mysterio_ray
04-07 04:49 PM
If your EAD is based on your husband's I-485 app I don't see any reason as to why that should affect your gc process if you move jobs.
wallpaper Katrina Kaif hot pics
Blog Feeds
08-08 09:50 PM
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell says that he's not aware of anyone who wants to alter the 14th Amendment (uh, did you just wake up from a coma and miss the last two weeks?). But he doesn't see any harm in having a couple of hearings. Keep feeding the Tea Party beast, Mitch. Eventually, it won't be hungry anymore, right?
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/08/mcconnell-we-dont-really-want-to-scrap-the-14th-amendment-wink-wink.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/08/mcconnell-we-dont-really-want-to-scrap-the-14th-amendment-wink-wink.html)
maddipati1
12-09 04:20 PM
one of my friend worked here on L1 for couple of years for employer A.
then he got a H1 approved effective from Oct'07, with employer B.
but, he did not actually start working under employer B on H1 (payroll) until Mar'08.
he continued working under employer A on L1 ( has paystubs without any break) until Mar'08 and then worked with employer B on H1.
now he did a cap-exmpt H1 transfer to employer C, got H1 apporved and they are filing for GC labor PERM petition.
question is, while providing his previous employers info in the PERM petition,
can he say that he worked with employer A on L1 until Mar'08, even though his H1 with employer B is effective from oct'07?
appreciate any advice
then he got a H1 approved effective from Oct'07, with employer B.
but, he did not actually start working under employer B on H1 (payroll) until Mar'08.
he continued working under employer A on L1 ( has paystubs without any break) until Mar'08 and then worked with employer B on H1.
now he did a cap-exmpt H1 transfer to employer C, got H1 apporved and they are filing for GC labor PERM petition.
question is, while providing his previous employers info in the PERM petition,
can he say that he worked with employer A on L1 until Mar'08, even though his H1 with employer B is effective from oct'07?
appreciate any advice
2011 Katrina Kaif Hot Wallpapers In
dilbert_cal
03-22 12:01 PM
You just need your approved EB3 I-140 notice
You need a copy of the approved EB3-140. Original is not required and you will not get it either. A copy should be available but depends on whether your employer/lawyer shares documents with you or not.
You need a copy of the approved EB3-140. Original is not required and you will not get it either. A copy should be available but depends on whether your employer/lawyer shares documents with you or not.
more...
Macaca
05-19 07:30 AM
A New Reality in Washington, but Can It Last? (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/19/washington/19assess.html) By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html) May 19, 2007
WASHINGTON, May 18 � Six months after Republicans lost control of Congress, President Bush is learning the rules of a game that, for six years, he seemed to have forgotten: the Capitol Hill edition of �Let�s Make a Deal.�
In the last eight days alone, talks involving cabinet secretaries and other high-ranking White House officials have produced two surprises: a major compromise with Democrats on trade and Thursday�s fragile bipartisan accord on immigration. The question now is whether the sudden burst of deal-making will extend from these easier targets to the most intractable issue in Washington: the war in Iraq.
It is still far from clear whether the Bush administration and Congressional Democrats can be flexible enough to reach an accommodation on war spending � and indeed, the Iraq talks stumbled on Friday. What is clear is that both Mr. Bush and his rivals are shying from the path of confrontation. Democrats, for the most part, are refraining from muscle-flexing, showers of subpoenas and other displays of new clout. And a White House hungry for legislative victories is working hard to negotiate a vastly changed political landscape.
�The president has become belatedly pragmatic,� said Ross Baker, an expert in presidential-Congressional relations at Rutgers University. �I think it took a while for him to recognize that the ground rules have changed, but he seems finally to have come around to the realization that he�s not working with a docile Congress of his own party, but with people who really have decided that they are going to challenge him.�
The White House chief of staff, Joshua B. Bolten, who is the president�s lead negotiator on the Iraq bill, conceded in an interview earlier this week that it had been difficult for the administration to get accustomed to not controlling the legislative agenda.
Yet despite �a fair amount of substantive tension� in the relationship with Democrats, Mr. Bolten said, the immigration and trade deals have left him feeling encouraged.
�We have some ways to go,� he said, �but there is a process of confidence building that accumulates over time.�
Maybe so, but after six years of being virtually ignored by the administration, many Democrats remain wary. Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota, complained on Friday that the Bush White House had �never been very interested in anything except the way they wanted to do business.� Mr. Dorgan said he was not impressed with the fact, given the change of party power, that they are talking.
�That gives credit for low expectations,� he said.
Others, less in the thick of things, sounded more upbeat. Leon E. Panetta, a former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, said he had been concerned, once the Democrats took control of Congress, that �an awful lot of blood in the water� would prevent the parties from coming to terms on �low-hanging fruit� like immigration and trade.
In Mr. Panetta�s view, the talks are a good sign. �Whether it can go into bigger areas like the war remains to be seen,� he said. �But it clearly helps build at least a rapport that you absolutely need if you�re going to try to come to a deal.�
Mr. Bush, of course, is not the first president who was forced to come to grips with a new political reality after losing control of Congress. Mr. Clinton did just that after Democrats lost the House of Representatives in 1994. That loss created the political climate that enabled Mr. Clinton to make good on his promise to revamp the nation�s welfare system.
Likewise, the change in November has made it easier for Mr. Bush to pursue his trade agenda and his long-cherished goal of immigration overhaul.
In the trade deal, the administration�s unlikely partner was Representative Charles B. Rangel, the tough-talking Democrat from Harlem. The White House acceded to his demands for child labor and environmental protections in several pending trade pacts, a move that would have been unthinkable when Republicans controlled the House, because Mr. Rangel�s Republican predecessor as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Bill Thomas of California, would have blocked it.
On immigration, Mr. Bush�s position already seemed nearer that of Democrats than Republicans, and some in his own party are highly nervous about the deal. Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, the Republican whip, who was majority leader when Mr. Clinton was president, said Republicans would criticize the administration as giving away too much on immigration, just as Democrats criticized Mr. Clinton as giving away too much on welfare overhaul.
�But,� Mr. Lott said, �I would argue that the White House is coming to terms with the reality of the situation in Washington, and they don�t have any choice. We can all get into our partisan crouches and get nothing, or we can go through a process of responsible negotiations.�
Administration officials say both sides seem to be learning as they go. But Iraq is an area where Mr. Bush has been especially unwilling to yield. He has made clear he has little interest in sharing his power as commander in chief.
While Mr. Bush has been trying to strike a conciliatory tone � he said Thursday that he would accept benchmarks for the Iraqi government � the breakdown in talks on Friday was a reminder that Iraq is not immigration or trade, and the president will only go so far.
Some say the trade and immigration deals could actually work against compromise on Iraq. After cutting two big deals, Democrats and Republicans might not be inclined toward another one, for fear that they will look wishy-washy with their respective political bases.
On the other hand, one force pushing toward compromise is that neither side can afford to get blamed for holding back money from the troops. Even so, Mr. Panetta says it is too early to be optimistic.
�There�s some light at the end of the tunnel,� he said, ��but it could get dark real fast.�
WASHINGTON, May 18 � Six months after Republicans lost control of Congress, President Bush is learning the rules of a game that, for six years, he seemed to have forgotten: the Capitol Hill edition of �Let�s Make a Deal.�
In the last eight days alone, talks involving cabinet secretaries and other high-ranking White House officials have produced two surprises: a major compromise with Democrats on trade and Thursday�s fragile bipartisan accord on immigration. The question now is whether the sudden burst of deal-making will extend from these easier targets to the most intractable issue in Washington: the war in Iraq.
It is still far from clear whether the Bush administration and Congressional Democrats can be flexible enough to reach an accommodation on war spending � and indeed, the Iraq talks stumbled on Friday. What is clear is that both Mr. Bush and his rivals are shying from the path of confrontation. Democrats, for the most part, are refraining from muscle-flexing, showers of subpoenas and other displays of new clout. And a White House hungry for legislative victories is working hard to negotiate a vastly changed political landscape.
�The president has become belatedly pragmatic,� said Ross Baker, an expert in presidential-Congressional relations at Rutgers University. �I think it took a while for him to recognize that the ground rules have changed, but he seems finally to have come around to the realization that he�s not working with a docile Congress of his own party, but with people who really have decided that they are going to challenge him.�
The White House chief of staff, Joshua B. Bolten, who is the president�s lead negotiator on the Iraq bill, conceded in an interview earlier this week that it had been difficult for the administration to get accustomed to not controlling the legislative agenda.
Yet despite �a fair amount of substantive tension� in the relationship with Democrats, Mr. Bolten said, the immigration and trade deals have left him feeling encouraged.
�We have some ways to go,� he said, �but there is a process of confidence building that accumulates over time.�
Maybe so, but after six years of being virtually ignored by the administration, many Democrats remain wary. Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota, complained on Friday that the Bush White House had �never been very interested in anything except the way they wanted to do business.� Mr. Dorgan said he was not impressed with the fact, given the change of party power, that they are talking.
�That gives credit for low expectations,� he said.
Others, less in the thick of things, sounded more upbeat. Leon E. Panetta, a former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, said he had been concerned, once the Democrats took control of Congress, that �an awful lot of blood in the water� would prevent the parties from coming to terms on �low-hanging fruit� like immigration and trade.
In Mr. Panetta�s view, the talks are a good sign. �Whether it can go into bigger areas like the war remains to be seen,� he said. �But it clearly helps build at least a rapport that you absolutely need if you�re going to try to come to a deal.�
Mr. Bush, of course, is not the first president who was forced to come to grips with a new political reality after losing control of Congress. Mr. Clinton did just that after Democrats lost the House of Representatives in 1994. That loss created the political climate that enabled Mr. Clinton to make good on his promise to revamp the nation�s welfare system.
Likewise, the change in November has made it easier for Mr. Bush to pursue his trade agenda and his long-cherished goal of immigration overhaul.
In the trade deal, the administration�s unlikely partner was Representative Charles B. Rangel, the tough-talking Democrat from Harlem. The White House acceded to his demands for child labor and environmental protections in several pending trade pacts, a move that would have been unthinkable when Republicans controlled the House, because Mr. Rangel�s Republican predecessor as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Bill Thomas of California, would have blocked it.
On immigration, Mr. Bush�s position already seemed nearer that of Democrats than Republicans, and some in his own party are highly nervous about the deal. Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, the Republican whip, who was majority leader when Mr. Clinton was president, said Republicans would criticize the administration as giving away too much on immigration, just as Democrats criticized Mr. Clinton as giving away too much on welfare overhaul.
�But,� Mr. Lott said, �I would argue that the White House is coming to terms with the reality of the situation in Washington, and they don�t have any choice. We can all get into our partisan crouches and get nothing, or we can go through a process of responsible negotiations.�
Administration officials say both sides seem to be learning as they go. But Iraq is an area where Mr. Bush has been especially unwilling to yield. He has made clear he has little interest in sharing his power as commander in chief.
While Mr. Bush has been trying to strike a conciliatory tone � he said Thursday that he would accept benchmarks for the Iraqi government � the breakdown in talks on Friday was a reminder that Iraq is not immigration or trade, and the president will only go so far.
Some say the trade and immigration deals could actually work against compromise on Iraq. After cutting two big deals, Democrats and Republicans might not be inclined toward another one, for fear that they will look wishy-washy with their respective political bases.
On the other hand, one force pushing toward compromise is that neither side can afford to get blamed for holding back money from the troops. Even so, Mr. Panetta says it is too early to be optimistic.
�There�s some light at the end of the tunnel,� he said, ��but it could get dark real fast.�
Macaca
03-08 09:19 AM
senate panel on Hold
Who Stalled the Intelligence Bill? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/07/AR2007030702461.html)
Thursday, March 8, 2007
For what could become the third year in a row, the Senate on Tuesday evening did not pass an Intelligence Authorization Bill, over the objection of a lone Republican senator whose name is being protected by his colleagues.
John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, called the delay "one of the more embarrassing efforts I have been associated with in my 24 years in this body." The panel's vice chairman, Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.), took the Senate floor Tuesday and called on "any person who has a hold on this bill to come forward and find out what is in the bill."
Rockefeller and Bond have been working over several months to meet objections to items in the bill that the committee passed last May. With changes that Rockefeller and Bond worked out, the measure was reintroduced Jan. 27 and put on the unanimous consent calendar on Feb. 8.
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, was named by Congressional Quarterly yesterday as the member who put the bill on hold. A DeMint spokesman said the senator's office "does not comment on holds," but other congressional sources said that DeMint was the one.
Those sources said that they believe the hold is due to White House objections to specific provisions, including public disclosure of the national intelligence budget; a requirement for a report on secret CIA prisons; and response to information requests by the committee chairman and vice chairman within 30 days.
"We have to be able to pass authorization bills if we are to have an impact on the intelligence community," Bond said.
Who Stalled the Intelligence Bill? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/07/AR2007030702461.html)
Thursday, March 8, 2007
For what could become the third year in a row, the Senate on Tuesday evening did not pass an Intelligence Authorization Bill, over the objection of a lone Republican senator whose name is being protected by his colleagues.
John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, called the delay "one of the more embarrassing efforts I have been associated with in my 24 years in this body." The panel's vice chairman, Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.), took the Senate floor Tuesday and called on "any person who has a hold on this bill to come forward and find out what is in the bill."
Rockefeller and Bond have been working over several months to meet objections to items in the bill that the committee passed last May. With changes that Rockefeller and Bond worked out, the measure was reintroduced Jan. 27 and put on the unanimous consent calendar on Feb. 8.
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, was named by Congressional Quarterly yesterday as the member who put the bill on hold. A DeMint spokesman said the senator's office "does not comment on holds," but other congressional sources said that DeMint was the one.
Those sources said that they believe the hold is due to White House objections to specific provisions, including public disclosure of the national intelligence budget; a requirement for a report on secret CIA prisons; and response to information requests by the committee chairman and vice chairman within 30 days.
"We have to be able to pass authorization bills if we are to have an impact on the intelligence community," Bond said.
more...
morchu
06-01 12:30 PM
New/amended 140, if the LC states correct job requirements (assuming the mistake was made on 140 application).
New LC if old LC states incorrect job requirements.
I have a Masters Degree in the US and the 5 yr experience required for the EB2 also the position requires it; however my lawyer made a mistake and asked for an EB3.
I already received my I-140 and my I-485 was filed at the same time.
What can I do to change to EB2?
Thanks a lot for your answer,
New LC if old LC states incorrect job requirements.
I have a Masters Degree in the US and the 5 yr experience required for the EB2 also the position requires it; however my lawyer made a mistake and asked for an EB3.
I already received my I-140 and my I-485 was filed at the same time.
What can I do to change to EB2?
Thanks a lot for your answer,
2010 hot wallpapers of katrina kaif
kirupa
05-16 02:09 PM
Really nice work! Added this one up :)
more...
shiniboy
07-07 05:14 AM
Thank you, I love your site.
hair images Hot Wallpapers Katrina.
kaisersose
04-19 11:49 AM
I moved recently with a pending 485 from NSC jurisdiction to TX as I see no problems.
more...
.preview.jpg "Katrina Kaif Latest (9)")
thesparky007
04-24 01:53 PM
looks nice!
hot hairstyles katrina kaif hot wallpapers. katrina kaif hot wallpapers de hot
.jpg "Katrina Kaif Latest (2)")
SpookyH1Alien
05-20 04:02 PM
I am very sorry to hear about your situation. Yes, you can bring your sister here on a visitor's visa to stay with you but she has to go back in 6 months.
more...
house Katrina Kaif Hot Wallpapers:
senk1s
10-10 05:23 PM
i know 2 people jul 2 filers are still waiting
called on oct 3rd - asked to wait some more time (not in database)
called on oct 3rd - asked to wait some more time (not in database)
tattoo Hot Look Of Katrina Kaif
uvreddi
12-04 10:03 AM
Hello Everyone,
Iam an H4 transferred to H1B. I am on H1B since one year. My pay is less than the one mentioned in LCA, but more than the prevailing wages. My job profile also includes some part of salary as comission, which I would get at the end of the year. This is apart from the salary Iam receiving right now (greater than the prevailing wage and less than LCA). Do I face any problem if I happen to go for H1B visa stamp. Could you also suggest me how to defend myself if I am asked the difference in the salary by visa officer. Thanking you all in advance.
Iam an H4 transferred to H1B. I am on H1B since one year. My pay is less than the one mentioned in LCA, but more than the prevailing wages. My job profile also includes some part of salary as comission, which I would get at the end of the year. This is apart from the salary Iam receiving right now (greater than the prevailing wage and less than LCA). Do I face any problem if I happen to go for H1B visa stamp. Could you also suggest me how to defend myself if I am asked the difference in the salary by visa officer. Thanking you all in advance.
more...
pictures and Katrina Kaif hot pair
Blog Feeds
07-16 04:50 PM
[Y]ou have to be prepared at any moment to face difficulties and even dangers by knowing what to do and how to do it. Agnes and Robert Baden-Powell, How Girls Can Help to Build Up the Empire Be Prepared in [m]ind . . . by having thought out beforehand any . . . situation that might occur, so that you know the right thing to do at the right moment, and are willing to do it. Robert Baden-Powell, Scouting for Boys - Campfire Yarn No. 3 - Becoming a Scout Excerpts from the Scout Motto: "Be Prepared." When immigration-beat writers...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/angelopaparelli/2010/07/my-entry.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/angelopaparelli/2010/07/my-entry.html)
dresses Katrina Kaif Latest (2)
fide_champ
04-13 08:22 AM
Could you post the actual percentage of EB legal immigrants. If it is 15% then it is sad. It should be at least 50% in order for the country to have the brightest talent.
Out of 1 million green cards issued every year, 140000 goes to EB immigrants which works out to 14%
Out of 1 million green cards issued every year, 140000 goes to EB immigrants which works out to 14%
more...
makeup 2010 Katrina Kaif hot pics
munnu77
04-12 11:22 AM
thnk u sgorla..
girlfriend katrina kaif hot wallpapers
indygc
09-01 02:57 PM
Guys,
I filed our AP & EAD on August 10th with proof of 485 filing/delivery confirmation.
We got our receipt notices for AP 131 but unfortunately they have rejected our EAD 765 for incorretc filing fee of $180.
They written a notice saying the correct filing fee after July 30th is $340.
But for July VB is'nt the filing fee $180?
I have got back my entire documents packet for 765.
What should I do now? Should I resend the packet with a letter saying that I come under July VB? or should I send a new check for $340? Anybody gone thru similar experiences? Pls help.
Thanks in Advance
Indy
I filed our AP & EAD on August 10th with proof of 485 filing/delivery confirmation.
We got our receipt notices for AP 131 but unfortunately they have rejected our EAD 765 for incorretc filing fee of $180.
They written a notice saying the correct filing fee after July 30th is $340.
But for July VB is'nt the filing fee $180?
I have got back my entire documents packet for 765.
What should I do now? Should I resend the packet with a letter saying that I come under July VB? or should I send a new check for $340? Anybody gone thru similar experiences? Pls help.
Thanks in Advance
Indy
hairstyles Katrina Kaif Latest (9)
updown
10-16 11:09 PM
I would really appreciate it, if someone could give me some advice.
Here is my situation, in January 2005, I married my girlfriend, who I had dated for little over a year. She is a US born citizen, so we decided to file for my permanent residency upon marriage. Upon receipt of my Green Card in Jan 2008, I filed for naturalization. Our relationship started heading south last year. We tried counseling and it didn't work out. We finally decided to part our ways amicably in Sep, 2009.
I am 34 years old and for reasons unknown to me, I am showing signs of age. I have been also getting some pressure from my family in India to remarry. Though I do not have any plans to marry immediately, I wasn't sure if my getting naturalized in February 2009 would have any impact on marrying someone from India sometime next year?
Please let me know, if there are any cooling off period required?
Thank you.
Here is my situation, in January 2005, I married my girlfriend, who I had dated for little over a year. She is a US born citizen, so we decided to file for my permanent residency upon marriage. Upon receipt of my Green Card in Jan 2008, I filed for naturalization. Our relationship started heading south last year. We tried counseling and it didn't work out. We finally decided to part our ways amicably in Sep, 2009.
I am 34 years old and for reasons unknown to me, I am showing signs of age. I have been also getting some pressure from my family in India to remarry. Though I do not have any plans to marry immediately, I wasn't sure if my getting naturalized in February 2009 would have any impact on marrying someone from India sometime next year?
Please let me know, if there are any cooling off period required?
Thank you.
alapkd
05-15 10:05 PM
Appreciate any help and legal advise.
Macaca
12-07 10:47 AM
Tax, Spending Issues Frustrate Democrats (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/07/AR2007120700423.html) By CHARLES BABINGTON | Associated Press, December 7, 2007
WASHINGTON -- Cracks are emerging in congressional Democrats' solidarity, as frustrated lawmakers concede their majority status is not enough to overcome Republican resistance on taxes, spending, Iraq and a host of other issues.
The fissures, which became obvious this week, are undermining Democrats' hopes for several key achievements this year. They also point to a bruising 2008 election in which Democrats will say Republicans blocked prudent tax and spending plans to score political points on immigration and other hot-button issues.
Republicans say they simply want to prevent higher taxes of any kind, even if the targets are not-so-sympathetic groups such as oil companies and hedge fund managers.
After 11 months of insisting that all major programs be paid for with tax increases or spending cuts elsewhere, Senate Democratic leaders acknowledged Thursday they cannot persuade enough Republicans to join them. Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., reluctantly allowed a vote on a long-debated middle-class tax cut that would add billions of dollars to the deficit because it is not offset elsewhere.
The measure, which the Senate approved 88-5, would prevent the alternative minimum tax from hitting about 25 million more taxpayers, at a cost of about $50 billion to the U.S. treasury next year. Reid's decision puts the Senate at odds with the House with two weeks left before the holiday recess.
House Democratic leaders still insist on a pay-as-you-go policy, or "pay-go," which they made a centerpiece of their governing principles in January.
Reid told reporters Thursday that Senate Republicans have used their filibuster powers to block Democratic efforts to change Iraq policy, move a farm bill and pay for the proposed one-year "fix" to the alternative minimum tax. He especially complained about Republican demands to offer farm bill amendments dealing with state drivers licenses for illegal immigrants.
"We've tried everything we can to address these issues," Reid said, citing 57 GOP filibuster threats this year.
"We have lived by pay-go," Reid said regarding the tax bill. "But what we want everyone to know is that we have tried every alternative possible."
He acknowledged handing a political dilemma to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. The House earlier passed an AMT bill that would raise $80 billion in new taxes, largely on investors and hedge fund managers.
"I admire the speaker" for adhering to the pay-as-you-go principle, Reid said. He added, however, she "has a little more flexibility from a procedural perspective than I do."
Reid's decision will force a pivotal decision by House Democrats: Should they infuriate millions of voters by leaving the AMT unchanged (and hope Republicans get blamed), or abandon the pay-go promise and possibly rely heavily on Republican votes to pass a bill that splits Democrats.
"If we waive pay-go on this, I think it opens the door" to further actions that would raise the deficit and "border on criminal irresponsibility," said Rep. John Tanner, D-Tenn.
Meanwhile Thursday, congressional Democrats said they face an uphill battle in trying to overcome Senate GOP objections to a House-passed energy bill. Republicans particularly oppose the proposed rollback of $13.5 billion in tax breaks for major oil companies.
"You can't tax your way to energy independence," House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, told reporters.
If the Senate cannot overcome the GOP-led resistance, Democratic senators said they may have to jettison provisions important to many House Democrats: the tax provisions and requirements for greater use of renewable energy such as wind, solar and biofuels.
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said such a move would be difficult for the House to swallow. "The tax part is just as important as any other part" of the energy bill, he said.
As for the Iraq war, congressional Democrats on Thursday sent their strongest signal yet that they are resigned to providing additional funds without forcing President Bush to alter his policies. The plan is virtually certain to divide House Democrats. Like the AMT legislation, it may require significant Republican support to pass.
Democrats, who sometimes seem incredulous at their inability to budge the GOP on tax, spending and war issues, say Republicans will pay dearly at the polls. "There is a sense they are digging their own grave," Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said.
Some Republicans agree there is a risk in repeatedly blocking Democratic-crafted bills, especially if the chief beneficiaries appear to be big oil companies or wealthy investors.
"The strategy is to lay low and then blame them for not getting anything done," Republican Rep. Ray LaHood of Illinois said in an interview. "The truth is, we all lose."
"We trash each other and end up making the institution look bad," LaHood said. "That's why Congress' approval ratings are so low."
WASHINGTON -- Cracks are emerging in congressional Democrats' solidarity, as frustrated lawmakers concede their majority status is not enough to overcome Republican resistance on taxes, spending, Iraq and a host of other issues.
The fissures, which became obvious this week, are undermining Democrats' hopes for several key achievements this year. They also point to a bruising 2008 election in which Democrats will say Republicans blocked prudent tax and spending plans to score political points on immigration and other hot-button issues.
Republicans say they simply want to prevent higher taxes of any kind, even if the targets are not-so-sympathetic groups such as oil companies and hedge fund managers.
After 11 months of insisting that all major programs be paid for with tax increases or spending cuts elsewhere, Senate Democratic leaders acknowledged Thursday they cannot persuade enough Republicans to join them. Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., reluctantly allowed a vote on a long-debated middle-class tax cut that would add billions of dollars to the deficit because it is not offset elsewhere.
The measure, which the Senate approved 88-5, would prevent the alternative minimum tax from hitting about 25 million more taxpayers, at a cost of about $50 billion to the U.S. treasury next year. Reid's decision puts the Senate at odds with the House with two weeks left before the holiday recess.
House Democratic leaders still insist on a pay-as-you-go policy, or "pay-go," which they made a centerpiece of their governing principles in January.
Reid told reporters Thursday that Senate Republicans have used their filibuster powers to block Democratic efforts to change Iraq policy, move a farm bill and pay for the proposed one-year "fix" to the alternative minimum tax. He especially complained about Republican demands to offer farm bill amendments dealing with state drivers licenses for illegal immigrants.
"We've tried everything we can to address these issues," Reid said, citing 57 GOP filibuster threats this year.
"We have lived by pay-go," Reid said regarding the tax bill. "But what we want everyone to know is that we have tried every alternative possible."
He acknowledged handing a political dilemma to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. The House earlier passed an AMT bill that would raise $80 billion in new taxes, largely on investors and hedge fund managers.
"I admire the speaker" for adhering to the pay-as-you-go principle, Reid said. He added, however, she "has a little more flexibility from a procedural perspective than I do."
Reid's decision will force a pivotal decision by House Democrats: Should they infuriate millions of voters by leaving the AMT unchanged (and hope Republicans get blamed), or abandon the pay-go promise and possibly rely heavily on Republican votes to pass a bill that splits Democrats.
"If we waive pay-go on this, I think it opens the door" to further actions that would raise the deficit and "border on criminal irresponsibility," said Rep. John Tanner, D-Tenn.
Meanwhile Thursday, congressional Democrats said they face an uphill battle in trying to overcome Senate GOP objections to a House-passed energy bill. Republicans particularly oppose the proposed rollback of $13.5 billion in tax breaks for major oil companies.
"You can't tax your way to energy independence," House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, told reporters.
If the Senate cannot overcome the GOP-led resistance, Democratic senators said they may have to jettison provisions important to many House Democrats: the tax provisions and requirements for greater use of renewable energy such as wind, solar and biofuels.
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said such a move would be difficult for the House to swallow. "The tax part is just as important as any other part" of the energy bill, he said.
As for the Iraq war, congressional Democrats on Thursday sent their strongest signal yet that they are resigned to providing additional funds without forcing President Bush to alter his policies. The plan is virtually certain to divide House Democrats. Like the AMT legislation, it may require significant Republican support to pass.
Democrats, who sometimes seem incredulous at their inability to budge the GOP on tax, spending and war issues, say Republicans will pay dearly at the polls. "There is a sense they are digging their own grave," Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said.
Some Republicans agree there is a risk in repeatedly blocking Democratic-crafted bills, especially if the chief beneficiaries appear to be big oil companies or wealthy investors.
"The strategy is to lay low and then blame them for not getting anything done," Republican Rep. Ray LaHood of Illinois said in an interview. "The truth is, we all lose."
"We trash each other and end up making the institution look bad," LaHood said. "That's why Congress' approval ratings are so low."
No comments:
Post a Comment