americandesi
08-09 02:03 PM
While most of us here have US Citizenship as their long term goal, they overlook that fact and focus on manipulating stuff to get a GC which might have severe consequences while applying for Naturalization.
Let me share with you the story of my friend who just got his US Citizenship in 2007.
He was out of status without salary for around 6 months during the recession time (2001/2002) and didn’t have W2 for that period either. When USCIS questioned his out of status, he just submitted a letter from the employer stating that they owe some $$$ during that period and will be running his back pay at the earliest. This letter nullified his out of status and was sufficient to satisfy the IO to get his I-485 approved.
Infact, the company in question didn’t run his back pay at all after his I-485 approval and went bankrupt.
While applying for Naturalization, one of the items that the beneficiary has to prove is “Good Moral Character”. While scrutinizing his records they found that he didn’t file his tax returns during the year in question and denied his naturalization.
He had to run from pillar to post and finally got hold of a good attorney who was able to prove that the employer who was supposed to pay the back wages went bankrupt and hence he wasn’t paid, because of which he could file his tax returns. He submitted a letter with proof of bankruptcy and succeeded in his appeal resulting in approval. The whole case dragged for around a year.
Hence please pay attention to every minute detail before and after you get your GC, so that you don’t end up in a mess while applying for naturalization.
Let me share with you the story of my friend who just got his US Citizenship in 2007.
He was out of status without salary for around 6 months during the recession time (2001/2002) and didn’t have W2 for that period either. When USCIS questioned his out of status, he just submitted a letter from the employer stating that they owe some $$$ during that period and will be running his back pay at the earliest. This letter nullified his out of status and was sufficient to satisfy the IO to get his I-485 approved.
Infact, the company in question didn’t run his back pay at all after his I-485 approval and went bankrupt.
While applying for Naturalization, one of the items that the beneficiary has to prove is “Good Moral Character”. While scrutinizing his records they found that he didn’t file his tax returns during the year in question and denied his naturalization.
He had to run from pillar to post and finally got hold of a good attorney who was able to prove that the employer who was supposed to pay the back wages went bankrupt and hence he wasn’t paid, because of which he could file his tax returns. He submitted a letter with proof of bankruptcy and succeeded in his appeal resulting in approval. The whole case dragged for around a year.
Hence please pay attention to every minute detail before and after you get your GC, so that you don’t end up in a mess while applying for naturalization.
wallpaper Julia Roberts#39; Cause
unitednations
03-24 04:08 PM
Your posts are arguably best on this forum. I have religiously read all your posts and will do in future. Your posts always make sense. I just wish we could get more insight and perspective from you. Great work. Keep them coming.
What are your thoughts on h1bs/GC sponsored by universities. Do you forsee any problems with them? Also any insight on long time it takes for visa stamping?
No problems with Universities. I was surprised to see how many h-1b's are actually held by universities.
What are your thoughts on h1bs/GC sponsored by universities. Do you forsee any problems with them? Also any insight on long time it takes for visa stamping?
No problems with Universities. I was surprised to see how many h-1b's are actually held by universities.
mariner5555
03-23 11:14 PM
I agree he will loose his down payment or credit score in case of things going south on GC side but still he will be able to do whatever is best for his long term goals now and he will be better off in terms of equity when real estate market bounces back in 3-4 years.There are lucrative deals in the market and renting does not make any sense. There is always a risk factor and u can cover your risks accordingly. Anywaz What exactly ur going to do with Credit Score after u are kicked out from here ? So why not take risk now and play the game.
why do you say that renting does not make any sense ?? credit score would matter if a person gets a better oppurtunity and decides to come back - screwing up yr credit is like burning a bridge. In my humble opinion real estate won't bounce back - it may limp back in majority of the areas. ofcourse housing is local ..
why do you say that renting does not make any sense ?? credit score would matter if a person gets a better oppurtunity and decides to come back - screwing up yr credit is like burning a bridge. In my humble opinion real estate won't bounce back - it may limp back in majority of the areas. ofcourse housing is local ..
2011 Top 15 Cutest Celebrity Kids
JunRN
09-26 02:09 PM
OBAMA is for lesser H1B but more EB GC. He prefers workers who are entering the US to have intention to stay permanently than temporarily because it helps the economy.
That's the wisdom of Durbin amendment. Lesser H1B because you will get GC instead.
That's the wisdom of Durbin amendment. Lesser H1B because you will get GC instead.
more...
Macaca
05-27 06:06 PM
In December, KPMG was retained by China Integrated Energy, which claimed to be a leader in the production of biodiesel. Just hiring a Big Four auditor enabled it to raise $24 million from institutional investors in the United States. Three months later, KPMG certified the financials.
Six weeks after that, KPMG repudiated the report and resigned. By then, China Integrated Energy executives had refused to cooperate with a board investigation into claims that the company was a complete fraud.
The Chinese audit firms, while they are affiliated with major international audit networks, have never been inspected by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board in the United States. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires those inspections for accounting firms that audit companies whose securities trade in the United States, but China has refused to allow inspections.
In a speech at a Baruch College conference earlier this month, James R. Doty, chairman of the accounting oversight board, called on the major firms to �improve preventative global quality controls,� but said that actual inspections were needed.
Two weeks ago, Chinese and American officials meeting in Washington said they would try to reach agreement �on the oversight of accounting firms providing audit services for public companies in the two countries, so as to enhance mutual trust.�
Frauds and audit failures can, and do, happen in many countries, including in the United States. But the audacity of these frauds, as well as the efforts to intimidate auditors, stand out. If investors such as Goldman Sachs and Hank Greenberg cannot fend for themselves, something more needs to be done if Chinese companies are to continue to trade in American markets.
Corporate China's political shadows (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/22/corporate-china-political-shadows) By Isabel Hilton | Guardian
The Truth about the Three Gorges Dam (http://blogs.cfr.org/asia/2011/05/24/the-truth-about-the-three-gorges-dam/) By Elizabeth C. Economy | Council on Foreign Relations
AIDS Funds Frozen for China in Grant Dispute (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/21/world/asia/21china.html) By SHARON LaFRANIERE | New York Times
Kicking the Great Firewall (http://the-diplomat.com/china-power/2011/05/25/kicking-the-great-firewall/) By Mu Chunshan | The Diplomat
China opens doors to despots with series of pariah state visits (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/china-opens-doors-to-despots-with-series-of-pariah-state-visits-2289723.html) By Clifford Coonan | Independent
Ai Weiwei's Zodiac heads
It's political (http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2011/05/ai_weiweis_zodiac_heads)
The Economist
China�s jasmine crackdown and the legal system (http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/05/26/china-s-jasmine-crackdown-and-the-legal-system/) By Donald C. Clarke | George Washington University Law School
Six weeks after that, KPMG repudiated the report and resigned. By then, China Integrated Energy executives had refused to cooperate with a board investigation into claims that the company was a complete fraud.
The Chinese audit firms, while they are affiliated with major international audit networks, have never been inspected by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board in the United States. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires those inspections for accounting firms that audit companies whose securities trade in the United States, but China has refused to allow inspections.
In a speech at a Baruch College conference earlier this month, James R. Doty, chairman of the accounting oversight board, called on the major firms to �improve preventative global quality controls,� but said that actual inspections were needed.
Two weeks ago, Chinese and American officials meeting in Washington said they would try to reach agreement �on the oversight of accounting firms providing audit services for public companies in the two countries, so as to enhance mutual trust.�
Frauds and audit failures can, and do, happen in many countries, including in the United States. But the audacity of these frauds, as well as the efforts to intimidate auditors, stand out. If investors such as Goldman Sachs and Hank Greenberg cannot fend for themselves, something more needs to be done if Chinese companies are to continue to trade in American markets.
Corporate China's political shadows (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/22/corporate-china-political-shadows) By Isabel Hilton | Guardian
The Truth about the Three Gorges Dam (http://blogs.cfr.org/asia/2011/05/24/the-truth-about-the-three-gorges-dam/) By Elizabeth C. Economy | Council on Foreign Relations
AIDS Funds Frozen for China in Grant Dispute (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/21/world/asia/21china.html) By SHARON LaFRANIERE | New York Times
Kicking the Great Firewall (http://the-diplomat.com/china-power/2011/05/25/kicking-the-great-firewall/) By Mu Chunshan | The Diplomat
China opens doors to despots with series of pariah state visits (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/china-opens-doors-to-despots-with-series-of-pariah-state-visits-2289723.html) By Clifford Coonan | Independent
Ai Weiwei's Zodiac heads
It's political (http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2011/05/ai_weiweis_zodiac_heads)
The Economist
China�s jasmine crackdown and the legal system (http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/05/26/china-s-jasmine-crackdown-and-the-legal-system/) By Donald C. Clarke | George Washington University Law School
RNGC
06-23 04:37 PM
If you are worried about 485 getting denied then -
1. Buy a house now and live in it for 10-15 years and build up equity.
2. Put the house for sale a month or two or six months (depending on the real estate market in your area) before your PD becomes current (2025).
3. Live in a rented house for one or two or six months in 2025. Better than living in a rented house from 2009 - 2025. Correct?
4. But bigger house after GC gets approved OR go back home.
2025: Congratulations!!! You just made 30-40% profit on your home. Go back home and retire.
good!
1. Buy a house now and live in it for 10-15 years and build up equity.
2. Put the house for sale a month or two or six months (depending on the real estate market in your area) before your PD becomes current (2025).
3. Live in a rented house for one or two or six months in 2025. Better than living in a rented house from 2009 - 2025. Correct?
4. But bigger house after GC gets approved OR go back home.
2025: Congratulations!!! You just made 30-40% profit on your home. Go back home and retire.
good!
more...
unitednations
03-24 06:44 PM
Thanks UnitedNations for this discussion.
In the booming years of 99-00 you could see all these consulting companies having a ball. Personally I have seen people with no relevant skill set getting h1's approved in a totally unrelated job profile. I even have come across staffing companies who have hired recruiters as "business analyst's", now its highly unlikely that these companies could not find recruiters here. But the system was getting misused rampantly.
I have had experience with companies who with collusion of someone inside a company
"snagged" portion of revenue from a contract. It wasnt common for 3-4 companies to
act as middleman's ("layers") the final employee who actually worked getting literally
peanuts share of the contract amount. I think this still happens today from what I have heard from my friends.
USCIS had to respond in someway or the other. I am happy that they did but on the other hand I feel sorry for their employees who are probably innocent "collateral damage" victims
It makes me very uneasy as who knows what USCIS will come up with next. The longer our wait is there is a potential for more scrutiny and who knows what pitfall awaits us lurking somewhere where we least expect. Just because people misused the system we are all going to face the consequences.
When I first started to get to know consulatants and staffing companies; I thought that this whole bribe system; creating positions at end clients; how consultants got selected, etc., was a big racket.
However; when I did introspection of how things worked in my industry; I pretty much concluded that it was done in same way but at much, much higher levels.
USCIS is just keeping it pretty simple these days; show us that there is a job with an end client that requires a degree. They pretty much know that it is impossible. Even if you can get one; they pick on it pretty good and still deny it.
The system was actually designed for staffing companies when you think about it. When h-1b was first created; no one would have used it if it wasn't for staffing companies. Typical US companies wouldn't have the network to get foreign employees unless they were already here. To get them from a foreign country then the only companies who can really do so are the staffing companies.
The main reason that I can't get behind lifting of the country quota is exactly this reason. You have a lot of companies run by the same nationality who will only recruit their own people. The staffing companies don't advertise in Indonesia, Germany, Brazil, etc. They only go after their own people. The whole monopolization of visas was used to prevent this type of behaviour.
I always thought that there are people from around the world who want to come here but can't because they are not part of the "system". You can see this in the greencard lottery. Almost 9 million people apploy to get here through this. If they had their own country people looking to get them here then there would be a more equal distribution of visas.
I think people need to step back and think that this is one of the reasons why they have country quotas. No matter what people think that they re being hired for their skills and that employers don't care about their nationality; people need to understand that a "system" has been designed that is benefitting a few nationalities. Once you can get here then you can find your way. However, if you can't get here then you can't find your way.
In the booming years of 99-00 you could see all these consulting companies having a ball. Personally I have seen people with no relevant skill set getting h1's approved in a totally unrelated job profile. I even have come across staffing companies who have hired recruiters as "business analyst's", now its highly unlikely that these companies could not find recruiters here. But the system was getting misused rampantly.
I have had experience with companies who with collusion of someone inside a company
"snagged" portion of revenue from a contract. It wasnt common for 3-4 companies to
act as middleman's ("layers") the final employee who actually worked getting literally
peanuts share of the contract amount. I think this still happens today from what I have heard from my friends.
USCIS had to respond in someway or the other. I am happy that they did but on the other hand I feel sorry for their employees who are probably innocent "collateral damage" victims
It makes me very uneasy as who knows what USCIS will come up with next. The longer our wait is there is a potential for more scrutiny and who knows what pitfall awaits us lurking somewhere where we least expect. Just because people misused the system we are all going to face the consequences.
When I first started to get to know consulatants and staffing companies; I thought that this whole bribe system; creating positions at end clients; how consultants got selected, etc., was a big racket.
However; when I did introspection of how things worked in my industry; I pretty much concluded that it was done in same way but at much, much higher levels.
USCIS is just keeping it pretty simple these days; show us that there is a job with an end client that requires a degree. They pretty much know that it is impossible. Even if you can get one; they pick on it pretty good and still deny it.
The system was actually designed for staffing companies when you think about it. When h-1b was first created; no one would have used it if it wasn't for staffing companies. Typical US companies wouldn't have the network to get foreign employees unless they were already here. To get them from a foreign country then the only companies who can really do so are the staffing companies.
The main reason that I can't get behind lifting of the country quota is exactly this reason. You have a lot of companies run by the same nationality who will only recruit their own people. The staffing companies don't advertise in Indonesia, Germany, Brazil, etc. They only go after their own people. The whole monopolization of visas was used to prevent this type of behaviour.
I always thought that there are people from around the world who want to come here but can't because they are not part of the "system". You can see this in the greencard lottery. Almost 9 million people apploy to get here through this. If they had their own country people looking to get them here then there would be a more equal distribution of visas.
I think people need to step back and think that this is one of the reasons why they have country quotas. No matter what people think that they re being hired for their skills and that employers don't care about their nationality; people need to understand that a "system" has been designed that is benefitting a few nationalities. Once you can get here then you can find your way. However, if you can't get here then you can't find your way.
2010 in 2001 when Julia Roberts
skakodker
12-31 10:58 AM
India needs to look inwards for answers.
We elect (those of us who actually vote) brigands, murderers and looters and expect leadership. They loot us, abuse our martyrs (re: the Kerala CM), and in turn, expect our mute subservience. Where is the interest in protecting the tax-paying citizen? Who cares? Look at how these vultures behave - Narayana Rane, Vilasrao Deshmukh, that ass-clown in Kerala. What a disgrace!
Corruption has taken root in the administration and even some parts of our military services. Nothing gets done without someone's palms being greased first - openly and without shame. My friends in the IAS live like kings. When they visit New York, they live in the Waldorf Astoria! Meanwhile, our brave soldiers are called upon to give all they have in avoidable debacles like what we witnessed in Mumbai.
One thinks twice before reporting a crime to the Police for fear of persecution. Journalists who catch Politicians accepting bribes on video camera are chastized. Many parts of India remain as backward and undeveloped as the day we kicked the British Raj out. Some might say they've regressed even further. I sometimes wonder if Churchill was right when he said that we'd only mess things up if they gave us Independence.
Yet, since 50 milliion Indians are enjoying relative economic well-being, we believe that India is shining.
Will attacking Pakistan really make India safer? Really? I have yet to see a single instance when violence was not met with more violence. Look at the Middle East, Sri Lanka, Kashmir, Iraq, Colombia, Peru - the list goes on and on and on.
The fix is internal. Our freedom fighters came up against what was then thought to be an unmovable object and somehow moved it. There must be a way to leverage the tools they used with today's technology to help us bring change and conduct our affairs with dignity and courage. Attacking Pakistan will only bring to India the problems that overran them. They are pitiful.
Peace to all.
We elect (those of us who actually vote) brigands, murderers and looters and expect leadership. They loot us, abuse our martyrs (re: the Kerala CM), and in turn, expect our mute subservience. Where is the interest in protecting the tax-paying citizen? Who cares? Look at how these vultures behave - Narayana Rane, Vilasrao Deshmukh, that ass-clown in Kerala. What a disgrace!
Corruption has taken root in the administration and even some parts of our military services. Nothing gets done without someone's palms being greased first - openly and without shame. My friends in the IAS live like kings. When they visit New York, they live in the Waldorf Astoria! Meanwhile, our brave soldiers are called upon to give all they have in avoidable debacles like what we witnessed in Mumbai.
One thinks twice before reporting a crime to the Police for fear of persecution. Journalists who catch Politicians accepting bribes on video camera are chastized. Many parts of India remain as backward and undeveloped as the day we kicked the British Raj out. Some might say they've regressed even further. I sometimes wonder if Churchill was right when he said that we'd only mess things up if they gave us Independence.
Yet, since 50 milliion Indians are enjoying relative economic well-being, we believe that India is shining.
Will attacking Pakistan really make India safer? Really? I have yet to see a single instance when violence was not met with more violence. Look at the Middle East, Sri Lanka, Kashmir, Iraq, Colombia, Peru - the list goes on and on and on.
The fix is internal. Our freedom fighters came up against what was then thought to be an unmovable object and somehow moved it. There must be a way to leverage the tools they used with today's technology to help us bring change and conduct our affairs with dignity and courage. Attacking Pakistan will only bring to India the problems that overran them. They are pitiful.
Peace to all.
more...
rsdang
08-29 10:59 AM
A drunk walks out of a bar with a key in his hand and he is stumbling back and forth.
A cop on the beat sees him and approaches "Can I help you sir"
"Yessh! Ssssomebody ssstole my carrr" the man replies!
The cop asks "Where was your car the last time you saw it "
"It wasss on the end of thisshh key" the man replies.
About that time the cop looks down and sees the man's weiner hanging out
of his fly for all the world to see.
He asks the man "Sir are you aware that you are exposing yourself "
Momentarily confused, the drunk looks down at his crotch and without
missing a beat, blurts out.........."Holy crap! My girlfriend's gone
too!
A cop on the beat sees him and approaches "Can I help you sir"
"Yessh! Ssssomebody ssstole my carrr" the man replies!
The cop asks "Where was your car the last time you saw it "
"It wasss on the end of thisshh key" the man replies.
About that time the cop looks down and sees the man's weiner hanging out
of his fly for all the world to see.
He asks the man "Sir are you aware that you are exposing yourself "
Momentarily confused, the drunk looks down at his crotch and without
missing a beat, blurts out.........."Holy crap! My girlfriend's gone
too!
hair juliaroberts-tbi.jpg
langagadu
03-29 03:47 PM
...
more...
Macaca
05-02 05:45 PM
Glass Half Full on Obama's New National Security Team (http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/8696/the-new-rules-glass-half-full-on-obamas-new-national-security-team) By THOMAS P.M. BARNETT | World Politics Review
President Barack Obama reshuffled his national security team last week, and the reviews were overwhelmingly positive. The White House proclaimed that this was the "strongest possible team," leaving unanswered the question, "Toward what end?" Obama's choices represent the continued reduction of the role of security as an administration priority. That fits into his determined strategy to reduce America's overseas military commitments amid the country's ongoing fiscal distress. Obama foresees a smaller, increasingly background role for U.S. security in the world, and these selections feed that pattern.
First, there is Leon Panetta's move from director of the Central Intelligence Agency to secretary of defense. When you're looking for $400 billion in future military cuts, Panetta's credentials apply nicely: former White House chief of staff and director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Bill Clinton, and 9-term congressman from defense-heavy California. But, truth be told, Panetta wasn't the president's first choice -- or his second, third, fourth or fifth.
According to my Pentagon sources, the job was initially offered to Hillary Clinton, who would have been a compelling candidate for the real task at hand: working to get more help from our European allies for today's potpourri of security hotspots, while reaching out to the logical partners of tomorrow -- like rising China, India, Turkey, South Africa and Brazil, among others. She would have brought an international star power and bevy of personal connections to those delicate efforts that Panetta will never muster. But Clinton has had enough of nonstop globe-hopping and will be gone at the end of Obama's first term.
Colin Powell, next offered the job, would have been another high-wattage selection, commanding respect in capitals around the world. But Powell demanded that his perennial wingman, Richard Armitage, be named deputy secretary, and that was apparently a no-go from the White House, most likely for fear that the general was set on creating his own little empire in the Pentagon. Again, too bad: Powell would have brought a deep concern for the future of U.S. national security that Panetta -- with the "green eye shades" mentality of a budget-crunching guy -- lacks.
Three others were then offered the job: Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed; former deputy secretary of defense and current Center for Strategic and International Studies boss John Hamre; and former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig, who was long rumored to be Obama's preferred brainiac to ultimately replace Gates. But Reed feared exchanging his Senate seat for a short stint in the Pentagon if Obama loses; Hamre had made too many commitments to CSIS as part of a recent fund-raising drive; and Danzig couldn't manage the timing on the current appointment for personal reasons.
All of this is to suggest the following: Panetta has been picked to do the dirty work of budget cuts through the remainder of the first term and nothing more. If Obama wins a second term, we may still see a technocrat of Danzig's caliber, such as current Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michelle Flournoy, or a major-league star of the Clinton/Powell variety. But for now, the SECDEF's job is not to build diplomatic bridges, but to quietly dismantle acquisition programs. And yes, the world will pick up on that "declinist" vibe.
Moving Gen. David Petraeus from commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan to director of the CIA has puzzled many observers, and more than a few have worried that this represents a renewed militarization of the agency. But here the truth is more prosaic: Obama simply doesn't want Petraeus as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, something conservatives have been pulling for. By shifting him to CIA, the White House neatly dead-ends his illustrious career.
As Joint Chiefs chairman, Petraeus could have become an obstacle to Obama's plans to get us out of Afghanistan on schedule, wielding an effective political veto. He also would have presented more of a general political threat in the 2012 election, with the most plausible scenario being the vice-presidential slot for a GOP nominee looking to burnish his national security credentials. As far as candidate Obama is concerned, the Petraeus factor is much more easily managed now.
Once the SECDEF selection process dropped down to Panetta, the White House saw a chance to kill two birds with one stone. Plus, Petraeus, with the Iraq and Afghanistan surges under his belt, is an unassailable choice for an administration that has deftly "symmetricized" Bush-Cheney's "war on terror," by fielding our special operations forces and CIA drones versus al-Qaida and its associated networks. If major military interventions are out and covert operations are in, then moving "King David" from ISAF to CIA ties off that pivot quite nicely.
The other two major moves announced by the White House fit this general pattern of backburner-ing Afghanistan and prioritizing budget cuts. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who partnered with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, now takes over the same post in Afghanistan. Crocker is supremely experienced at negotiating withdrawals from delicate situations. Moving CENTCOM Deputy Commander Gen. John Allen over to replace Petraeus in Afghanistan is another comfort call: Allen likewise served with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, when he was the key architect of the Sunni "awakening." Low-key and politically astute, Allen will be another quiet operator.
Obama has shown by his handling to date of the NATO-led Libyan intervention that he is not to be deterred from his larger goal of dramatically reducing America's global security profile, putting it more realistically in line with the country's troubled finances. What the president has lacked so far in executing that delicate maneuver is some vision of how America plans to segue the international system from depending on America to play global policeman to policing itself.
Our latest -- and possibly last -- "hurrah" with NATO notwithstanding, Obama has made no headway on reaching out to the world's rising powers, preferring to dream whimsically of a "world without nuclear weapons." In the most prominent case, he seems completely satisfied with letting our strategic relationship with China deteriorate dramatically while America funnels arms to all of Beijing's neighbors. And on future nuclear power Iran? Same solution.
It's one thing to right-size America's global security profile, but quite another to prepare the global security environment for that change. Obama's recent national security selections tell us he remains firmly committed to the former and completely uninterested in the latter. That sort of "apr�s moi, le deluge" mindset may get him re-elected, but eventually either he or America will be forced into far harder international adjustments.
President Barack Obama reshuffled his national security team last week, and the reviews were overwhelmingly positive. The White House proclaimed that this was the "strongest possible team," leaving unanswered the question, "Toward what end?" Obama's choices represent the continued reduction of the role of security as an administration priority. That fits into his determined strategy to reduce America's overseas military commitments amid the country's ongoing fiscal distress. Obama foresees a smaller, increasingly background role for U.S. security in the world, and these selections feed that pattern.
First, there is Leon Panetta's move from director of the Central Intelligence Agency to secretary of defense. When you're looking for $400 billion in future military cuts, Panetta's credentials apply nicely: former White House chief of staff and director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Bill Clinton, and 9-term congressman from defense-heavy California. But, truth be told, Panetta wasn't the president's first choice -- or his second, third, fourth or fifth.
According to my Pentagon sources, the job was initially offered to Hillary Clinton, who would have been a compelling candidate for the real task at hand: working to get more help from our European allies for today's potpourri of security hotspots, while reaching out to the logical partners of tomorrow -- like rising China, India, Turkey, South Africa and Brazil, among others. She would have brought an international star power and bevy of personal connections to those delicate efforts that Panetta will never muster. But Clinton has had enough of nonstop globe-hopping and will be gone at the end of Obama's first term.
Colin Powell, next offered the job, would have been another high-wattage selection, commanding respect in capitals around the world. But Powell demanded that his perennial wingman, Richard Armitage, be named deputy secretary, and that was apparently a no-go from the White House, most likely for fear that the general was set on creating his own little empire in the Pentagon. Again, too bad: Powell would have brought a deep concern for the future of U.S. national security that Panetta -- with the "green eye shades" mentality of a budget-crunching guy -- lacks.
Three others were then offered the job: Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed; former deputy secretary of defense and current Center for Strategic and International Studies boss John Hamre; and former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig, who was long rumored to be Obama's preferred brainiac to ultimately replace Gates. But Reed feared exchanging his Senate seat for a short stint in the Pentagon if Obama loses; Hamre had made too many commitments to CSIS as part of a recent fund-raising drive; and Danzig couldn't manage the timing on the current appointment for personal reasons.
All of this is to suggest the following: Panetta has been picked to do the dirty work of budget cuts through the remainder of the first term and nothing more. If Obama wins a second term, we may still see a technocrat of Danzig's caliber, such as current Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michelle Flournoy, or a major-league star of the Clinton/Powell variety. But for now, the SECDEF's job is not to build diplomatic bridges, but to quietly dismantle acquisition programs. And yes, the world will pick up on that "declinist" vibe.
Moving Gen. David Petraeus from commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan to director of the CIA has puzzled many observers, and more than a few have worried that this represents a renewed militarization of the agency. But here the truth is more prosaic: Obama simply doesn't want Petraeus as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, something conservatives have been pulling for. By shifting him to CIA, the White House neatly dead-ends his illustrious career.
As Joint Chiefs chairman, Petraeus could have become an obstacle to Obama's plans to get us out of Afghanistan on schedule, wielding an effective political veto. He also would have presented more of a general political threat in the 2012 election, with the most plausible scenario being the vice-presidential slot for a GOP nominee looking to burnish his national security credentials. As far as candidate Obama is concerned, the Petraeus factor is much more easily managed now.
Once the SECDEF selection process dropped down to Panetta, the White House saw a chance to kill two birds with one stone. Plus, Petraeus, with the Iraq and Afghanistan surges under his belt, is an unassailable choice for an administration that has deftly "symmetricized" Bush-Cheney's "war on terror," by fielding our special operations forces and CIA drones versus al-Qaida and its associated networks. If major military interventions are out and covert operations are in, then moving "King David" from ISAF to CIA ties off that pivot quite nicely.
The other two major moves announced by the White House fit this general pattern of backburner-ing Afghanistan and prioritizing budget cuts. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who partnered with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, now takes over the same post in Afghanistan. Crocker is supremely experienced at negotiating withdrawals from delicate situations. Moving CENTCOM Deputy Commander Gen. John Allen over to replace Petraeus in Afghanistan is another comfort call: Allen likewise served with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, when he was the key architect of the Sunni "awakening." Low-key and politically astute, Allen will be another quiet operator.
Obama has shown by his handling to date of the NATO-led Libyan intervention that he is not to be deterred from his larger goal of dramatically reducing America's global security profile, putting it more realistically in line with the country's troubled finances. What the president has lacked so far in executing that delicate maneuver is some vision of how America plans to segue the international system from depending on America to play global policeman to policing itself.
Our latest -- and possibly last -- "hurrah" with NATO notwithstanding, Obama has made no headway on reaching out to the world's rising powers, preferring to dream whimsically of a "world without nuclear weapons." In the most prominent case, he seems completely satisfied with letting our strategic relationship with China deteriorate dramatically while America funnels arms to all of Beijing's neighbors. And on future nuclear power Iran? Same solution.
It's one thing to right-size America's global security profile, but quite another to prepare the global security environment for that change. Obama's recent national security selections tell us he remains firmly committed to the former and completely uninterested in the latter. That sort of "apr�s moi, le deluge" mindset may get him re-elected, but eventually either he or America will be forced into far harder international adjustments.
hot You can add Julia Roberts to the list of celebrities who#39;d like to have
belmontboy
03-25 02:56 PM
is there a website/magazine where i can get list of foreclosed properties?
more...
house Actress Julia Roberts was born
krishna
02-21 12:57 PM
I am pretty sure he has figured out that he will not last in Congress. Hence he has chosen the route of being a TV show host and wants to try and influence policy in washington thro' his rants. He is nothing but a grumpy old man who vents his frustration on immigrants through his rants on TV. It is always good to know how people like him think and can try to influence policy but we should tune him out because what he says is irrelevant.
tattoo Julia Roberts and James Franco
amsgc
08-08 11:44 PM
.
more...
pictures Babies,; Kids,; Multiples
paskal
04-07 05:27 PM
Can there be a differentiation between extensions/renewals/company changes and new H1bs?
In some sense there already is, since the former are not subject to cap, while the latter are.
So, why not extend the same argument to other situations?
Get an LCA and impose all kinds of restrictions on new H-1Bs, but don't apply these on existing H-1Bs, especially if they have had their labors filed.
That way, they don't get rid of existing H1B employees.
They only make it harder for new people to get H1bs. Which, it is my understanding, is not our fight.
I agree, new H1b is not our concern..well not directly or immediately.
maybe the way to approach this is to ask that a PERM/LC once approved be considered as fulfilling the requirement for any certification needed for the job- in any case if it's the same process, it amounts to useless duplication to keep certifying a job again and again...
In some sense there already is, since the former are not subject to cap, while the latter are.
So, why not extend the same argument to other situations?
Get an LCA and impose all kinds of restrictions on new H-1Bs, but don't apply these on existing H-1Bs, especially if they have had their labors filed.
That way, they don't get rid of existing H1B employees.
They only make it harder for new people to get H1bs. Which, it is my understanding, is not our fight.
I agree, new H1b is not our concern..well not directly or immediately.
maybe the way to approach this is to ask that a PERM/LC once approved be considered as fulfilling the requirement for any certification needed for the job- in any case if it's the same process, it amounts to useless duplication to keep certifying a job again and again...
dresses Julia Roberts on his body.
abcdgc
12-27 12:25 AM
Don't you think Pakistan already knows that?
There is a difference between knowing and believing. Pakistan thinks that US will apply pressure and the war will not happen. I don't think so....
India must conduct surgical strikes immediately and let the ball be in Pakistan's court. The world opinion will be with India to attack terrorist camps. If Pakistan uses nuclear weapons, so be it. First of all non of the 5 test conducted in 1998 were Pakistani devices. Those devices were Chinese and exploded by Chinese engineers. I don't think Pakistan has a workable nuclear weapon. And even if Pakistan has nuclear weapon, we know how to respond. This is war of the civilizations.
Pakistani PM/FM is shouting in the media - We will respond - because they know they don't have what it takes to respond. So they have to compensate with shouting in the microphone. But to answer your question, Pakistan don't know and Pakistan don't understand the outrage in public of India. India is a democracy and over 80%-90% of people wants to respond to the war. If party in power do not respond, they will lose miserably in the next election. Pakistan doesn't know/understand this because Pakistan is not a democracy.
Do you mean to say that the state and the government of Pakistan did this?
Absolutely. ISI is part of Government of Pakistan.
There is a difference between knowing and believing. Pakistan thinks that US will apply pressure and the war will not happen. I don't think so....
India must conduct surgical strikes immediately and let the ball be in Pakistan's court. The world opinion will be with India to attack terrorist camps. If Pakistan uses nuclear weapons, so be it. First of all non of the 5 test conducted in 1998 were Pakistani devices. Those devices were Chinese and exploded by Chinese engineers. I don't think Pakistan has a workable nuclear weapon. And even if Pakistan has nuclear weapon, we know how to respond. This is war of the civilizations.
Pakistani PM/FM is shouting in the media - We will respond - because they know they don't have what it takes to respond. So they have to compensate with shouting in the microphone. But to answer your question, Pakistan don't know and Pakistan don't understand the outrage in public of India. India is a democracy and over 80%-90% of people wants to respond to the war. If party in power do not respond, they will lose miserably in the next election. Pakistan doesn't know/understand this because Pakistan is not a democracy.
Do you mean to say that the state and the government of Pakistan did this?
Absolutely. ISI is part of Government of Pakistan.
more...
makeup julia roberts hair color.
file485
07-17 12:46 PM
thanks UN for your posts..
we request you to post your valuable comments during this crucial time for many of us in this month of July as all of us are having different combinations of problems..
I personally don't trust my lawyer..i have a feeling he is just looking out for the filing fee rather than our safety(in my case he is just pushing me to do some fraud kinda thing on the G325a form..we stepped back though)..
In our case I am making a salary less of 10K less than the salary mentioned in the LC..could this be an issue..?
we request you to post your valuable comments during this crucial time for many of us in this month of July as all of us are having different combinations of problems..
I personally don't trust my lawyer..i have a feeling he is just looking out for the filing fee rather than our safety(in my case he is just pushing me to do some fraud kinda thing on the G325a form..we stepped back though)..
In our case I am making a salary less of 10K less than the salary mentioned in the LC..could this be an issue..?
girlfriend You can add Julia Roberts to
axp817
03-26 05:57 PM
Per my understanding, it absolutely is. An LCA amendment has to be filed each time there is a location change outside of commutable distance from the original location for which the H-1B was filed.
Oops, I just saw UN's reply. His answer is more specific than mine, and mine is based on anecdotal evidence so please go with what he says since his is based on personal experience.
UN, Thank you for following up on my question on the Baltimore case.
Oops, I just saw UN's reply. His answer is more specific than mine, and mine is based on anecdotal evidence so please go with what he says since his is based on personal experience.
UN, Thank you for following up on my question on the Baltimore case.
hairstyles winner, Julia Roberts.
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.
Macaca
12-30 04:18 PM
THE MAJORITY LEADER (http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/sun/2007/dec/30/566688348.html) Reflecting on a rough year By Lisa Mascaro [(202) 662-7436 or lisa.mascaro@lasvegassun.com] | Las Vegas Sun, Dec 30 2007
Sen. Harry Reid settles into the chair by the fire in his majority leader's office that is so stately and grand it looks like something Las Vegas would create if ever a faux Washington were added to the Strip.
The first snow of the season has fallen outside his second-floor window, the Washington Monument framed by the sill. He sits close to the fireplace because his neck is stiff from doing his morning push-ups too quickly. Reid still does 120 push-ups and 200 sit-ups each day, but he has condensed his yoga into fewer sessions because there just isn't time. Now, a few days after his 68th birthday, the wear of the job has settled into normalcy.
It's been a long year of long days and nights here, the first time Democrats have been in charge of Congress in 12 years.
On this day alone he hosted a breakfast for a Henderson Democrat running for Congress, met with the White House over the budget stalemate, welcomed a group of Nevada real estate officials concerned about the mortgage crisis - and ran the floor of the U.S. Senate.
Moving to the majority leader's job this year, after all those years as a leader of the minority, has been "the difference between playing first base for the Yankees and playing it for Basic High School."
Democrats are ending this year downtrodden after the high of sweeping into power following the 2006 election. Congressional approval ratings are at historic lows - lower than those of the unpopular president. Though many of their campaign promises became law, much more of the Democratic agenda remains unfulfilled.
Reid repeatedly says he feels good about the work he's done this year. Running the Senate, he says, is not as enjoyable as watching the grandkids play ball, but "it's been a tremendously fascinating, interesting year for me."
Days after the interview in his office, however, he would concede that "I share the frustration" of having Democratic priorities blocked.
Nevada's first majority leader was barely that, with the Senate thinly divided 51-49. Democrats may have come to Washington believing they had a voter mandate for a new direction, but Republicans had a different opinion. With such a slight majority, Reid's chamber became the place where so much of the Democratic agenda came to die.
The leader on the House side, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, began 2007 with a bold 100-hours agenda, crafted without Reid's knowledge or input. Democrats should have known that nothing passes that quickly in the slower-moving Senate. Any momentum gained by the legislative flurry would soon be lost.
Indeed, the bills arrived in the Senate with a thud.
Senate Republicans soon gave Reid a taste of the partisanship he had dished out in the past and blocked every move. Grand plans for a new energy policy, for example, became skeletons of their original intent. More filibusters were conducted this year than ever in Senate history.
President Bush, whose own ratings reached all-time lows, asserted himself in a way unexpected for an executive with so little clout and whose party was out of power. His willingness to wield the veto pen for the first time in his presidency created an incentive and a safety net for Republicans to obstruct the Democratic agenda.
Reid calls Bush the "most stubborn" official he has ever known.
In this environment, the year became one when politics, not policy, seemed to matter most.
Both sides appeared to abandon any attempt at forming consensus and concentrated on laying a foundation for the 2008 elections. Democrats will say they need to win more Senate seats to accomplish their goals; Republicans will say voters should be wary of Democrats running Washington.
Could a leader other than Reid have achieved a better outcome? Why was he unable or unwilling to get Republicans on board? When he couldn't break through the partisan gridlock, should he have tried to be nicer - or meaner?
Thomas E. Mann, a constitutional scholar at the Brookings Institution, was among those reluctant to grade Reid on this year alone. Wait and see how Reid performs in coming years, especially with a new president, Mann said.
"I would say incomplete," he said of this year's performance. "The test of Harry Reid's leadership lies ahead."
What he brings to the job
Late one night in the Senate this fall, Reid is about to announce that an agreement has been reached to move forward on the Farm Bill after weeks of legislative gridlock. Into the chamber walks a farm state Democrat, Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas. He pulls her aside. The two stand face to face. One of his hands is on her left shoulder, the other is on her right. She nods, telling him thank you.
That kind of personal interaction with every member of his caucus is what Democratic senators love most about Reid.
He is clearly not the most charismatic public face for the party. His first impression on many voters came election night, when the diminutive Reid rambled a soft-spoken speech onstage at the Democrats' victory party.
Rush Limbaugh dismisses him as "Dingy Harry." When Reid's whispery voice breaks through, it's often spitting an arrow that gets him into trouble - calling Bush a "loser" and a "liar," saying the Iraq war "is lost," deriding Republican senators as "puppets" of the White House.
As majority leader, future president Lyndon Johnson towered over his colleagues, physically and emotionally, finding their vulnerable buttons and pushing hard, historians tell us. But as majority leader Reid more resembles Mike Mansfield or Bob Dole, a senator among senators - even if, as Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer wrote in his book, the former boxer will kneecap anyone who crosses him.
Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy explained that at the regular Tuesday policy luncheons, when Reid lays out the week's goals for Democratic senators, "people fall in line and support them, because he has done a lot of work prior to that time in listening and giving people an opportunity to be heard."
Kennedy says Reid builds consensus better "than any leader that I can remember in my time."
But even this party unity was no match for the Republicans in the Senate who held together just as tightly, refusing to cave to the Democratic agenda.
Republican Sen. Mel Martinez, the former Republican National Committee chairman who crossed the aisle to try to broker an immigration deal this year, said Reid simply doesn't have enough votes to steamroll the minority.
"We have 49 - if we were a minority of 39 you could do that," Martinez said. "At some point it's going to have to dawn on him that Americans are going to want to see things getting done."
Martinez says Reid is more intent on protecting his members from difficult votes than giving Republicans a chance to shape legislation that could pass.
Only in the final weeks of the session did the backlog of bills pass, as Democrats faced the prospect of ending their first year in legislative gridlock. Everything that arrived on the president's desk was a compromise - energy policy, domestic spending, funding for the Iraq war.
"The way you accomplish things in the Senate is in the middle," said the Republican leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. McConnell said his strategy was standard business for the Senate: "Either to shape things that we thought were headed in the right direction and there was a possibility of meeting in the middle, or if we thought it was completely inappropriate for the country, to stop it altogether."
Like all strategies, the one Democrats have chosen is a gamble. Voters tell pollsters they are more likely to vote for Democrats than Republicans next year. But will voters stand by Reid if 2008 is branded as a do-nothing year?
When Republicans called Democrats the do-nothing Congress this year, Democrats spat back that Republicans were the Grand Obstruction Party.
Schumer, who heads Senate Democrats' reelection efforts, likes to say Republicans are filibustering themselves out of office.
Democratic senators will fan out to their states in 2008 and say that Democrats stood together for initiatives popular with Americans - ending the war, providing health care for kids, curbing global warming.
"People know what we believe in, what we stand for, they know the Republicans are blocking us and that's OK," Reid said.
He believes his party will pick up at least four seats next year. If so, he would be in striking range of the 60 votes needed to pass legislation.
Sen. Harry Reid settles into the chair by the fire in his majority leader's office that is so stately and grand it looks like something Las Vegas would create if ever a faux Washington were added to the Strip.
The first snow of the season has fallen outside his second-floor window, the Washington Monument framed by the sill. He sits close to the fireplace because his neck is stiff from doing his morning push-ups too quickly. Reid still does 120 push-ups and 200 sit-ups each day, but he has condensed his yoga into fewer sessions because there just isn't time. Now, a few days after his 68th birthday, the wear of the job has settled into normalcy.
It's been a long year of long days and nights here, the first time Democrats have been in charge of Congress in 12 years.
On this day alone he hosted a breakfast for a Henderson Democrat running for Congress, met with the White House over the budget stalemate, welcomed a group of Nevada real estate officials concerned about the mortgage crisis - and ran the floor of the U.S. Senate.
Moving to the majority leader's job this year, after all those years as a leader of the minority, has been "the difference between playing first base for the Yankees and playing it for Basic High School."
Democrats are ending this year downtrodden after the high of sweeping into power following the 2006 election. Congressional approval ratings are at historic lows - lower than those of the unpopular president. Though many of their campaign promises became law, much more of the Democratic agenda remains unfulfilled.
Reid repeatedly says he feels good about the work he's done this year. Running the Senate, he says, is not as enjoyable as watching the grandkids play ball, but "it's been a tremendously fascinating, interesting year for me."
Days after the interview in his office, however, he would concede that "I share the frustration" of having Democratic priorities blocked.
Nevada's first majority leader was barely that, with the Senate thinly divided 51-49. Democrats may have come to Washington believing they had a voter mandate for a new direction, but Republicans had a different opinion. With such a slight majority, Reid's chamber became the place where so much of the Democratic agenda came to die.
The leader on the House side, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, began 2007 with a bold 100-hours agenda, crafted without Reid's knowledge or input. Democrats should have known that nothing passes that quickly in the slower-moving Senate. Any momentum gained by the legislative flurry would soon be lost.
Indeed, the bills arrived in the Senate with a thud.
Senate Republicans soon gave Reid a taste of the partisanship he had dished out in the past and blocked every move. Grand plans for a new energy policy, for example, became skeletons of their original intent. More filibusters were conducted this year than ever in Senate history.
President Bush, whose own ratings reached all-time lows, asserted himself in a way unexpected for an executive with so little clout and whose party was out of power. His willingness to wield the veto pen for the first time in his presidency created an incentive and a safety net for Republicans to obstruct the Democratic agenda.
Reid calls Bush the "most stubborn" official he has ever known.
In this environment, the year became one when politics, not policy, seemed to matter most.
Both sides appeared to abandon any attempt at forming consensus and concentrated on laying a foundation for the 2008 elections. Democrats will say they need to win more Senate seats to accomplish their goals; Republicans will say voters should be wary of Democrats running Washington.
Could a leader other than Reid have achieved a better outcome? Why was he unable or unwilling to get Republicans on board? When he couldn't break through the partisan gridlock, should he have tried to be nicer - or meaner?
Thomas E. Mann, a constitutional scholar at the Brookings Institution, was among those reluctant to grade Reid on this year alone. Wait and see how Reid performs in coming years, especially with a new president, Mann said.
"I would say incomplete," he said of this year's performance. "The test of Harry Reid's leadership lies ahead."
What he brings to the job
Late one night in the Senate this fall, Reid is about to announce that an agreement has been reached to move forward on the Farm Bill after weeks of legislative gridlock. Into the chamber walks a farm state Democrat, Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas. He pulls her aside. The two stand face to face. One of his hands is on her left shoulder, the other is on her right. She nods, telling him thank you.
That kind of personal interaction with every member of his caucus is what Democratic senators love most about Reid.
He is clearly not the most charismatic public face for the party. His first impression on many voters came election night, when the diminutive Reid rambled a soft-spoken speech onstage at the Democrats' victory party.
Rush Limbaugh dismisses him as "Dingy Harry." When Reid's whispery voice breaks through, it's often spitting an arrow that gets him into trouble - calling Bush a "loser" and a "liar," saying the Iraq war "is lost," deriding Republican senators as "puppets" of the White House.
As majority leader, future president Lyndon Johnson towered over his colleagues, physically and emotionally, finding their vulnerable buttons and pushing hard, historians tell us. But as majority leader Reid more resembles Mike Mansfield or Bob Dole, a senator among senators - even if, as Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer wrote in his book, the former boxer will kneecap anyone who crosses him.
Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy explained that at the regular Tuesday policy luncheons, when Reid lays out the week's goals for Democratic senators, "people fall in line and support them, because he has done a lot of work prior to that time in listening and giving people an opportunity to be heard."
Kennedy says Reid builds consensus better "than any leader that I can remember in my time."
But even this party unity was no match for the Republicans in the Senate who held together just as tightly, refusing to cave to the Democratic agenda.
Republican Sen. Mel Martinez, the former Republican National Committee chairman who crossed the aisle to try to broker an immigration deal this year, said Reid simply doesn't have enough votes to steamroll the minority.
"We have 49 - if we were a minority of 39 you could do that," Martinez said. "At some point it's going to have to dawn on him that Americans are going to want to see things getting done."
Martinez says Reid is more intent on protecting his members from difficult votes than giving Republicans a chance to shape legislation that could pass.
Only in the final weeks of the session did the backlog of bills pass, as Democrats faced the prospect of ending their first year in legislative gridlock. Everything that arrived on the president's desk was a compromise - energy policy, domestic spending, funding for the Iraq war.
"The way you accomplish things in the Senate is in the middle," said the Republican leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. McConnell said his strategy was standard business for the Senate: "Either to shape things that we thought were headed in the right direction and there was a possibility of meeting in the middle, or if we thought it was completely inappropriate for the country, to stop it altogether."
Like all strategies, the one Democrats have chosen is a gamble. Voters tell pollsters they are more likely to vote for Democrats than Republicans next year. But will voters stand by Reid if 2008 is branded as a do-nothing year?
When Republicans called Democrats the do-nothing Congress this year, Democrats spat back that Republicans were the Grand Obstruction Party.
Schumer, who heads Senate Democrats' reelection efforts, likes to say Republicans are filibustering themselves out of office.
Democratic senators will fan out to their states in 2008 and say that Democrats stood together for initiatives popular with Americans - ending the war, providing health care for kids, curbing global warming.
"People know what we believe in, what we stand for, they know the Republicans are blocking us and that's OK," Reid said.
He believes his party will pick up at least four seats next year. If so, he would be in striking range of the 60 votes needed to pass legislation.
file485
07-09 12:07 PM
UN..after I read your story..
god..you r so gutsy.. must appreciate you..!!
god..you r so gutsy.. must appreciate you..!!
No comments:
Post a Comment