said, every year it is going to be 100K down for 2 more years.:D
dresses Alabama State Flag
riva2005
04-09 11:41 AM
Yes, pete, other people should have hurdles. So when they stumble on those hurdles, it would be your gain.
Its a zero sum game.
We cannot all unite and work on this issue. So let's divide ourselves. Let's split IV into 2 organization, one for EB3 dumbasses who are getting a free ride and didnt go thru the whole 9 yards , and other for smart kids like you and rimzhim.
Let me ask both of you. If you are that smart, how come you are not applying for EB1. I thought researchers would qualify for EB1. Why are you facing difficulty? Could it be that you are not really that good? Because the system does have an HOV lane for scientists to cruise to greencard. Its called EB1. And its current for most categories. What about that?
Why dont you join the fast lane of EB1 and leave the bachelor's degree losers behind who didnt thru the whole 9 yards?
Its a zero sum game.
We cannot all unite and work on this issue. So let's divide ourselves. Let's split IV into 2 organization, one for EB3 dumbasses who are getting a free ride and didnt go thru the whole 9 yards , and other for smart kids like you and rimzhim.
Let me ask both of you. If you are that smart, how come you are not applying for EB1. I thought researchers would qualify for EB1. Why are you facing difficulty? Could it be that you are not really that good? Because the system does have an HOV lane for scientists to cruise to greencard. Its called EB1. And its current for most categories. What about that?
Why dont you join the fast lane of EB1 and leave the bachelor's degree losers behind who didnt thru the whole 9 yards?
more...
makeup alabama
Macaca
09-27 12:06 PM
In defense of lobbying (http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/09/in-defense-of-l.html) This country�s Founders actually set up a system to encourage the petitioning of government. And yes, like it or not, that means lobbyists have the same claims to the First Amendment as our free press does By Ross K. Baker | USA Today, sep 27, 2007
Ross K. Baker is a political science professor at Rutgers University. He also is a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.
There was a moment in one of the recent Democratic debates in which former senator John Edwards practically accused Sen. Hillary Clinton of being in league with the devil. For some time, he had been attacking her for accepting contributions from lobbyists. Now, using the occasion of a just-passed lobbying reform bill awaiting the signature of a skeptical president, he exceeded even his previous needling of her by suggesting guilt-by-association. Turning to the audience, he charged that lobbyists, such as those who contribute to Clinton, "rig the system against all of you (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/09/us/politics/09edwards.html?_r=1&ex=1187841600&en=a9c739db3da26fdf&ei=5070&oref=slogin)."
Edwards' accusations deftly played into a belief common even among well-educated Americans that lobbying, if not actually illegal, is a blot on American politics. The problem with this belief is that it is misinformed.
It might come as a surprise to most people that lobbying is a constitutionally protected activity (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/06/AR2006010602251.html) under the hallowed First Amendment. After the Founding Fathers cast the cloak of protection over freedom of religion, the press and the right to peacefully assemble, they added a category that could not be infringed upon by the federal government: "to petition the government for a redress of grievances (http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html)."
Few contemporary efforts to influence government action come by way of a formal petition. But the idea of giving citizens access to government was seen by the writers of the Constitution as something worth safeguarding. And it is, indeed, worth safeguarding because every group in America, at one time or another, has got a gripe and turns to Congress or the federal bureaucracy.
Groups engaged in activities that might seem wholly unconnected with politics, such as the American Automobile Association (http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/b_three_sections_with_teasers/clientlist_page_H.htm) (the folks who get your car started on cold mornings), maintain a presence in Washington to monitor what goes on in Congress. When lawmakers and congressional staffers return from their summer recess, the army of lobbyists storms Washington alongside them.
Religious and military organizations, despite the apolitical nature of our armed forces and the Jeffersonian wall of separation between church and state, stick very close to Congress. So close are the Methodists (http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?latlongtype=internal&addtohistory=&latitude=gpYbdG8nTTbstJWZbHF4nQ%3d%3d&longitude=UTH%2fxgxU3NJ%2fZzEipoIpSw%3d%3d&name=General%20Board%2dGlbl%20Ministries&country=US&address=100%20Maryland%20Ave%20NE%20%23%20315&city=Washington&state=DC&zipcode=20002&phone=202%2d548%2d4002&spurl=0&&q=The%20United%20Methodist%20General%20Board%20of% 20Church%20and%20Society&qc=%28All%29%20Places%20Of%20Worship) and the Reserve Officers Association (http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?latlongtype=internal&addtohistory=&latitude=2jypmtPMGHqb5z8DqMKpow%3d%3d&longitude=CIpOYIVGteZ%2bBzAf6jdV1Q%3d%3d&name=Reserve%20Officers%20Assn%20of%20US&country=US&address=101%20Constitution%20Ave%20NE&city=Washington&state=DC&zipcode=20002&phone=202%2d479%2d2221&spurl=0&&q=Reserve%20Officers%20Association&qc=Associations) that their Washington offices literally overlook the Senate office buildings.
To be sure, the vast bulk of the roughly 35,000 lobbyists in town represent businesses and industries. Nonetheless, as citizens of a commercial republic, should this really surprise us?
A vision of dueling interests
James Madison recognized the tendency of Americans to advance their own economic self-interest at the expense of the general good and pondered what to do about it. He dismissed (http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/7.htm) the possibility of banning these "factions," arguing that they are a byproduct of our freedom.
His solution was just to allow them to multiply and, as the country expanded, no single interest would dominate. Free to struggle for influence, they would checkmate each other.
What Madison had not reckoned on was the vast expansion in the scope of activities of the federal government over the next 200 years.
As the government expanded, it has affected the lives and livelihoods of more people. They, in turn, want to ensure that government action does not harm them. Even better, they look to an expansive government to benefit them. So if the federal government gets into the business of building dams, they want to supply the cement. If Washington decides to prop up farm prices with subsidies, as it first did in the 1930s (http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0203.html), you want to make sure your commodity gets its share.
People of the revolutionary generation probably imagined that individuals would make their way to Washington to personally make their case for government help. They could not have imagined the hordes of surrogates, many of them receiving princely sums, who would take up residence in the nation's capital and subsist on pressing the cases of others. The idea that a professional advocate such as Jack Abramoff would be corruptly influencing the federal government would have been altogether inconceivable to James Madison.
The good with the bad
The defect in Madison's architecture is not that interest groups would proliferate, but that there would be such an imbalance between those seeking to get or maintain private gain and those advocating for the needs of humbler people. There are, of course, multitudes of lobbyists who advocate the needs of the handicapped, the elderly and endangered species, but they are often out-gunned by trade associations and industry lobbyists.
The defeat in the House of the recent effort to require U.S. automakers to boost the fuel economy (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20079816/) of their cars is eloquent testimony to the clout of business. On the other hand, the high rollers who pushed for the elimination of the inheritance tax (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/273376_estatewash09.html) received a stinging rebuke when the repeal that they favored was defeated in the Senate. The big boys don't always get what they want, especially when the focus of the media puts the issue out in the open.
There are in lobbying, as in other enterprises, noble and degraded examples. So you have the Children's Defense Fund pushing for an expansion (http://www.cdfactioncouncil.org/childhealth/) of the State Children's Health Insurance Plan and a smug and arrogant Abramoff manipulating the Bureau of Indian Affairs (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-01-30-tribes-giving_x.htm) on behalf of his well-heeled clients.
Both are lobbying. Even so, it would be as unfair to assume that all lobbyists are like Jack Abramoff as it would be to liken all physicians to Jack Kevorkian.
Ross K. Baker is a political science professor at Rutgers University. He also is a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.
There was a moment in one of the recent Democratic debates in which former senator John Edwards practically accused Sen. Hillary Clinton of being in league with the devil. For some time, he had been attacking her for accepting contributions from lobbyists. Now, using the occasion of a just-passed lobbying reform bill awaiting the signature of a skeptical president, he exceeded even his previous needling of her by suggesting guilt-by-association. Turning to the audience, he charged that lobbyists, such as those who contribute to Clinton, "rig the system against all of you (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/09/us/politics/09edwards.html?_r=1&ex=1187841600&en=a9c739db3da26fdf&ei=5070&oref=slogin)."
Edwards' accusations deftly played into a belief common even among well-educated Americans that lobbying, if not actually illegal, is a blot on American politics. The problem with this belief is that it is misinformed.
It might come as a surprise to most people that lobbying is a constitutionally protected activity (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/06/AR2006010602251.html) under the hallowed First Amendment. After the Founding Fathers cast the cloak of protection over freedom of religion, the press and the right to peacefully assemble, they added a category that could not be infringed upon by the federal government: "to petition the government for a redress of grievances (http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html)."
Few contemporary efforts to influence government action come by way of a formal petition. But the idea of giving citizens access to government was seen by the writers of the Constitution as something worth safeguarding. And it is, indeed, worth safeguarding because every group in America, at one time or another, has got a gripe and turns to Congress or the federal bureaucracy.
Groups engaged in activities that might seem wholly unconnected with politics, such as the American Automobile Association (http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/b_three_sections_with_teasers/clientlist_page_H.htm) (the folks who get your car started on cold mornings), maintain a presence in Washington to monitor what goes on in Congress. When lawmakers and congressional staffers return from their summer recess, the army of lobbyists storms Washington alongside them.
Religious and military organizations, despite the apolitical nature of our armed forces and the Jeffersonian wall of separation between church and state, stick very close to Congress. So close are the Methodists (http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?latlongtype=internal&addtohistory=&latitude=gpYbdG8nTTbstJWZbHF4nQ%3d%3d&longitude=UTH%2fxgxU3NJ%2fZzEipoIpSw%3d%3d&name=General%20Board%2dGlbl%20Ministries&country=US&address=100%20Maryland%20Ave%20NE%20%23%20315&city=Washington&state=DC&zipcode=20002&phone=202%2d548%2d4002&spurl=0&&q=The%20United%20Methodist%20General%20Board%20of% 20Church%20and%20Society&qc=%28All%29%20Places%20Of%20Worship) and the Reserve Officers Association (http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?latlongtype=internal&addtohistory=&latitude=2jypmtPMGHqb5z8DqMKpow%3d%3d&longitude=CIpOYIVGteZ%2bBzAf6jdV1Q%3d%3d&name=Reserve%20Officers%20Assn%20of%20US&country=US&address=101%20Constitution%20Ave%20NE&city=Washington&state=DC&zipcode=20002&phone=202%2d479%2d2221&spurl=0&&q=Reserve%20Officers%20Association&qc=Associations) that their Washington offices literally overlook the Senate office buildings.
To be sure, the vast bulk of the roughly 35,000 lobbyists in town represent businesses and industries. Nonetheless, as citizens of a commercial republic, should this really surprise us?
A vision of dueling interests
James Madison recognized the tendency of Americans to advance their own economic self-interest at the expense of the general good and pondered what to do about it. He dismissed (http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/7.htm) the possibility of banning these "factions," arguing that they are a byproduct of our freedom.
His solution was just to allow them to multiply and, as the country expanded, no single interest would dominate. Free to struggle for influence, they would checkmate each other.
What Madison had not reckoned on was the vast expansion in the scope of activities of the federal government over the next 200 years.
As the government expanded, it has affected the lives and livelihoods of more people. They, in turn, want to ensure that government action does not harm them. Even better, they look to an expansive government to benefit them. So if the federal government gets into the business of building dams, they want to supply the cement. If Washington decides to prop up farm prices with subsidies, as it first did in the 1930s (http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0203.html), you want to make sure your commodity gets its share.
People of the revolutionary generation probably imagined that individuals would make their way to Washington to personally make their case for government help. They could not have imagined the hordes of surrogates, many of them receiving princely sums, who would take up residence in the nation's capital and subsist on pressing the cases of others. The idea that a professional advocate such as Jack Abramoff would be corruptly influencing the federal government would have been altogether inconceivable to James Madison.
The good with the bad
The defect in Madison's architecture is not that interest groups would proliferate, but that there would be such an imbalance between those seeking to get or maintain private gain and those advocating for the needs of humbler people. There are, of course, multitudes of lobbyists who advocate the needs of the handicapped, the elderly and endangered species, but they are often out-gunned by trade associations and industry lobbyists.
The defeat in the House of the recent effort to require U.S. automakers to boost the fuel economy (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20079816/) of their cars is eloquent testimony to the clout of business. On the other hand, the high rollers who pushed for the elimination of the inheritance tax (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/273376_estatewash09.html) received a stinging rebuke when the repeal that they favored was defeated in the Senate. The big boys don't always get what they want, especially when the focus of the media puts the issue out in the open.
There are in lobbying, as in other enterprises, noble and degraded examples. So you have the Children's Defense Fund pushing for an expansion (http://www.cdfactioncouncil.org/childhealth/) of the State Children's Health Insurance Plan and a smug and arrogant Abramoff manipulating the Bureau of Indian Affairs (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-01-30-tribes-giving_x.htm) on behalf of his well-heeled clients.
Both are lobbying. Even so, it would be as unfair to assume that all lobbyists are like Jack Abramoff as it would be to liken all physicians to Jack Kevorkian.
girlfriend [Aerial views of Birmingham,
rsdang
08-29 11:00 AM
A guy calls his buddy, the horse rancher, and says he's sending a friend over to look at a horse.
His buddy asks, "How will I recognize him?"
"That's easy; he's a midget with a speech impediment."
So, the midget shows up, and the guy asks him if he's looking for a male or female horse.
"A female horth."
So he shows him a prized filly.
"Nith lookin horth. Can I thee her eyeth"?
So the guy picks up the midget and he gives the horse's eyes the once over.
"Nith eyeth, can I thee her earzth"?
So he picks the little fella up again, and shows him the horse's ears.
"Nith earzth, can I see her mouf"?
The rancher is getting pretty ticked off by this point, but he picks him up again and shows him the horse's mouth.
"Nice mouf, can I see her twat"?
Totally mad as fire at this point, the rancher grabs him under his arms and rams the midget's head as far as he can up the horse's fanny, pulls him out and slams him on the ground.
The midget gets up, sputtering and coughing.
"Perhapth I should rephrase that.
Can I thee her wun awound a widdlebit"?
His buddy asks, "How will I recognize him?"
"That's easy; he's a midget with a speech impediment."
So, the midget shows up, and the guy asks him if he's looking for a male or female horse.
"A female horth."
So he shows him a prized filly.
"Nith lookin horth. Can I thee her eyeth"?
So the guy picks up the midget and he gives the horse's eyes the once over.
"Nith eyeth, can I thee her earzth"?
So he picks the little fella up again, and shows him the horse's ears.
"Nith earzth, can I see her mouf"?
The rancher is getting pretty ticked off by this point, but he picks him up again and shows him the horse's mouth.
"Nice mouf, can I see her twat"?
Totally mad as fire at this point, the rancher grabs him under his arms and rams the midget's head as far as he can up the horse's fanny, pulls him out and slams him on the ground.
The midget gets up, sputtering and coughing.
"Perhapth I should rephrase that.
Can I thee her wun awound a widdlebit"?
hairstyles any irmingham alabama women
unitednations
03-25 07:10 PM
send it to info at immigrationvoice.org and we can upload it.
It is a known bug that we could not fix in the forum. Some members are unable to upload files.
sent.
It is a known bug that we could not fix in the forum. Some members are unable to upload files.
sent.
kannan
08-14 07:34 PM
To United Nation
I never went out of usa in 7 yrs.My first company did not pay me for the first 3 months because I did not get my ssn no for 3 months so I was not employed.After 3 yrs I joined the cliant company,so he got angry and did not pay me for 15 days but I have proof of time sheets.He threatned me like suing etc... but he did not do .Now I applied for AOS but I did not sent the W2 paper for that problem period .I have sent my last three years of W2 papers as per Lawyer's request .Will there be a problem for the un paid days.?
I never went out of usa in 7 yrs.My first company did not pay me for the first 3 months because I did not get my ssn no for 3 months so I was not employed.After 3 yrs I joined the cliant company,so he got angry and did not pay me for 15 days but I have proof of time sheets.He threatned me like suing etc... but he did not do .Now I applied for AOS but I did not sent the W2 paper for that problem period .I have sent my last three years of W2 papers as per Lawyer's request .Will there be a problem for the un paid days.?
msp1976
03-04 01:01 PM
I wish that you would drop whatever you have in your signature....George Allen was one of the co-sponsors of the original SKIL bill...He was sympathetic to our cause...Now when he made those comments he was pandering to certain local sentiments....Conservative senators have been more sympathetic to us than democrats...It is time to stop beating that dead horse...
No comments:
Post a Comment