JunRN
09-30 03:38 PM
Quote from Anna35 ():
" I live less than a mile of Lincoln Nebraska Service center, and the parking lot was full yesterday saturday from 7 to 12 pm after that and today sunday is empty. so dont work beside the system automatic updates... "
NSC must have used up all the FY2007 visas...if not and they did not work on the last day of FY2007, then we can conclude that they really don't care if visas are wasted or not.
Do not expect any approval from NSC today....we can only expect automatic uptdates!
" I live less than a mile of Lincoln Nebraska Service center, and the parking lot was full yesterday saturday from 7 to 12 pm after that and today sunday is empty. so dont work beside the system automatic updates... "
NSC must have used up all the FY2007 visas...if not and they did not work on the last day of FY2007, then we can conclude that they really don't care if visas are wasted or not.
Do not expect any approval from NSC today....we can only expect automatic uptdates!
wallpaper 2011 top of the food chain
GC_for_All
07-18 10:23 AM
Hi
Your help on the matter is appreciated. I am EB3-I. I filed for I-485 in July-07. I have been working on H1. Now I am going to switch to EAD by AC21. My new job has same job title and job duties. They have another condition for job. I will have to have a Masters in 8 years of starting my job.Their basic requirement is still Bachelors but Masters condition is kind of extra condition. My question is does this give me any trouble for my GC process because of Masters condition.Another question is will I be able to switch to EB2 based on this.
Your help on the matter is appreciated. I am EB3-I. I filed for I-485 in July-07. I have been working on H1. Now I am going to switch to EAD by AC21. My new job has same job title and job duties. They have another condition for job. I will have to have a Masters in 8 years of starting my job.Their basic requirement is still Bachelors but Masters condition is kind of extra condition. My question is does this give me any trouble for my GC process because of Masters condition.Another question is will I be able to switch to EB2 based on this.
gettinthere
02-12 11:31 PM
Hi
I am currently working on H1B visa. I also had an EAD which expired 2 months back & I applied for renewal of the EAD last month. I am at the risk of being laid off by my current employer & they will withdraw my H1B if that happens. Here are my queries-
(1) If I lose my H1 status & my EAD approval is still pending, what do I need to do? If I am unable to find a new H1B sponsor, will I have to leave US immediately?
(2) Will my H1 cancellation have any effect on my EAD & AP renewal petition?
(3) Can I return to US & work after my AP & EAD are approved?
(4) If my EAD approval happens before my H1B visa is revoked, can I legally stay & work in US on the basis of ONLY the EAD?
Thanks in advance for your advice!
I am currently working on H1B visa. I also had an EAD which expired 2 months back & I applied for renewal of the EAD last month. I am at the risk of being laid off by my current employer & they will withdraw my H1B if that happens. Here are my queries-
(1) If I lose my H1 status & my EAD approval is still pending, what do I need to do? If I am unable to find a new H1B sponsor, will I have to leave US immediately?
(2) Will my H1 cancellation have any effect on my EAD & AP renewal petition?
(3) Can I return to US & work after my AP & EAD are approved?
(4) If my EAD approval happens before my H1B visa is revoked, can I legally stay & work in US on the basis of ONLY the EAD?
Thanks in advance for your advice!
2011 hair Food Web Diagram Of A
TexDBoy
01-21 03:48 PM
I am an analyst under H1B and I am involved in a sales process by developing a prototype for a client. My company wants me to give a percentage of total deal as commission. It will show in the pay stub as commission. Is it legal to get commission under H1B (please remember I am a programmer analyst) ?
more...
iiscterp
06-08 02:32 PM
all,
I am kind of a novice.
could you guys tell me where I can find the text of the immigration bill?.
I am kind of a novice.
could you guys tell me where I can find the text of the immigration bill?.
up_guy
03-05 02:11 PM
I am looking for some feedback how is FexEx based in Memphis for joining on Ac1. How easy or difficult is to get a H-1B sponsorship and a new green card sponsorship etc ? How is their immigration lawyers ? I would also appreciate any other feedback on FedEx as an employer.
Regards
Manish
Regards
Manish
more...
GotGC??
04-20 12:12 PM
In addition to contacting the law makers, we should be contacting the media to highlight our plight. I just read on IP that the media is unaware of the BEC mess (http://www.immigrationportal.com/showpost.php?p=1406956&postcount=3019) and would be interested in taking it up. The time to get attention is now!
2010 wallpaper Food Web in the
zoozee
10-06 01:10 AM
HELLO FRIENDS,
I am not sure if this has been ever discussed or no but will appreciate any pointers on it : Can one keep extending the H4 visa even if EAD is been used?
Thanks In Advance.
I am not sure if this has been ever discussed or no but will appreciate any pointers on it : Can one keep extending the H4 visa even if EAD is been used?
Thanks In Advance.
more...
Blog Feeds
05-17 12:50 PM
Years of congressional inaction and paralysis on immigration reform have created an untenable situation that, depending on which �side of the fence� one sits on the Arizona immigration law debate, has either forced the Arizona legislature to take necessary action or permitted overzealous lawmakers to trump federal authority. And while a constitutional challenge of the law will most likely result in its demise, the immigration debate will not abate until such time that a bi-partisan comprehensive immigration reform bill is passed by Congress. In the interim, one can only conjecture what effect the Arizona law will have on legal immigrants...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/h1bvisablog/2010/04/arizonas-new-immigration-law-the-proof-will-be-in-its-enforcement.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/h1bvisablog/2010/04/arizonas-new-immigration-law-the-proof-will-be-in-its-enforcement.html)
hair Difference Food Chain Food Web
tonyHK12
03-24 08:46 AM
6 users are maybe same person owner/employee of others sites? They lose money for IV success. So hate IV.
Yes exactly. one of them is most likely the moderator of the forum. The rest are likely paid by someone, I won't be surprised it they're from other immigration forums or competing lawyer websites. Out of tens of thousands only these 6 consistently speak against IV.
I don't care them but they are influencing others to believe in them.
I believe same. Those minds are not only selfish but they are really really cruel, cunning and they don't deserve to be part of american dream.. All they care is their green card...
Yes I feel no one can be that cruel consistently, they have to be pros in bad PR. Its just a joke - I have been tracking :) one user create 5 IDs and use the same broken english over 3 months. Its also highly likely some of them are paid by that website itself
.
Yes exactly. one of them is most likely the moderator of the forum. The rest are likely paid by someone, I won't be surprised it they're from other immigration forums or competing lawyer websites. Out of tens of thousands only these 6 consistently speak against IV.
I don't care them but they are influencing others to believe in them.
I believe same. Those minds are not only selfish but they are really really cruel, cunning and they don't deserve to be part of american dream.. All they care is their green card...
Yes I feel no one can be that cruel consistently, they have to be pros in bad PR. Its just a joke - I have been tracking :) one user create 5 IDs and use the same broken english over 3 months. Its also highly likely some of them are paid by that website itself
.
more...
go_guy123
04-16 10:40 AM
How Does USCIS check how long you are with your employer after GC ?
if they check pay checks during Naturalization Interview ?
Any Naturalized members here ,could you post your Interview experience
6 months wait is deemed good
if they check pay checks during Naturalization Interview ?
Any Naturalized members here ,could you post your Interview experience
6 months wait is deemed good
hot marine food chain examples.
s416504
11-04 11:20 AM
I think answer is NO if you want to come back of L1A from B employer.
To be eligible for L1A, You need to be on outside USA payroll from B employer for atleast 1 year (from past 3 years).
With H1B, you will be on USA's payroll for that period.
To be eligible for L1A, You need to be on outside USA payroll from B employer for atleast 1 year (from past 3 years).
With H1B, you will be on USA's payroll for that period.
more...
house wallpaper A food chain
gc_kaavaali
12-09 11:50 AM
Please contribute to IV...IV need funds to fix our immigration problems..Please contribute...please help IV to help you..
tattoo pictures +food+chain Forest
Blog Feeds
11-02 07:30 PM
Eritrean-born Meb Keflezighi, who won the New York City Marathon yesterday, is the first American man to win the race in 27 years. Meb came to the US as a 12 year old boy in 1987 as a refugee from his war-torn country and became a US citizen in 1998. He has emerged as one of America's leading long-distance runners since graduating from UCLA. He won a silver medal for America in the 2004 Olympics in Athens, but an injury knocked him out of contention last year. The Athens medal was the first for an American male marathon runner since...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/11/immigrant-of-the-day-meb-keflezighi-nyc-marathon-winner.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/11/immigrant-of-the-day-meb-keflezighi-nyc-marathon-winner.html)
more...
pictures wallpaper in food web
Blog Feeds
11-09 03:30 AM
Wendy Sefsaf of the Immigration Policy Center makes the case that the answer is no. And she also lays out the evidence that legalizing those workers would actually raise wages for US workers and contribute to economic growth that will result in more job creation.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/11/would-mass-deportation-mean-more-jobs-for-us-workers-.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/11/would-mass-deportation-mean-more-jobs-for-us-workers-.html)
dresses wallpaper food chain#39;s
GCard_Dream
04-11 12:56 PM
I have been working in DFT/Test field for few years now and it appears that my current group is leaning more and more towards Test Development for SOCs and less in DFT work. I really would like to pursue DFT as a career and have been looking for a job in DFT field. Not only that, moving to a newer company might help me in getting the green card faster; possibly.
Is anyone here working in the DFT field? If so, do you know of any job openings in your group or anywhere else for that matter?
Any help will be very much appreciated.
Is anyone here working in the DFT field? If so, do you know of any job openings in your group or anywhere else for that matter?
Any help will be very much appreciated.
more...
makeup aquatic food web examples.
Blog Feeds
01-15 11:20 AM
It's not official, but it sounds like the Obama Administration is getting ready to make some news. Secretary Clinton told CBS News today: �Well, we have, as you know, many Haitian Americans. Most are here legally. Some are not documented. And the Obama administration is taking steps to make sure that people are given some temporary status so that we don�t compound the problem that we face in Haiti.� That sounds like Temporary Protected Status or Deferred Enforced Departure.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/01/clinton-hints-that-white-house-will-grant-haitians-legal-status.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/01/clinton-hints-that-white-house-will-grant-haitians-legal-status.html)
girlfriend tiger food chain diagram
bharmohan
05-24 08:06 AM
Thanks for the response. I appreciate it.
hairstyles wallpaper food web and food
pappu
11-28 10:29 PM
Is there only one member in the IL chapter? I am sure we have several IV members from this state and nobody has responded. It is sad to see such response from members. IN order to get anything done, we all have to pitch in and help out.
Macaca
08-01 08:03 PM
The Speaker In Charge (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/31/AR2007073101628.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) By Harold Meyerson (meyersonh@washpost.com), August 1, 2007
This is one of those odd weeks when Congress may actually work. Both houses are likely to pass Democratic bills to expand SCHIP, the children's health coverage program. Yesterday, the House enacted lobbying reform, and the Senate may follow suit tomorrow. Also yesterday, the House passed a bill restoring the right of victims of pay discrimination to sue their employers.
In short, it's one of those weeks when Nancy Pelosi has no doubts about the wisdom of her decision to become speaker of the House.
"What's it like?" she asked herself, beaming, at the conclusion of a breakfast meeting with roughly 20 liberal journalists yesterday morning.
"It's fabulous! Absolutely fabulous!"
It can't always be thus. Her biggest frustration, of course, is Congress's inability to end the war in Iraq, which she terms "a huge moral catastrophe for the country." It is the public's biggest frustration as well, she says, and the main reason that popular support for Congress has plummeted.
In September, Iraq will once again be Congress's chief item of business, when Gen. David Petraeus delivers his state-of-the-war report.
Pelosi (understandably, given the administration's mountain of misrepresentation on all war-related matters) is wary. "The plural of anecdote is not data," she said. "I'm very concerned they'll pass off anecdotal successes as progress in Iraq."
The question in September will be whether congressional Republicans continue to support President Bush's open-ended commitment to keeping U.S. forces in Iraq while a civil war rages around them. To date, the Republicans' strategy, and not just on the war, has been to thwart the Democrats at every turn and to use the Senate's 60-vote supermajority requirement both to create a "do-nothing" Congress against which they can run and to spare their president from having to veto popular legislation. (Why they care about sparing Bush -- he will never face voters again; they will -- plunges us into the murk of abnormal psychology.)
The GOP strategy is not without its pitfalls. Republicans have succeeded in tanking Congress's approval ratings, but polls consistently show the public, most importantly in swing districts, preferring Democrats to Republicans. With this week's vote on expanding SCHIP, though, Democrats are convinced that the price of blocking health care for uninsured children is more than many Republicans are willing to pay. Bush has vowed to veto the legislation; Pelosi, noting with an almost incredulous glee that the administration will stand athwart children's health care on the grounds of opposing a higher tobacco tax, says, simply, "Welcome to this discussion."
Not all discussions, even in a good week, are so pleasurable to anticipate. Asked about the resolution that her congressional colleague Jay Inslee of Washington has introduced to impeach Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Pelosi put her hands to her temples as if to ward off a headache. For the past year, Pelosi has made clear to her colleagues and the public alike that she has no interest in pursuing the impeachment option, though Gonzales is certainly doing his damnedest to change her mind. She remains unpersuaded, believing that impeachment would fail and in the process would make weeks such as this one -- a week in which the public's business is at last getting done -- far more uncommon than they already are.
Pelosi understands the gravity of the damage that the administration has done to the Constitution and why that has impelled some of her colleagues to advocate impeachment. "If I were not the speaker and I were not in Congress," she said, very quietly, as she concluded her answer, "I would probably be advocating for impeachment." But the consequences she foresees from stopping the nation's business for an unwinnable fight outweighs those considerations.
Pelosi deserves considerable credit for holding her party together on a range of divisive issues, but she plainly views the coming fight among House Democrats on fuel efficiency standards as irrepressible.
The energy bill the House will pass this week contains no provisions that would raise those standards; such provisions, if any, await the outcome of a battle between Pelosi and Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell, the Democrat who has represented Detroit and the auto industry in Congress since 1955 (that is, before tailfins).
"I respect all our chairmen," Pelosi said. But the legislation, she continued, isn't about them. "It's about our children's ability to breathe clean air. Nothing less than the planet is at stake. I love him [Dingell] dearly, but we have to prevail. . . . The forces at work here [against stricter standards] are rich and entrenched," she concluded, "and it takes just a few [votes] to prevent us from unleashing the future."
Thus, the most elegant of happy warriors, in a week when it's fun to be speaker.
This is one of those odd weeks when Congress may actually work. Both houses are likely to pass Democratic bills to expand SCHIP, the children's health coverage program. Yesterday, the House enacted lobbying reform, and the Senate may follow suit tomorrow. Also yesterday, the House passed a bill restoring the right of victims of pay discrimination to sue their employers.
In short, it's one of those weeks when Nancy Pelosi has no doubts about the wisdom of her decision to become speaker of the House.
"What's it like?" she asked herself, beaming, at the conclusion of a breakfast meeting with roughly 20 liberal journalists yesterday morning.
"It's fabulous! Absolutely fabulous!"
It can't always be thus. Her biggest frustration, of course, is Congress's inability to end the war in Iraq, which she terms "a huge moral catastrophe for the country." It is the public's biggest frustration as well, she says, and the main reason that popular support for Congress has plummeted.
In September, Iraq will once again be Congress's chief item of business, when Gen. David Petraeus delivers his state-of-the-war report.
Pelosi (understandably, given the administration's mountain of misrepresentation on all war-related matters) is wary. "The plural of anecdote is not data," she said. "I'm very concerned they'll pass off anecdotal successes as progress in Iraq."
The question in September will be whether congressional Republicans continue to support President Bush's open-ended commitment to keeping U.S. forces in Iraq while a civil war rages around them. To date, the Republicans' strategy, and not just on the war, has been to thwart the Democrats at every turn and to use the Senate's 60-vote supermajority requirement both to create a "do-nothing" Congress against which they can run and to spare their president from having to veto popular legislation. (Why they care about sparing Bush -- he will never face voters again; they will -- plunges us into the murk of abnormal psychology.)
The GOP strategy is not without its pitfalls. Republicans have succeeded in tanking Congress's approval ratings, but polls consistently show the public, most importantly in swing districts, preferring Democrats to Republicans. With this week's vote on expanding SCHIP, though, Democrats are convinced that the price of blocking health care for uninsured children is more than many Republicans are willing to pay. Bush has vowed to veto the legislation; Pelosi, noting with an almost incredulous glee that the administration will stand athwart children's health care on the grounds of opposing a higher tobacco tax, says, simply, "Welcome to this discussion."
Not all discussions, even in a good week, are so pleasurable to anticipate. Asked about the resolution that her congressional colleague Jay Inslee of Washington has introduced to impeach Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Pelosi put her hands to her temples as if to ward off a headache. For the past year, Pelosi has made clear to her colleagues and the public alike that she has no interest in pursuing the impeachment option, though Gonzales is certainly doing his damnedest to change her mind. She remains unpersuaded, believing that impeachment would fail and in the process would make weeks such as this one -- a week in which the public's business is at last getting done -- far more uncommon than they already are.
Pelosi understands the gravity of the damage that the administration has done to the Constitution and why that has impelled some of her colleagues to advocate impeachment. "If I were not the speaker and I were not in Congress," she said, very quietly, as she concluded her answer, "I would probably be advocating for impeachment." But the consequences she foresees from stopping the nation's business for an unwinnable fight outweighs those considerations.
Pelosi deserves considerable credit for holding her party together on a range of divisive issues, but she plainly views the coming fight among House Democrats on fuel efficiency standards as irrepressible.
The energy bill the House will pass this week contains no provisions that would raise those standards; such provisions, if any, await the outcome of a battle between Pelosi and Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell, the Democrat who has represented Detroit and the auto industry in Congress since 1955 (that is, before tailfins).
"I respect all our chairmen," Pelosi said. But the legislation, she continued, isn't about them. "It's about our children's ability to breathe clean air. Nothing less than the planet is at stake. I love him [Dingell] dearly, but we have to prevail. . . . The forces at work here [against stricter standards] are rich and entrenched," she concluded, "and it takes just a few [votes] to prevent us from unleashing the future."
Thus, the most elegant of happy warriors, in a week when it's fun to be speaker.
Macaca
10-01 08:04 AM
Taxes, Health Lead Hill Agenda (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/30/AR2007093001617.html?hpid=topnews) After Iraq Fight, Both Parties Welcome Shift By Jonathan Weisman | Washington Post Staff Writer, October 1, 2007
Out of a political stalemate over Iraq, domestic policy is surging to prominence on Capitol Hill, with Republicans and Democrats preparing for a time-honored clash over health care, tax policy, the scope of government and its role in America's problems at home.
The brewing veto fight this week over an expanded children's health insurance program is only the most visible sign of the new emphasis on domestic issues. Democratic White House hopefuls are resurrecting a push for universal health care while talking up tax policy, poverty and criminal justice. Democratic congressional leaders are revisiting Clinton-era battles over hate crimes and federal funding for local police forces.
The White House, at the urging of congressional Republican leaders, is spoiling for a fight on Democratic spending. And GOP leaders are looking for any opportunity for confrontations on illegal immigration and taxation.
At the heart of it all is a central question: Thirteen years after the 1994 Republican Revolution, has the country turned to the left in search of government solutions to intractable domestic problems?
Democrats think that the answer is yes. "As conditions deteriorate, Americans are asking, 'Who can make it better? Where can we look for help?' And not surprisingly, government is increasingly the answer," said Peter Hart, a Democratic pollster.
Even Republicans see a growing unease as the driving force in the domestic policy resurgence.
"There's no question the economy is good, but it's not a good for everybody," said House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio.). "When you look at family incomes, there hasn't been much rise. But there has been increased health-care costs, increased energy costs. They're nibbling up more than the family budget. It just drives more concerns."
For both parties, domestic policy fights are a welcome break after three election cycles dominated by terrorism and war. Republican and Democratic political leaders say they cannot shy away from the Iraq war. But for much of the year, the fight over the war has only shown Democrats to be ineffectual and Republicans to be intransigent.
For Democrats, a break in that fight could allow them to focus on issues that voters say demand attention. Last year's election victories by Democratic Sens. James Webb in Virginia and Jon Tester in Montana, and by Democratic governors in Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa and Ohio, show that a populist message can prevail even in swing states.
For Republicans, changing the subject is simply a relief.
"I think it is territory that tends to unite us more," said Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.). "Republicans tend to squabble, but when it's fiscal issues, when it's economic issues, we tend to come together. That's what makes us Republicans."
If so, the GOP may be having an identity crisis. Boehner, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and President Bush have met regularly on what Boehner calls his "rebranding" initiative: winning back for the GOP the mantle of fiscal discipline and limited government.
But in the first big domestic battle on Capitol Hill, 18 Republicans in the Senate and 45 in the House abandoned their leaders to side with the Democrats on a five-year, $35 billion expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program.
House Republicans are expected to muster enough votes to sustain Bush's anticipated veto of the SCHIP bill, but Boehner conceded that Congress is liable to override the promised veto on a $21 billion water-project bill so crammed with home-district projects that it has been denounced by taxpayer and environmental groups alike.
"There's deadlock on Iraq. Bush is intransigent. It's clear we're not going to get the 60 votes to change course on the war. But Republicans are hurting too, so they're breaking with him on all these domestic issues," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
Indeed, on the domestic front Republicans may be in the same bind that they face on foreign policy: Their conservative base is not where the rest of the country is.
For more than a decade, the Democratic polling firm Hart Research and the Republican firm Public Opinion Strategies have read two propositions to Americans: "Government should do more to solve problems and help meet the needs of people" and "Government is doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals."
In December 1995, at the height of the Republican Revolution, a less-intrusive government won out, 62 percent to 32 percent. This month, a more activist government won out, 55 percent to 38 percent. Independent voters sided with government activism, 52 percent to 39 percent.
But Republican voters, by a margin of 62 to 32 percent, still say government is doing too much.
"The big tectonic plates of American politics are shifting, and the old Republican policies of limited government aren't working like they used to," Schumer said. "Their problem is, the Republican primary vote is still the old George Bush coalition -- strong foreign policy, cut taxes, cut government, family values. But Americans aren't there anymore."
But the same poll did find some hope for the GOP, said Neil Newhouse, a partner at Public Opinion Strategies. Americans said they do not see a role for the federal government in the current mortgage crisis.
"Americans seem to be saying that the problems the country is facing demand a more activist government, but that this does not extend to all issues or every problem," Newhouse said.
That's a difficult needle to thread, but it can be done, said former senator Jim Talent (R-Mo.), a top domestic policy adviser to Republican White House hopeful Mitt Romney. Then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush showed in 2000, with his stand on education and his general slogan of "compassionate conservatism," that Republicans can win on traditional Democratic turf. They can do that again, especially on health care, Talent said.
"Part of what is at the core of the party is smaller government, fiscal restraint," said Sen. Mel Martinez (Fla.), general chairman of the Republican National Committee. "But like in this debate on SCHIP, it's very important that we as Republicans make it clear we are for insuring children."
"It's no longer permissible for us to think 47 million Americans being uninsured is okay," Martinez said.
Out of a political stalemate over Iraq, domestic policy is surging to prominence on Capitol Hill, with Republicans and Democrats preparing for a time-honored clash over health care, tax policy, the scope of government and its role in America's problems at home.
The brewing veto fight this week over an expanded children's health insurance program is only the most visible sign of the new emphasis on domestic issues. Democratic White House hopefuls are resurrecting a push for universal health care while talking up tax policy, poverty and criminal justice. Democratic congressional leaders are revisiting Clinton-era battles over hate crimes and federal funding for local police forces.
The White House, at the urging of congressional Republican leaders, is spoiling for a fight on Democratic spending. And GOP leaders are looking for any opportunity for confrontations on illegal immigration and taxation.
At the heart of it all is a central question: Thirteen years after the 1994 Republican Revolution, has the country turned to the left in search of government solutions to intractable domestic problems?
Democrats think that the answer is yes. "As conditions deteriorate, Americans are asking, 'Who can make it better? Where can we look for help?' And not surprisingly, government is increasingly the answer," said Peter Hart, a Democratic pollster.
Even Republicans see a growing unease as the driving force in the domestic policy resurgence.
"There's no question the economy is good, but it's not a good for everybody," said House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio.). "When you look at family incomes, there hasn't been much rise. But there has been increased health-care costs, increased energy costs. They're nibbling up more than the family budget. It just drives more concerns."
For both parties, domestic policy fights are a welcome break after three election cycles dominated by terrorism and war. Republican and Democratic political leaders say they cannot shy away from the Iraq war. But for much of the year, the fight over the war has only shown Democrats to be ineffectual and Republicans to be intransigent.
For Democrats, a break in that fight could allow them to focus on issues that voters say demand attention. Last year's election victories by Democratic Sens. James Webb in Virginia and Jon Tester in Montana, and by Democratic governors in Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa and Ohio, show that a populist message can prevail even in swing states.
For Republicans, changing the subject is simply a relief.
"I think it is territory that tends to unite us more," said Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.). "Republicans tend to squabble, but when it's fiscal issues, when it's economic issues, we tend to come together. That's what makes us Republicans."
If so, the GOP may be having an identity crisis. Boehner, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and President Bush have met regularly on what Boehner calls his "rebranding" initiative: winning back for the GOP the mantle of fiscal discipline and limited government.
But in the first big domestic battle on Capitol Hill, 18 Republicans in the Senate and 45 in the House abandoned their leaders to side with the Democrats on a five-year, $35 billion expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program.
House Republicans are expected to muster enough votes to sustain Bush's anticipated veto of the SCHIP bill, but Boehner conceded that Congress is liable to override the promised veto on a $21 billion water-project bill so crammed with home-district projects that it has been denounced by taxpayer and environmental groups alike.
"There's deadlock on Iraq. Bush is intransigent. It's clear we're not going to get the 60 votes to change course on the war. But Republicans are hurting too, so they're breaking with him on all these domestic issues," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
Indeed, on the domestic front Republicans may be in the same bind that they face on foreign policy: Their conservative base is not where the rest of the country is.
For more than a decade, the Democratic polling firm Hart Research and the Republican firm Public Opinion Strategies have read two propositions to Americans: "Government should do more to solve problems and help meet the needs of people" and "Government is doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals."
In December 1995, at the height of the Republican Revolution, a less-intrusive government won out, 62 percent to 32 percent. This month, a more activist government won out, 55 percent to 38 percent. Independent voters sided with government activism, 52 percent to 39 percent.
But Republican voters, by a margin of 62 to 32 percent, still say government is doing too much.
"The big tectonic plates of American politics are shifting, and the old Republican policies of limited government aren't working like they used to," Schumer said. "Their problem is, the Republican primary vote is still the old George Bush coalition -- strong foreign policy, cut taxes, cut government, family values. But Americans aren't there anymore."
But the same poll did find some hope for the GOP, said Neil Newhouse, a partner at Public Opinion Strategies. Americans said they do not see a role for the federal government in the current mortgage crisis.
"Americans seem to be saying that the problems the country is facing demand a more activist government, but that this does not extend to all issues or every problem," Newhouse said.
That's a difficult needle to thread, but it can be done, said former senator Jim Talent (R-Mo.), a top domestic policy adviser to Republican White House hopeful Mitt Romney. Then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush showed in 2000, with his stand on education and his general slogan of "compassionate conservatism," that Republicans can win on traditional Democratic turf. They can do that again, especially on health care, Talent said.
"Part of what is at the core of the party is smaller government, fiscal restraint," said Sen. Mel Martinez (Fla.), general chairman of the Republican National Committee. "But like in this debate on SCHIP, it's very important that we as Republicans make it clear we are for insuring children."
"It's no longer permissible for us to think 47 million Americans being uninsured is okay," Martinez said.
No comments:
Post a Comment